Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is science a religion?
MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 295 (314019)
05-20-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
02-26-2006 5:44 PM


I wouldn't say that "science" is a religion, but that many scientists like those at Dover are religious in their scientific ideologies.
What I mean by this is that scientists that are evolutionists are religiously interpreting facts albeit incorrectly. And those in Dover did so and are guilty of religious dictatorship, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the American Bill of Rights. To honor theirs and not others.
I don't understand why those at Dover aren't making an outcry over this.
Nevertheless, science is "the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by research based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism.
So if science discovers that there exists a supernatural Creator... this does not change what real science is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 02-26-2006 5:44 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 9:56 PM MrEd has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 295 (314023)
05-20-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-19-2006 11:06 PM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
>Evolution is a scientific theory, of course it's a question for science to answer.
If you look at how the scientific method actually begins...you would realize that evolution isn't even that. It isn't observed, which is how the scientific method begins.
On the contrary, science has aquired the "knowledge" that evolution never occurred and that creation did. Looks as if the Dover guys have gotten amnesia about the "laws" that nature demonstrates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-19-2006 11:06 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 10:04 PM MrEd has replied
 Message 278 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-20-2006 11:30 PM MrEd has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 295 (314029)
05-20-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Belfry
05-20-2006 9:56 PM


MrEd writes:
I wouldn't say that "science" is a religion, but that many scientists like those at Dover are religious in their scientific ideologies.
>How so?
Well, they begin with not wanting creation/intelligent design evidences to be allowed in the "science" classrooms. They "only" want to dictate evolutionism, which is a "belief", to be the doctrine of the science classrooms.
Religion is a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine.
These evolutionists take the "belief" that the universe was not created, but that "always" existed. Despite the scientific "facts" that show that if the universe was eternal we would've ran out of hydrogen a long time ago.
Every star in the sky generates energy by converting hydrogen into helium via thermonuclear fusion and releasing energy. This consumption of fuel shows that they had a beginning. Our sun has only consumed 2% of its hydrogen. Do the math.
All scientists know this, but the evolutionists choose to ignore this and "believe" in there diehard myth. It's religious.
This fact among others...
cause and effect, design, etc...
Then, they ignore the fact that the earth's helium content show that the earth is less than 2mil yrs old.
The earth's magnetic field's decay rate show that the earth can not be older than thousands, not millions of years.
They ignore the fact that Carbon 14 dating can only "theoretically" date humans, animals, and plants and no longer than 40-50 thousand years based on its half life.
Not to mention they ignore the historic records of a world wide flood that took place some 4-5 thousand years ago that completely rearranged the earth, its geology, and its climate which makes it impossible to radiometrically date anything older than 4-5 thousand years ago.
Then, how can DNA, which would completely decay away in "thousands" of years still be found in dinosaur bones???
Point is, they are the religious ones- not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 9:56 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 10:47 PM MrEd has replied
 Message 270 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 10:56 PM MrEd has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 295 (314030)
05-20-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Belfry
05-20-2006 10:04 PM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
>Actually, evolution is observed. We have many instances of observed speciation in modern times, and the primary mechanisms of evolution (mutation and natural selection) are observable in essentially all populations. The theory itself was formed based on observations of patterns in natural populations.
Actually, not at all, as the evolutionists would have you believe.
Evolution is not what we observe, but variation within a gene pool. Nothing of a different gene pool can change into something of a different gene pool. Mutations are defects, not beneficial natural selections.
A deck of "face" cards can not form "number" cards and vice versa. Similiarly, human gene pools can not form apes and vice versa.
Canine gene pools can not form cats and vice versa. This is what "has" been observed.
Then, what we "see" is order going into disorder, life is decaying. What we observe is actually "devolution", not evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 10:04 PM Belfry has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 295 (314034)
05-20-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by jar
05-20-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Just more PRATTs
First, my post was in response to BelFry's post, not yours.
Then, I can tell by the way you are posting that you are an evolutionist, correct? No doubt in my mind.
Everything I posted had every bearing and bore much value to my statements. Read my posts again, I'm sure you would be able to see that.
Don't ignore the facts like those in Dover do. "Observe".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 10:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by AdminAsgara, posted 05-20-2006 11:06 PM MrEd has not replied
 Message 274 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 11:08 PM MrEd has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 295 (314035)
05-20-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Belfry
05-20-2006 10:56 PM


>All false, but again off topic. Unless the admins want to allow it. Can I get a ruling?
Huh??? I guess you just want to disqualify anything you don't want to believe??? I guess this discussion is over. You seem to also want to "ignore" facts and "believe" what you want. Alright then, we can't have an intelligent discussion.
No need to talk to an already closed mind. Good bye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 10:56 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Belfry, posted 05-21-2006 6:24 AM MrEd has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 295 (314040)
05-20-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by jar
05-20-2006 11:08 PM


Re: Just more PRATTs
>Here you are expected to do more than just bring in nonsense allegations from AIG or ICR. You are expected to provided evidence related to the question, something you have totally failed to do.
Ok, smarty-pants. Provide "evidence" that the "so-called" allegations from AIG or ICR are "nonsense"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 11:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 11:21 PM MrEd has replied
 Message 277 by AdminNosy, posted 05-20-2006 11:28 PM MrEd has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 295 (314066)
05-21-2006 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
05-20-2006 11:21 PM


Re: Just more PRATTs
So it seems you are the type that plays dodgeball huh? Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 11:21 PM jar has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 295 (314067)
05-21-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-20-2006 11:30 PM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
Since I don't know how the peek option works I'll have to respond in this way:
>There is no evidence for the creation model and much worse, it's wrong. The creation model postulates that the earth is 10,000 years old, when it is demonsterably older.
Ok. show evidence that creation didn't happen and that the earth is older than 6,000 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-20-2006 11:30 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by AdminNWR, posted 05-21-2006 1:38 AM MrEd has replied
 Message 284 by ohnhai, posted 05-21-2006 2:35 AM MrEd has replied
 Message 286 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-21-2006 7:52 AM MrEd has replied
 Message 287 by AdminJar, posted 05-21-2006 10:56 AM MrEd has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 295 (314071)
05-21-2006 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by AdminNWR
05-21-2006 1:38 AM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
Since I don't know how the peek option works ...
Sigh!
Like this?
Sneek, copy/paste, press the back button, and then reply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AdminNWR, posted 05-21-2006 1:38 AM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by AdminNWR, posted 05-21-2006 2:18 AM MrEd has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 295 (314133)
05-21-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by AdminNWR
05-21-2006 2:18 AM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
>Now let's get back to the topic "Is science a religion?"
Ok. Thanks. I clicked the peek mode and copy pasted...but it still didn't work.
...the answer to the topic was no, "real" science is not a religion. My point was that evolutionists who are scientists are "religious" scientists.
This was the point I originally made by stating certain facts that I put down as evidences that they ignore in order to "believe", religiously the myth of evolution.
This was my point. I thought I stayed within the topic at hand. I think it was a few other posters that took my point and began to change the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by AdminNWR, posted 05-21-2006 2:18 AM AdminNWR has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 295 (314138)
05-21-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-21-2006 7:52 AM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
AdminNosy: This thread is about the approach and definitions of what is and is not science. The details concerning dating and geology should be taken to the appropriate forums. Further off topic posts will result in a suspension for whomever commits them.
>At the mid-ocean ridges, the magnetic polarity of the rocks periodically alternate. This pattern occurs symmetrically at both sides of the ridge. This was caused by the polarity of the earth at the time that these volcanically formed rocks cooled and locked the magnetic minerals in the rock into place. For the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, the magnetic pole of the earth would reverse itself every few years, which it obviously doesn't.<
Are you kidding me??? The mid oceanic ridges were obviously formed at the historic world wide flood which happened some 4-5 thousand years ago when the subterranean waters broke through and flooded the world breaking open the continental plates and forming the continents we have today, the fossil record, the Grand Canyon, and the sea skeletons we find on land on top of mountains and so forth.
Furthermore, the fossils of animals still in the midst of giving birth and fossils of animals with prey still in the mouth or stomach show that it was "rapid" burial, and world wide. Then, DNA and red blood cells still found in dinosaur bones.
>I haven't even adressed radiometric dating yet<
Don't worry, I already have. Radiometric dating does not work for anything that is older than 4-5 thousand years for starters...
secondly, C14 only can be used to date former "living" things...
thirdly, tests were already made to embarrass those who use other radiometric dating methods on rocks and so forth and showed that they don't work.
-You can not "know" how much of the radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.
-Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock
-Again, you can not know the decay rate before the world wide flood which took place some 4-5 thousand years ago
Helen's volcanoe eruptions:
We know "historically" when it erupted. So scientists testing the method showed that the radiometric methods were off by BILLIONS of years! Helen erupted in the 18 and 1900 hundreds- laughable even.
Evolutionists have to "ignore" history in order to believe this fantasy, and "assume" evolution.
Evolution isn't science, it's science-fiction. Big difference.
Edited by AdminNosy, : To stop off topic digressions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-21-2006 7:52 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 295 (314139)
05-21-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by ohnhai
05-21-2006 2:35 AM


Re: Evidence.
>Actually there is so much evidence, much of it mutually supportive I urge you to go find it.<
See post 290.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by ohnhai, posted 05-21-2006 2:35 AM ohnhai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2006 12:16 PM MrEd has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 295 (314144)
05-21-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by AdminNosy
05-21-2006 12:16 PM


Re: Interesting comments
I was only replying to the post that asked me the question? I feel you are picking on me AdminNosv.
Why haven't you commented to the poster who questioned me and I replied to?
I would love to stay on topic. But when some other member asked me a question I replied.
Why don't you state to him that he is off topic? Or just move this topic to the proper thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2006 12:16 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024