On 01 Mar 2012 19:21:03 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in news:njvtk7dmej4vah27a052fpk50af929gt7j@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael Joel
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off the
soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve an
omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

I can't agree with the last statement of Clare's. Science tries to
explain things from the perspective of proven truisms. 1+1=2 etc. No
faith, no believe, no religion is involved.
1+1+2 isn't exactly science. It is a clearly demonstratable concept.


It goes from there and gets
then at the edge of belief (not faith, not religion) when we try to use
science to explain where we came from. Using the proven theory
"Proven theory"? What "undeniable proof" do we have that ANY genus
has "evolved" from another genus?? Is there ANY "proof" that a genus
opf water animals "evolved" into a genus of land animals, or flying
animals?? Even more basic - is there any "proof" that somehow
vegetation "evolved" into animal life???

Has "science" been able to demonstrate that the latter is even
POSSIBLE??

Untill science can demonstrate it is possible, even with human
intervention, it is still FAR from "fact" - and even if it DID happen,
and can be PROVED to have happened - what intervention was involved??
What power or force provided the extremely complex conditions
required for this transformation to happen? It is obviously an
"extremely complex" set of conditions if the most brilliant of those
at the top of this "evolutionary ladder" cannot explain and replicate
those conditions to repeat the transformation under laboratory
conditions.

The "belief" in evolution as the major factor in the origin of man, or
the species, is definitely in the "unproven and so far unproveable"
realm of "faith" - and a "slavish" following of that "faith", to the
point that it influences other aspects of one's life - ie their
relationships with others who "believe" differently puts it firmly in
the territory of "religion".

of
evolution, using math, physics and chemistry, including thermodynamics
and quantum mechanics. As discussed before, hypotheses try to formulate
a theory (based on observed or postulated observable facts) before it is
proven, while a theory is supposed to be fully proven.

There are still many things we do not (fully) understand.

And that differs from faith and religion in what way??

That follows
the "law" that says if a theory is proven finally, there should be more
questions coming out of that work than there were before the theory was
proven.

Which again differs from "religion" in what way??

I agree that laws may have originated from religious beliefs, but almost
all civilizations have a core set of identical laws that are similar to
the US Constitution as well as the 10 commandments. Maybe they could be
explained evolutionarily as promoting (or donditional for) the survival
of the fittest ... A sort of "convergent" evolution, a well-validated
concept.

Or perhaps the "god" is universal, and only the concept of the "god"
differs across thereligions and civilizations? Which does not
eliminate the (strong) possibility that more than one has a mistaken
"concept" of that "god" , or that one MAY, POSSIBLY have a
fundamentally correct concept and interpretation of that "god"