religion

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Faith is belief without evidence. Evolution and the big bang have thousands of scientific studies confirming them. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Where is your evidence to support Genesis? Oh that's right...you have none.

That's not actually what faith is. But ok.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.

Someone needs better reading comprehension skills.

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.

That is just about the polar opposite of what I posted.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Non Quixote [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That is just about the polar opposite of what I posted.

Sure it is

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sure it is

Thanks for being honest.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Basically what this guy says is it's ok for scientists to make claims towards what is accurately correct and not correct without extensive proof, but not religious people.

I know it's not going to do a whole lot of good, but I wanted to address this.

No. That is not what he said. Science is a process. It has no ego and no sacred cows. Evolution may perhaps one day be proven false, and if it is, science will immediately adopt that new evidence into its framework. There is no dogma beyond methodological rigor, and no belief beyond knowing that you do not know everything.

When you flip a light switch you expect the lights to come on. You have done this thousands of times, and every time the bulb comes on. Repeat action has established a trend of consistency that leads to a reasonable expectation that flipping the switch will turn the light on or off. The first time the bulb burned out you were probably puzzled, but no matter, you simply adopted this new fact into your world view and moved on. Eventually you figured out that in 99.9% of switch flips the light comes on and in the rest it's broken.

The "theory" of evolution has been built in exactly the same way. It is no more than a reasonable explanation for observations made in the course of study. Consistency and predictive power is the essence of good theory, and the theory of evolution has promise in both areas. It is an incomplete model, but it is one that has successfully explained observations without itself being invalidated. This is the core of the scientific method; it is process without ego. Should we gather enough contrary evidence to exhaust the possibilities of evolution, it will be abandoned without hesitation.

Originally Posted by Leewong

Face it, you are a sinner and are not welcome in God's kingdom.

Perhaps you are frustrated, but this does nothing to make your argument more appealing. Science has no feelings, but people do, and you're being a rather poor diplomat right now. Also, Aquinas solved this problem a long time ago. Drop the act. Did you come here to spread ideas or to troll?

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Perhaps you are frustrated, but this does nothing to make your argument more appealing. Science has no feelings, but people do, and you're being a rather poor diplomat right now. Also, Aquinas solved this problem a long time ago. Drop the act. Did you come here to spread ideas or to troll?

A little of both I would say. Glenzig refuses to even answer the simplest questions and is in troll mode so I thought I would toss a little back his way.

[Frieza_Prexus]

And what happens in the end? The Kent Hovind /Answers in Genesis crowd digs in deeper, and the ones who might have listened walk off.

[mtb tripper]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Non Quixote [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The sheer weight of scientific ignorance exposed by this thread is staggering. I suppose a lot of it can be blamed on the proliferation of "anti-evolution" sites such as answersingenesis.org that spread disinformation, create strawmen and post outrageous lies concerning the science behind the fact and theory of biological evolution.

For example:

• Confusing the casual use and scientific use of the word "theory".

A scientific theory is based on plentiful and coherent evidence, and while it may be modified, is accepted as the best current explanation of empirical evidence by a consensus of the scientific community. The Theory of Gravity is one such example, Electrical Theory another.

• Falsely claiming that any evidence of biological evolution must include observed speciation.

Biological evolution in its simplest form can be summed up in a single sentence: Changes in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. That this process happens is a scientifically established fact, observed countless times both in a laboratory and in the wild.

I could go on, but I'm not into building a wall of text. For a more comprehensive list of misconceptions and disinformation you can visit this site.

You can call science a religion, and I can call a dog a caterpillar, but it would not change the essence of either. Religion is based on faith and belief, while science is based on a coherent, falsifiable interpretation of empirical evidence.

Religion should remain within the purview of the religious community and science within the purview of the scientific community.

Failing that, if you want to argue against biological evolution at least take the time to familiarize yourself with the scientific fact and theory that defines it. Anything from Kent Hovind and company doesn't count. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Non Quixote]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice picture of Kent. Amazing how an absolutely batshit crazy halfwit can look so benign in a photo.