Science Becoming a Religion

Telegraph ^ | June 10, 2007 | ReasonMcLucus

[kathsua]

Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.

Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.

Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.

Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.

Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.

Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.

The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.

[ahayes]

If I add up 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. . . can I not eventually reach 1 million?

Creationists simply put up an artificial barrier to evolutionary change—”This far and no further!” The position of this barrier is arbitrary and varies according to what creationist you’re talking to and how squeamish they are.

[vetsvette]

“Science does seem to be overrated at times.”

Science can’t be overrated, but “scientists” certainly can be. I remember, early on in the current global warming debate, that the left published a list of 2,000 “scientists” that agreed with Algore. What they didn’t tell us about that list was that it contained just a handful of climatologists but a huge number of “social scientists” who were little more than left-wing whores.

[ahayes]

The Variable Speed of Light theory is advocated by scientists with atheistic presuppositions of ultimate reality and scientists with theistic presuppostions.

Scientists who are looking at the possibility of a change in the speed of light are considering a transient change at the very beginning of the universe.

Setterfield is supposing a tremendous change over the past 6000 years.

Scientists who are looking at the possibility of a change in the speed of light have outlined several impossibilities that can result from theories like this and have not yet made a model that avoids these problems. Setterfield never bothered to check.

All evidence shows that the speed of light has been the same for billions of years. A young earth is right out.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.

Actually most physicists at this time didn't believe in particles of matter. The atomic theory wouldn't gain wide acceptance for at least another decade.

The author could use a fact-checker.

[CottShop]

I must have missed the ‘several hundred’ evidences you presented.

No evidence? There weren’t many animals in the millions of years gaps? As well, there are no relatives of the Cynodont prior, yet the chart certainly makes it appear that there is.

[It looks like you’ve simply made up your mind not to pay attention to any evidence on this subject.]

Oh I’m paying attention, and I’m finding the gaps and assumptions are much more relevent than evo scientists admit to.

[CottShop]

[The position of this barrier is arbitrary and varies according to what creationist you’re talking to and how squeamish they are.]

Nope- the barrier has nothign to do with creationists- the barrier is a biological one

[If I add up 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. . . can I not eventually reach 1 million?]

The problem is that you only have very sketchy 1+1+1+1+1 until you run into the biological impossibility of macroevolution- Science has yet to provide anythign other than microevolutionary examples- Macro remains an unproven or undemonstrated hypothesis -

[ahayes]

I told you about a paper that studied more than 300 cynodonts and demonstrated a clear evolutionary trend in the proportion of the dentary to other jaw bones. You said that the author had left out thousands of cynodonts that showed this thread did not exist, although you didn't have a shred of evidence to prove this.

The fossil record is not complete, and we find new fossils all the time (like this humongous bird-like dinosaur. When we find a close evolutionary ancestor of the first cynodont, will you retract your objections? I think not, because your objections are based upon faith and not upon the evidence.

[ahayes]

Thread = trend. . .

[ahayes]

the barrier is a biological one

There is no evidence of this. It's based upon biblical presuppositions.

Macro remains an unproven or undemonstrated hypothesis -

I wonder how you expect us to demonstrate this in the lab when the change you'd like takes much longer than many human lifespans.

[curiosity]

Science can only deal effectively with the present.

Pure nonsense. Hasn't this guy ever heard of forensic science? How about archeology?

[razzle]

Just show us one transitional fossil (that was not glued together like so many of your hoaxes, e.g. archeoraptor). Darwin himself - the great and mighty one - predicted there would be thousands.

[ahayes]

Only one? Archaeopteryx.

[Coyoteman]

One transitional coming up.

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[razzle]

“Only one? Archaeopteryx”

A bird fossil no biggie. I wish I had time to look at more of the phony stuff coyoteman is pushing but I have more important things to do right now. Coyote knows there is a factory in China that makes all these so called transitional fossils because the darwin religion pays huge bucks for them.

[razzle]

“Hasn’t this guy ever heard of forensic science? How about archeology?”

They are still guesses when science examines the past. And since all darwinists are already sold on their theory, and know all the answers ahead of time, I don’t trust any of them.

[curiosity]

They are still guesses when science examines the past.

Right. So the cops were only guessing when they determined that OJ murdered his ex-wife.

[Coyoteman]

I wish I had time to look at more of the phony stuff coyoteman is pushing but I have more important things to do right now. Coyote knows there is a factory in China that makes all these so called transitional fossils because the darwin religion pays huge bucks for them.

Sorry that happens not to be the case. You seem to have lost your grip on reality.

But here are more of those "phony stuffs" for your viewing pleasure:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[LexBaird]

In fact, I am an archaeologist. And I guarantee you that we can indeed observe the past.

No, you cannot. You can observe the relics and artifacts left from the past and make deductions and guesses.

[Coyoteman]

In fact, I am an archaeologist. And I guarantee you that we can indeed observe the past.

No, you cannot. You can observe the relics and artifacts left from the past and make deductions and guesses.

Why don't you discuss that with kathsua and razzle and a few of the others and get back to me in a month or two. (Yawn...)

[LexBaird]

Is that supposed to be a refutation? I don’t know either one and it wasn’t either of them who made the claim. Perhaps you’d care to demonstrate how you “observe the past”?