Evolution a Religion

a reply to: deadeyedick

labcoat = personal protective equipment
Lab rats are only used by certain scientific disiplines, and I am pretty sure you will have taken at least one pharmaceutical in your life, and would cry foul if something had not gone wrong. I don't like the use of animals and we are approaching the ability to use cultured cells to do most of that.
Experiments are the only way to get data, we don't rely on faith.
Study is more like an apprenticeship in a trade. So if that is worship, every electrician and mechanic is also going to be doing worship.
Houses of Science? Labs, Universities. WE have to run our experiments somewhere.

Nice try, but your arguments are non sequesters.

wiki

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Science fits all the defined criteria here

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity. An act of worship may be performed individually, in an informal or formal group, or by a designated leader. Worship asserts the reality of its object and defines its meaning by reference to it.[1]

If these were questions on an entrance exam to something then science would be allowed in. Even though most of you feel above religion it still fits the definitions to the t.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: deadeyedick



labcoat = personal protective equipment

Lab rats are only used by certain scientific disiplines, and I am pretty sure you will have taken at least one pharmaceutical in your life, and would cry foul if something had not gone wrong. I don't like the use of animals and we are approaching the ability to use cultured cells to do most of that.

Experiments are the only way to get data, we don't rely on faith.

Study is more like an apprenticeship in a trade. So if that is worship, every electrician and mechanic is also going to be doing worship.

Houses of Science? Labs, Universities. WE have to run our experiments somewhere.



Nice try, but your arguments are non sequesters.

I could also redefine meanings and dismiss conclusions but that would not make me right

a reply to: deadeyedick

I've stated facts here bub. Lab coats are personal protective equipment. They keep contaminants from getting on your street clothing. In hard core settings (say Cat III or Cat IV labs) we wear Haz Mat suits. Now I am guessing you consider those to be "vestments" as well?

Your conclusions are your own. They are however are not right. You also are doing the tried and true logical fallacy of "lets drastically change our discussion to see if we can get traction there"

a reply to: deadeyedick

Nope that does not fit, unless one is say biased and desperate to gain some points in an argument they are loosing.

Science is not a religion. WE have no central deity. We have no leader, we have no holy days, we have no scripture that is unchangeable, indeed we change our ideas as evidence shows that the old ones are flawed. There is no prayer, there are no profane subjects (though religion tries to tell us what we can and can not investigate). Our moral codes are not based on supernatural beings telling us that something is naughty.

a reply to: Noinden

lol some call a car transportation. you asked for facts and i listed exact definitions that science fits. I can't get any more direct or to the point than that. at this point any who wish to say that science does not fit the definitions are just blasfeming their education.

you post of a diety but you did not absorb the definition well as it states that a deity is not necessary but i will still argue that science has many dieties.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You repeating a non truth, does not make it truth. That is not how it works

You obviously have never had an education to understand you cant blaspheme it bub. I've had plenty thanks (still going, for life is about learning).

a reply to: Noinden

well bub just post the proof and the thread will be moved out of the religious debate section. until then you are still ignoring the truth in the definitions and the other simularities that you want to spin into other meanings.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
wiki

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Science fits all the defined criteria here

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity. An act of worship may be performed individually, in an informal or formal group, or by a designated leader. Worship asserts the reality of its object and defines its meaning by reference to it.[1]

If these were questions on an entrance exam to something then science would be allowed in. Even though most of you feel above religion it still fits the definitions to the t.

"science" is not a religion however it is part of a persons Belief Systems that EVERYONE believes in.Science objective is to verify facts by observation.If the observations prove faulty different observations are believed as facts.

Religion however is not based in observing and believing facts.The facts of the religion create the observations and are seldom believed as being faulty even when there is an abundance of observational evidence to the contrary.

By it's nature "belief" can never "know" true facts it can only believe in faith through a Belief System religion.Belief is the antithesis of knowing.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

This has to be one of the funniest threads in a while I have seen from creationists. To recap.

The moon is pulling away form the earth by about 1 foot per year. Now it you take that back, reverse the pulling away, you will find that the gravitational pull from the moon, (that effects the tides), will increase according the Inverse-square law. Then you go back in time, about 10 000 years, the tides created by the moon will create title waves of 700 feet, every 3 hours. Now if that was true, everything would be killed every 3 hours, so nothing could evolved.

That is just one of the proofs against evolution.

Its about 3.8 cm a year and it wasn't a constant.

So instead of inch I said foot, big deal. and if you want to say that an inch is 2.45, that is why I said "about".

English is not my first language.

I have 7 years of research.

Seriously???? So in the 7 years of research you have never seen a tape measurer and thought ...hmmm centimeters and feet are they close?

I can only surmise you are incredibly slow when researching reading a page per month in your endeavour or you're full of it about researching a single thing. Even if english isn't your first language I am sure measurements are constant and you based your mind blowing proof against evolution off of some incredibly false premise.

So now that the 10,000 year old earth premise has been completely blown out of the water I wonder what else you have.

a reply to: Noinden

Mea culpa for that vague statement.
The subliminal idea was to put into perspective the fact that some scientists, and their bad habit to try to put everything into formal equations, would have the same tough time as the theologians do to provide a clear and universal statement about the true nature of our universe.

Back to evolution.
Interesting because it's rather statistic that define it's nature rather than direct mathematical equations.
And stats are more likely to fit religion than equations; because they leave an open door for alternative considerations.
See the recent pope statement for christians.
The only problem evolution poses to establish religions is when it conflict their dogmas. And since I think personally that the dogmas are current organized religion's main problem, this new consideration is not a bad thing in itself.

Evolution is fact, a law of nature, driven by competition for survival.
As above so below, this universal law of competitivity can be transposed to many other societal mechanism if you are open minded, making then different flavours of Darwinism ...

I agree with most of your replies.
Sorry for confusion, maybe a bad mood at the time of the post.

Evolution is only partly true.

There is micro-evolution. Example: two different types of dogs can procreate a new bread of dog, but they are still dogs.

This is observable science. You can actually see and know it as truth.

Then there is other types of evolution that can't be observed. Example: fossils, there are all kinds of fossils. Some are said to be links to creatures or beings that have evolved. Yet there was no one there to observe this. It's speculation and requires faith, yes faith, to believe it. Hence the religion of science/evolution.

Do you see how that works? Scientist start out with observable evolution, something that can be seen and proven. Then they put a twist on it by saying, 'we have the fossil record', which requires faith in order to believe these old bones begot these some what newer bones. No one can say for a fact that bones had any off-spring. They weren't there to see it.

Then, to insult your intelligence further, they say, 'well, it took millions of years'. Again, who was there millions of years ago to document this as fact? That's right, no one.

Just to make this clear - there is observable science. You can test in a controlled environment and document factual results that can be Seen.

Then there is speculative science - science that is un-proven ideas that require faith to believe. There you have the religion of science. See how that works?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

No worries it was very similar to what the OP threw in like a grenade I proably should have put my sarc/ .... /sarc bookends on that reply

Oh yeah and Statistics is the tool science uses as opposed to pure mathmatics as it has real world applications

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: deadeyedick

wiki

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Science fits all the defined criteria here

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity. An act of worship may be performed individually, in an informal or formal group, or by a designated leader. Worship asserts the reality of its object and defines its meaning by reference to it.[1]

If these were questions on an entrance exam to something then science would be allowed in. Even though most of you feel above religion it still fits the definitions to the t.

"science" is not a religion however it is part of a persons Belief Systems that EVERYONE believes in.Science objective is to verify facts by observation.If the observations prove faulty different observations are believed as facts.



Religion however is not based in observing and believing facts.The facts of the religion create the observations and are seldom believed as being faulty even when there is an abundance of observational evidence to the contrary.



By it's nature "belief" can never "know" true facts it can only believe in faith through a Belief System religion.Belief is the antithesis of knowing.

It does fit the definition of a religion. I guess i hav been fortunate to view my religion and see the connections made in scripture and how they relate to our reality. I will admit that science has it's purpose and is likely just seen as fraud to most believers because we make it up as we go where religion was givin to us via those that could see outside of creation. I am not hardheaded enough to say that we can not benefit from it or that it will not one day understand and be able to explain the differences the two have today. I am hard headed enough to argue all day long that science is a religion because of the definition i posted and how science uses the same tools that religion does at it's core. Until further definitions come around to excluding science as a religion i am right and will ciontinue to be regaurdless how much that offends soe that simply can't admit the truth.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Declarations of "I am right" do not make you actually "right". Sorry its not how it works. Throwing a generic definition (with no citations of source) at something, making some non sequiter remarks to try and prove something, and then smugly going "I am right till you prove me wrong" is not debate.

a reply to: Noinden

generic definition?
How else are we to decide what a religion is if not by the definition?

a reply to: deadeyedick

You are one of the kinds of people that always started an essay with "the dictionary defines ...." aren't you?

How about you cite the source of your definition, state unequivocally how it holds here, rather than the "appeal to authority" of a vague definition.

a reply to: Noinden
already cited the source. by all means bring in whatever definition you accept and we can go by that if it differs from wiki. I was not being picky it was just at the top of the search. I can agree that science is much more than what the definition of religion encompasses but at the core science can be defined as a religion. That does not however put any limitations on the religion.

If you were any good at judging people you would have summed me up as one of them types of people that quit school when tasked with an essay.

Read the definition of a religion and if you are worthy then you will see that science fits or go back to my previous post and reread what i have said cause your answer is in my words but you must have an open mind to hear.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You have yet to show it is a religion. I've said before you can't state its so, and make it so.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

But I see evolution as an exercise in lateral thinking.

Evolution occurs. Natural selection is the mechanism. You don't get to have opinions and views on this. They're facts.