Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Alisa]

Science is evidence. Facts can be tested, changed, advanced and a thesis can be developed. Religion is and remains the same, no matter what science finds out.
The biggest difference, however, is that scientists are so humble that they acknowledge possible mistakes and deficiencies, while religion is stubbornly unchanged and above all totally illogical. God or gods is a myth and religion is totally opposite to science. There is no reason to speculate on something that never has revealed itself to us or which we still can not find out. Science studies what is ahead of us. As you can measure, see, feel and hear and all that.

And if theists mean that scientific evidence is insufficient for us; that you do not agree with what science says, you may reject it then. The difference between the two different human constructions is that science can be proved/disproved while religion cannot be proven/disproven because there is yet to prove/disprove. We have no more than people's words that God exists. You have my word that I'm a unicorn. Now believe, will you?

Additionally, theists try to re-interpret their books to adapt to scientific discoveries, but they totally fail at it. for example, the Bible is a sandwich table. Pick and choose among verses. What was God's word yesterday is no longer today. How appropriate!

[The Grand Nudger]

The bigger point? You did not know of one instance where a younger species was found to be older that it's predecessor... This is not an isolated thing... 

Here is an example of mammoths and dinosaurs bones being excavated from the same pit estimating the same time period..
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-ani...in-russia/

.......from your link

Above the dinosaur bones, the researchers also discovered bones of mammoths, woolly rhinos, and predators. It doesn’t appear that any of the bones have been identified, yet.

It seems that the remains of the woolly mammoths are broken, suggesting they may have been attacked by prehistoric humans. Woolly mammoths mostly went extinct about 10,000 years ago.

The dinosaur bones, meanwhile, are thought to date back 120 to 100 million years ago, long before the woolly mammoths.

Call me back when they find them under the dino bones, at least then we'll have something to discuss. Think before you bullshit, Drich. If you want to bullshit like that, up above, just don;t link a source - that way you can't be called a blatant liar by a quoted reference to your own link.

In fact, we'll discuss your "theory" when you scare up some cambrian hominids or jurassic jack russel terriers.

Fucking idiotic.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Except that we can use the process of evolution for practical purposes. We know that it works. We can observe it happening.

None of which can be said for your alternative hypothesis.

holy crap mathilda, how can you guys be so miss informed about your corner stone theory on orgins/Your God killer?

I use the evolutionary process every day with genetic algorithms. I've used that understanding to design my own successful evolutionary algorithm. I use them to evolve self organising systems which work based on our scientific understanding of complexity develops over time. This is not just what some random people believe, this is theory backed by evidence to the point where it is now useful.

And it's not just me. Many medications are created based on our understanding of genetics. I trained as a bioinformatician for 6 months and processed DNA sequencing data  and saw what the evolutionary biologists were doing. Neurophysiology is understood in evolutionary terms based on what we observe in the brains of different animals.

What you and other theists don't understand that the theory of evolution has come about to explain the observation. Like every scientific theory it is backed by a wealth of evidence, because if it wasn't it would be a hypothesis.

The biggest flaw in evolution is that NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G Has EVER been documented Evolving into another species. like from one stable species who say lives in water then later dominates the land then goes back into the water (like the current theory o the blue whale) Even the 24 hour fruit fly who proved inter species evolution which I am using to claim my theory about the strong survive during periods of climate change) is limited to very minor changes over literal hundreds of thousands of generations. (like they may adapt to eating one trype of fruit or another, but in the end they remain 24 hour fruit flys. Nothing has ever been seen to change into anything else. That is the silver bullet to darwinism.

No the biggest flaw is in your understanding of evolution. People have pointed this out to you and many other theists repeatedly but you still persist in sticking to what you want to believe the theory of evolution says so that you can make a strawman argument. Although based on your equivocation here referring to things and types, it is difficult to actually know exactly what you mean. So at best it's a strawman argument, at worse it is plain wrong.

But I shall explain it once more. The theory of evolution does not say that an animal will give birth to another type of animal.I am going to use all my formatting skills possible here to get across the key point which all theists prefer to forget so they can continue making strawman arguments.

The process of evolution only works with small changes taking place each generation.

The larger the change the less likely it is that the offspring will be as fit or fitter than it's parents. If you write a genetic algorithm which can make big changes each generation then it won't work.

My hyopthsis is defined by nature it self. in that we see it every day. for example If i have a TROPICAL fish tank and have some colder water fish mixed in.. the cold water fish would migrate to the bottom and try and find cooler spots in the rock and caves. while the other topical fish dominate the rest of my 5000 gallon tank

Again you do not understand evolution. You are talking about sudden changes. Imagine you had the same tank for several thousands of years with one species of fish tropical in it who don't like to go down to the bottom because it's too cold. As food collects at the bottom then it becomes more beneficial to be down there. So over many generation some fish will start to swim further down to feed off the unexploited resources collecting at the bottom until eventually speciation will give you both warm water and cold water species of fish that each have the same common ancestor.

Remember:

The process of evolution only works with small changes taking place each generation.

saying "evolution did it is no different than saying God did it. However saying climate change is reducing the viable animals on the planet is something neither one of us can deny. and yet we have nothing evolving to survive this comming "water world."

Except the theory of evolution comes from the observable evidence. It is a theory with explanatory power that can be used in practice. Goddidit has none of these features. I can not write a goddidit algorithm. Saying goddidit does not further elucidate how a god, whatever a god is, could actually do something. Nor is there any evidence or reason to believe that a god actually exists. And your hypothesis about climate change does not match the available data, nor does it explain what we currently observe. This is what theists don't understand. If you want to overturn an existing theory, then you need to explain all the existing evidence that the current theory is derived from.

P.S

The process of evolution only works with small changes taking place each generation.

[Drich]

Science is evidence.

no. science is one's best guess to determine what the evidence means. to accept that or any other explanation that can not be verified like evolution, is basic faith.

Facts can be tested, changed, advanced and a thesis can be developed.

and re developed and re developed and redeveloped... there isn't any amount of mistake science can make that would have it discredited.

Religion is and remains the same, no matter what science finds out.

No God remains the same religion/ is our expression or our worship to God. it can change or it ca remain the same.

The biggest difference, however, is that scientists are so humble that they acknowledge possible mistakes and deficiencies, while religion is stubbornly unchanged and above all totally illogical.

the oppsite is true. Science and scientists are whores. they sell their approval to anyone who will fund them. I like using the example of the super colider at cern. Before they built the world's largest helium charged hoolahoop they said they could find the 'god paticle' because in smaller coliders there was trace evidence of it.. They get their billion dollar project and hey! they found the god particle... till someone looked up the old story, and it turns out they found exactly what they had before, but dress it up because they thought no one else would know. 10 years later they need a bigger better supercolider because the old one is already outdated.

It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. like climate change or ozon holes or any number of now bogus the sky is falling crap. yet you guys keep lining up and begging for more, because you do not know the difference between theoretical science and the practical science that makes cell phones work. You think it is one in the same.

God or gods is a myth and religion is totally opposite to science. There is no reason to speculate on something that never has revealed itself to us or which we still can not find out. Science studies what is ahead of us. As you can measure, see, feel and hear and all that.

And if God does reveal Himself to anyone who would seek Him on His terms?

And if theists mean that scientific evidence is insufficient for us; that you do not agree with what science says, you may reject it then. The difference between the two different human constructions is that science can be proved/disproved while religion cannot be proven/disproven because there is yet to prove/disprove. We have no more than people's words that God exists. You have my word that I'm a unicorn. Now believe, will you?

evolution can not be proved or disproved it is a simple theory based on evidence that can be explained otherways.

Additionally, theists try to re-interpret their books to adapt to scientific discoveries, but they totally fail at it. for example, the Bible is a sandwich table. Pick and choose among verses. What was God's word yesterday is no longer today. How appropriate!

What if I said without changing a word in the bible I can indeed find room for all the time needed for evolution to take place as well as a seven day creation? Without changing a word in the bible and without changin a word in the evolutionary process...

[Whateverist]

So much desperation. Absolutely hilarious to see the kind of mental contortions you will undergo just to make room for biblical just-so stories to be literally true. Ask a smart jew, they'll tell you that "In the beginning ..." is the beginning of a fable, an illustrative work of fiction. It is not an empirical claim on any literal level. But for the truly moronic, there are no other levels.

Why can't you fundamentalist morons just admit that God's "strange but wonderful" ways are as mysterious to you as they are to the people you'd like to con? You don't know how He does a goddam thing, including speciation. But hey, you got to do you. So go on and eat another rat you side show freak.

[Drich]

The bigger point? You did not know of one instance where a younger species was found to be older that it's predecessor... This is not an isolated thing... 

Here is an example of mammoths and dinosaurs bones being excavated from the same pit estimating the same time period..
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-ani...in-russia/

.......from your link

Above the dinosaur bones, the researchers also discovered bones of mammoths, woolly rhinos, and predators. It doesn’t appear that any of the bones have been identified, yet.

It seems that the remains of the woolly mammoths are broken, suggesting they may have been attacked by prehistoric humans. Woolly mammoths mostly went extinct about 10,000 years ago.

The dinosaur bones, meanwhile, are thought to date back 120 to 100 million years ago, long before the woolly mammoths.

Call me back when they find them under the dino bones, at least then we'll have something to discuss.  Think before you bullshit, Drich.  If you want to bullshit like that, up above, just don;t link a source - that way you can't be called a blatant liar by a quoted reference to your own link.

In fact, we'll discuss your "theory" when you scare up some cambrian hominids or jurassic jack russel terriers.

Fucking idiotic.

I'm the idiot..

riddle me this sport. what are mamoths and dinosaurs doing in the same pit? The pit was described as a mass grave where all the bones were processed for marrow/broken... Seems to me lizard meat was on a tribes menu for some time and the dumped their trash here, then over time and climate change lizards died off and it big elephant became the meat of choice.

---

holy crap mathilda, how can you guys be so miss informed about your corner stone theory on orgins/Your God killer?

I use the evolutionary process every day with genetic algorithms. I've used that understanding to design my own successful evolutionary algorithm. I use them to evolve self organising systems which work based on our scientific understanding of complexity develops over time. This is not just what some random people believe, this is theory backed by evidence to the point where it is now useful.

And it's not just me. Many medications are created based on our understanding of genetics. I trained as a bioinformatician for 6 months and processed DNA sequencing data  and saw what the evolutionary biologists were doing. Neurophysiology is understood in evolutionary terms based on what we observe in the brains of different animals.

What you and other theists don't understand that the theory of evolution has come about to explain the observation. Like every scientific theory it is backed by a wealth of evidence, because if it wasn't it would be a hypothesis.

The biggest flaw in evolution is that NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G Has EVER been documented Evolving into another species. like from one stable species who say lives in water then later dominates the land then goes back into the water (like the current theory o the blue whale) Even the 24 hour fruit fly who proved inter species evolution which I am using to claim my theory about the strong survive during periods of climate change) is limited to very minor changes over literal hundreds of thousands of generations. (like they may adapt to eating one trype of fruit or another, but in the end they remain 24 hour fruit flys. Nothing has ever been seen to change into anything else. That is the silver bullet to darwinism.

No the biggest flaw is in your understanding of evolution. People have pointed this out to you and many other theists repeatedly but you still persist in sticking to what you want to believe the theory of evolution says so that you can make a strawman argument. Although based on your equivocation here referring to things and types, it is difficult to actually know exactly what you mean. So at best it's a strawman argument, at worse it is plain wrong.

But I shall explain it once more. The theory of evolution does not say that an animal will give birth to another type of animal.I am going to use all my formatting skills possible here to get across the key point which all theists prefer to forget so they can continue making strawman arguments.

The process of evolution only works with small changes taking place each generation.

The larger the change the less likely it is that the offspring will be as fit or fitter than it's parents. If you write a genetic algorithm which can make big changes each generation then it won't work.

My hyopthsis is defined by nature it self. in that we see it every day. for example If i have a TROPICAL fish tank and have some colder water fish mixed in.. the cold water fish would migrate to the bottom and try and find cooler spots in the rock and caves. while the other topical fish dominate the rest of my 5000 gallon tank

Again you do not understand evolution. You are talking about sudden changes. Imagine you had the same tank for several thousands of years with one species of fish tropical in it who don't like to go down to the bottom because it's too cold. As food collects at the bottom then it becomes more beneficial to be down there. So over many generation some fish will start to swim further down to feed off the unexploited resources collecting at the bottom until eventually speciation will give you both warm water and cold water species of fish that each have the same common ancestor.

Remember:

The process of evolution only works with small changes taking place each generation.

saying "evolution did it is no different than saying God did it. However saying climate change is reducing the viable animals on the planet is something neither one of us can deny. and yet we have nothing evolving to survive this comming "water world."

Except the theory of evolution comes from the observable evidence. It is a theory with explanatory power that can be used in practice. Goddidit has none of these features. I can not write a goddidit algorithm. Saying goddidit does not further elucidate how a god, whatever a god is, could actually do something. Nor is there any evidence or reason to believe that a god actually exists. And your hypothesis about climate change does not match the available data, nor does it explain what we currently observe. This is what theists don't understand. If you want to overturn an existing theory, then you need to explain all the existing evidence that the current theory is derived from.

P.S

The process of evolution only works with small changes taking place each generation.

for someone pretending to be smart you seem to foolish over look what I have said. I made provision for inter species evolution when I made mention of the 24 hour fruit fly. Inner species evolution is indeed a thing and if you do work in genetics that is the engine that powers your field. The reason I mention the 24 hour fruit fly is because we can observe hundreds generational changes in a matter of months., but again these fruit flies even have 100's of billions of observed genetic/inter species generational changes they have NEVER MORPHED into another species. Thus there has NEVER Been An observed example of species evolving or morphing into another. Your attempt to try and push inner species evolution as species evolution is an intellectually dishonest attempt of confusing the topic. or you simply do not understand the macro changes of evolution Darwin purposes against your own dealing with micro changes in a given species.

That is my point miss not so smarty pants. You are taking about very small changes, and I am talking on a darwinnina scale that make blue whales and hippos cousins according to your precious science.

Again it is far more likly more anmilas lived back then (everything in the fossil record) had it's time in the sun according to all the different eras died off and the next group took control of the earth!

Wow got taken down by a fruit fly.

---

So much desperation.  Absolutely hilarious to see the kind of mental contortions you will undergo just to make room for biblical just-so stories to be literally true.  Ask a smart jew, they'll tell you that "In the beginning ..." is the beginning of a fable, an illustrative work of fiction.  It is not an empirical claim on any literal level.  But for the truly moronic, there are no other levels.

Why can't you fundamentalist morons just admit that God's "strange but wonderful" ways are as mysterious to you as they are to the people you'd like to con?  You don't know how He does a goddam thing, including speciation.  But hey, you got to do you.  So go on and eat another rat you side show freak.

You talking to mathilda?

Because if you are talking to me know I am not defending the bible here. Just pointing out how another theory can explain the fossil record without god or evolution. do and try and keep up old boy, it just makes you look ever so foolish when you miss the mark this badly.

Granted my theory allows for God, but it can also allow for alien teraforming as well. it simply states all animals were placed here all at once and what is left is the strongest and made it through all the climate changes. how hard is that to understand?

Darwinism makes earth the center of our universe where earth must be the birthplace or genesis of everything. darwin lived in a time where earth was the center of the cosmos which is why he had to have a source of origins for every living thing. which is why his version of evolution was a must. it was competeing with actual genesis.

modern men should not have to follow a 300 year old man's religious insecurities.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Darwinism makes earth the center of our universe where earth must be the birthplace or genesis of everything. darwin lived in a time where earth was the center of the cosmos which is why he had to have a source of origins for every living thing. which is why his version of evolution was a must. it was competeing with actual genesis.

The theory of evolution does not specify that life can only have started in one place in the universe. Panspermia is compatible with the theory of evolution for example. Personally I think that life is abundant throughout the galaxy.

P.S You talk about your theory but it isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. If it was backed up by a body of evidence then it would become a theory. But it isn't.

[Little Rik]

Science is evidence. Facts can be tested, changed, advanced and a thesis can be developed. Religion is and remains the same, no matter what science finds out.
The biggest difference, however, is that scientists are so humble that they acknowledge possible mistakes and deficiencies, while religion is stubbornly unchanged and above all totally illogical. God or gods is a myth and religion is totally opposite to science. There is no reason to speculate on something that never has revealed itself to us or which we still can not find out. Science studies what is ahead of us. As you can measure, see, feel and hear and all that.

So you reckon that if God exist and spiritual love is real then it would be possible to provide evidence that is real just by using our physical senses?  

And if theists mean that scientific evidence is insufficient for us; that you do not agree with what science says, you may reject it then. The difference between the two different human constructions is that science can be proved/disproved while religion cannot be proven/disproven because there is yet to prove/disprove. We have no more than people's words that God exists. You have my word that I'm a unicorn. Now believe, will you?

God can be experienced when you build a spiritual relation with Him.
How on earth an atheist can experience God when he-she reject Him?
Would you build a love relationship with someone that hate you or reject you?

I guess you never thought about that Alisa, did you?  

Additionally, theists try to re-interpret their books to adapt to scientific discoveries, but they totally fail at it. for example, the Bible is a sandwich table. Pick and choose among verses. What was God's word yesterday is no longer today. How appropriate!

1) Not all theists follow religions and religious books Alisa.
This is an other thing that you never thought about Alisa, did you?  
2) God never wrote any books so please stop telling what God suppose to have written.
3) If you think that ............ God's word yesterday is no longer today........then you should see what physical science is all about.
What was true yesterday doesn't make sense these days anymore.
This is one more thing that you never thought about Alisa.  


(color mine)

[Drich]

Darwinism makes earth the center of our universe where earth must be the birthplace or genesis of everything. darwin lived in a time where earth was the center of the cosmos which is why he had to have a source of origins for every living thing. which is why his version of evolution was a must. it was competeing with actual genesis.

The theory of evolution does not specify that life can only have started in one place in the universe. Panspermia is compatible with the theory of evolution for example. Personally I think that life is abundant throughout the galaxy.

P.S You talk about your theory but it isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. If it was backed up by a body of evidence then it would become a theory. But it isn't.

It is backed up by the same body of evidence. it's just I have taken time to connect the dots for everyone.

And evolution does. it start with amenoacids, how much more basic can life get?

I believe life is far more diverse and does not have to have it's genesis here.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Even the 24 hour fruit fly who proved inter species evolution which I am using to claim my theory about the strong survive during periods of climate change) is limited to very minor changes over literal hundreds of thousands of generations.

The reason I mention the 24 hour fruit fly is because we can observe hundreds generational changes in a matter of months., but again these fruit flies even have 100's of billions of observed genetic/inter species generational changes they have NEVER MORPHED into another species. Thus there has NEVER Been An observed example of species evolving or morphing into another. Your attempt to try and push inner species evolution as species evolution is an intellectually dishonest attempt of confusing the topic. or you simply do not understand the macro changes of evolution Darwin purposes against your own dealing with micro changes in a given species.

Here is a question that no creationist that I have asked has been able to answer and allows me to disregard your entire point about the 24 hour fruit fly.

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works. What you are also ignoring and probably don't remember or know because you do not understand the theory of evolution, is that there needs to be evolutionary pressure for a species to adapt. There may have been hundreds of thousands of generations and plenty of mutations, but there has no been evolutionary pressure in your example for the fruit fly to change in any significant way so the mutations do not propagate throughout the population.

Yet the Peppered moth is an example of rapid change taking place because of a strong environmental pressure.

Another example, African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

You are also deliberately ignoring the point I made before, that the fossil records show evolutionary change happening over a much longer time span. So of course persistent large scale changes have not been made in the short time span that you are referring to. The evidence in the fossil records shows though that evolution does happen over longer time scales. It is also inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Again it's a strawman argument from you because scientists aren't claiming that such large changes happen in such short time scales.

---

The theory of evolution does not specify that life can only have started in one place in the universe. Panspermia is compatible with the theory of evolution for example. Personally I think that life is abundant throughout the galaxy.

P.S You talk about your theory but it isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. If it was backed up by a body of evidence then it would become a theory. But it isn't.

It is backed up by the same body of evidence. it's just I have taken time to connect the dots for everyone.

And evolution does. it start with amenoacids, how much more basic can life get?

I believe life is far more diverse and does not have to have it's genesis here.

Wrong. The theory of evolution does not specify that life can only have started in one place in the universe.

Amino acids have been found in meteorites so life could well have formed elsewhere as well as on Earth.