Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

Dr, Sheldon,
In the chapter devoted to this matter Darwin wrote:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

You may also like to read p229 of The Blind Watchmaker.

There are numerous challenges to any theory that one animal becomes another with different DNA.

You don't seem able to grasp the vast advances in evidence in 150 years of scientific scrutiny. However since I have linked examples of complete fossil records spanning 55 million years and multiple species evolution and you simply ignore or deny them, it's impossible not to view your stance as dishonest, at least in part. 

Objections to aspects of species evolution don't falsify it. That can only be done by testable evidence that satisfies the scientific methods. If this had been done, even once, science would have abandoned evolution as false. Has science done this? 

Why does this have to be explained to you repeatedly? You claim to have a good knowledge of science and it's methods yet this repetition of your claim proves otherwise I'm afraid.

Dr, Sheldon,
To repeat the truth is better than to accept the refutable.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                To repeat the truth is better than to accept the refutable.

To repeat inane erroneous superstition is not in any way approaching the truth. Though your dismissive religious mantras show quite clearly that you have as little interest in the truth as you have in honest objective discussion.  

Again I am forced to the conclusion that your preaching here is pointless.  Try a pulpit, you'll find an altogether more credulous and receptive audience. 

Most of the posters on this forum seem to value erudition and evidence over faith and credulity.

I'll repost this as you've utterly ignored it. Try again.

You don't seem able to grasp the vast advances in evidence in 150 years of scientific scrutiny. However since I have linked examples of complete fossil records spanning 55 million years and multiple species evolution and you simply ignore or deny them, it's impossible not to view your stance as dishonest, at least in part. 

Objections to aspects of species evolution don't falsify it. That can only be done by testable evidence that satisfies the scientific methods. If this had been done, even once, science would have abandoned evolution as false. Has science done this? 

Why does this have to be explained to you repeatedly? You claim to have a good knowledge of science and it's methods yet this repetition of your claim proves otherwise I'm afraid. 

Dr, Shedlon,
For every scientific explanation of anything to do with evolution you will find another equally qualified to dispute it.

Or at least give an alternative reason etc;

There are too many still unanswered questions regarding evolution to make any definate observations and the main point is still not evolution but how things were created.

The main point is in the thread title.  Not being able to answer something doesn't disprove the evidence science has amassed for evolution or science would accept it as falsified.  Your claims are laughable nonsense,  but then so is creationism to anyone with even the most basic grasp of science.

Dr, Sheldon,
You realy amaze me, you go on about science,science, science, then dispute the scientific calculation of odds.

Forget evolution and the fact that things can evolve according to circumstances and that they could only do so if they were aware of what was required in the future and therefore have intelligence and aforethought.

You go on about science, science, science, and yet reject the scientists who calculate odds etc;

You cannot pick and choose.

The odds regarding evolution having anything at all to do with the actual origin of life are beyond comprehension.

As I have requested previously, just give any sensible answer as to how the acorn can grow into an oak tree or how the life of a butterfly evolved, stage by stage.

I am not at all concerned about animals and plants changing from a slightly diffrent form as to when God created them there are other matters to be taken into consideration regardin this and Satan being one of them, misleading the scientists down a long and endless and meaningless path.

Making spurious and ignorant assertions about maths is not science. Any more than the tortured creationists clichés you trot out endlessly but don't understand.

Polyglide wrote:Satan being one of them, misleading the scientists down a long and endless and meaningless path.

PMLMAO. ...


Dear oh dear....let's stick to the thread title shall we and leave satanic fantasies alone.

Top 25 creationist clichés.

Seriously polyglide,  that video debunks the most common creationist clichés and I recognised every single one from your posts. 

I understand the desire to preserve core beliefs held over a lifetime,  but to deceive yourself to the point where you reject scientific facts rather than try to modify beliefs that are based on faith is baffling to me.

Dr, Sheldon,
Strange how others very considered opinions based on the available facts are always cliches., whilst scientific theories are always accepted by you.

I have never denied scientifics facts only scientific theories and you might just consider the difference
.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Strange how others very considered opinions based on the available facts are always cliches., whilst scientific theories are always accepted by you.

That's not strange at all, especially as I started the thread precisely to question why people think personal subjective opinion based on religious belief warrants the denial of scientific theories that explain facts like evolution (one example).

I have never denied scientifics facts only scientific theories and you might just consider the difference

I might, but since scientific theories explain facts I think it might be more edifying if you abandoned this risible creationist cliché using semantics and the word theory, and accepted the definition of scientific theory is fundamentally different.

A quick Google would be sufficient:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

LINK HERE

More from the above link:

"Darwin's other big idea, that evolutionary change was driven by natural selection, was much slower to catch on, Scott and Branch write. It took other research, including a 20th-century rediscovery of work by Gregor Mendel — a priest and contemporary of Darwin who had unraveled the basic principles of heredity by crossbreeding peas — to give widespread credence to natural selection.

To scientists nowadays, there is no debate about the solidity of the theory of evolution. Like the theory of gravity, evolution has been tested every which way, and though there remains plenty to learn about some of the details of how it works, there is no questioning the fact that it is at work, creating new species such as drug-resistant bacteria on short time scales or, in the longer term, humans, who evolved from other primates.

Evolution is one of the most well-established theories in science, supported by observations in many fields, from fossil evidence to DNA work done only in recent years."

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. "

Species evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it, it's that simple, and despite some creationist propaganda this is a fact accepted by science and nearly all scientists, with a tiny minority of dissenter all basing their dissent not on valid scientific evidence but on religious beliefs.

This of course is proved by the indisputable fact that not one piece of evidence has ever been properly validated to falsify evolution, or to support creationism, the latter being rejected as unscientific from the outset as it makes claims for supernatural causation which can never be falsified, falsifiability is a basic requirement for any claim, idea, or hypothesis before it can even be considered as scientific.

Indeed the dictionary definition of science:

noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

...shows quite clearly that nothing supernatural can be considered. So out go Polyglide's claims that study of the supernatural is a branch of science.

For over 150 years – since the time of Charles Darwin – the theory of evolution has been through more scrutiny and rigorous investigation than just about any other scientific claim. Since that time, the theory of evolution has only been strengthened as more evidence has been accrued. While there are many that, for ideological reasons, want to make it seem like evolution is not widely accepted within the scientific community, this is not actually the case. Across universities, research institutions, and scientific organizations, evolution is not only nearly universally accepted, it is also the basis upon which active, exciting, and important research is being done.

The overall goal of this post is to point out the patterns of evolution within nature and help individuals identify other, similar patterns on their own.  Doing so will give you the power to, in a sense, test the validity of evolution on your own.  Like in a court of law, you have the ability to weigh the evidence in support and against evolution to come to your own conclusion that, in legalese, is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

This list of the “Three Main Pieces of Evidence Supporting Evolution” will read a bit different from other lists.  It is not meant to be just a “gotcha!” list of examples that support evolution.  The goal is much loftier—to give a complete overview of the most direct evidence in support of evolution.  The examples that will be provided are meant to be illustrative in addition to exemplary.   Without further ado, the big 3:

1) Species share similarities that are signs of their common ancestry.
2) There are progressions of species changing over time.
3) Species have traits that are the remnants of past generations.

LINK HERE

Here's a link to those transitional stages of human evoltuion that creationists insist don't exist.

More evidence detailed HERE.

Dr, Shedlon,
In a billion years, in theory, anyone finding fossils of the present day would find, little dogs and very large dogs, deformities in all life forms, including humans, little horses and very large horses and a million other fossils that would not actually indicate the facts.

There has never been an example of a human being being anything else nor any other animal being anything else, only supposition etc;

polyglide wrote: There has never been an example of a human being being anything else nor any other animal being anything else, only supposition etc;  

This link shows several species transitions leading to the evolution of homo-sapiens.

It is a scientific fact accepted by all scientists, barring a minuscule minority who choose to ignore science and defer to their blind faith in their religious beliefs. Your claim is as absurd as it is hilarious, believe what you like, but don't think for one second that people with even a basic scientific education aren't shaking their heads and laughing.

polyglide wrote: In a billion years, in theory,

I have no interest in your hilariously absurd theories, only in scientific theories as a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

It's hilarious to me, though baffling, that people can seriously deny scientific facts and dishonestly or through ignorance make absurd claims that these facts are not evidenced beyond doubt, like evolution, whilst simultaneously believing the most absurdly fantastic claims for supernatural mumbo jumbo from bronze age superstition. Whilst I'm happy for anyone to believe whatever they wish, the dishonest desire to lie about science is simply risible, and deeply harmful of course, as given the chance they would happily indoctrinate children with the BS pseudo-science of creationism.

If we're floating silly theories then I'd have to ask, how would know, indeed how do you know, it's not the devil deceiving YOU about evolution, whilst science is correct? How do you know the devil hasn't altered the bible to deceive you/ How do you know the devil hasn't made you a Christian to stop you recognising Islam or Judaism or Hinduism as the true religion? You're claiming to be 100 certain, and that's as closed minded as it's possible to get after all.

Dr, Sheldon,
There is nothing absurd about my post, what is obvious is your lack of understanding the implications regarding past fossils etc; fossils can have many different explanations.

Polglide wrote: In a billion years, in theory, anyone finding fossils of the present day would find, little dogs and very large dogs, deformities in all life forms, including humans, little horses and very large horses and a million other fossils that would not actually indicate the facts.

I honestly haven't the first clue what it is you're claiming here, or what point you're trying to make. Though the fossil record represents a remarkable body of evidence that supports evolution. That's the scientific theory of evolution not your bizarre and unevidenced watered down version, which is not evidenced at all other than in your closed mind.

Dr, Shedlon,
Of course you do not understand the implications you rarely do.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                There is nothing absurd about my post, what is obvious is your lack of understanding the implications regarding past fossils etc; fossils can have many different explanations.

That's hilarious from someone who claims the fossil record is being used to deceive by the devil, if you think that kind of barking mad delusion represents an understanding of palaeontology then let me assure you you're deluding yourself. Perhaps you can tell us how is that you think you understand scientific facts like evolution, yet your own understanding is completely at odds with the entire scientific world? Are you seriously claiming expertise in palaeontology now? This is so sad, have you tried taking these bizarre claims onto a proper scientific website to see the kind of stupefied reaction they'll get?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                Of course you do not understand the implications you rarely do.

Implications of what? Cryptic as ever. I understand that you are making the most absurd and obviously erroneous claims that are entirely at odds with the entire scientific world based on closed minded blind faith. That you don't seem able, or even willing to acknowledge basic scientific facts and methods like peer review and falsifiability, or the role they play in the scientific process. You claim to be scientifically knowledgeable then risibly don't know what the proper definition of a scientific theory is, or how it differs from a simple hunch or guess.

Dr, Sheldon,
Just one example, in a billion years a fossil is found of a little dog, it has just eaten a little grass because it had worms and this is the way dogs in the wild get rid of them.

At the same time they find the fossils of a St. Bernard it is many times larger than the little dog but has the same DNA, but it is found to have eaten meat.

Scientist, the little dog must be a vegitarian and a throw back, the St, Bernard is a meat eater and they must have evolved in that manner. etc;etc; etc;

There are thousands of ways the present fossils in a billion years could be interpreted and the same applies to the past.

I honestly haven't the first clue what it is you're claiming here, or what point you're trying to make. Though the fossil record represents a remarkable body of evidence that supports evolution. That's the scientific theory of evolution not your bizarre and unevidenced watered down version, which is not evidenced at all other than in your closed mind.

However that's hilarious from someone who claims the fossil record is being used to deceive us by the devil, if you think that kind of barking mad delusion represents an understanding of palaeontology then let me assure you you're deluding yourself. Perhaps you can tell us how is that you think you understand scientific facts like evolution, yet your own understanding is completely at odds with the entire scientific world? Are you seriously claiming expertise in palaeontology now? This is so sad, have you tried taking these bizarre claims onto a proper scientific website to see the kind of stupefied reaction they'll get?

Dr, Shedlon,
Think, think, think, look at the world today, look at what fossils there may be in a billion years [of course there is no chance of this as God will have sorted matters out long ago]
there are numerous deformities and different examples of every living thing that no one in the future could hope to understand, only those who experience can be 100% certain about anything other than the obvious.

Science and palaeontologists study fossils, using the best most rigorous and objective epistemologically sound technique we have. Their findings are what I accept, because the method is demonstrably successful and it's results quantifiable and by far and away the most successful we have ever had for gaining knowledge. You have no knowledge of, let alone expertise in palaeontology, what you've claimed here is I'm afraid risible. Again given the thread title and that I started the thread I'm not sure why you think I'd accept your arbitrary opinion, as ill informed and obviously erroneous as it is when it is entirely at odds with all the scientific facts.

Why do you think I'll be swayed by claims that invoke Satanic conspiracies using magic to deceive science? You might as well claim the moon is made of cheese. I urge you to take your own advice and think think think, but try doing so with some objectivity, and abandoning the preconceived certainty of faith. Epistemologically sound truths will never ever come from subjective closed minded certainty, the two positions are anathema to each other.

Dr, Sheldon,
Until mankind can show me every stage [with examples] of a butterflys life and also how the acorn came to produce an oak tree there is every reason to doubt science as an explanation for the most and only, in my opinion, point, the origin of life.

You can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy. I don't care, but when you make demonstrably false claims in a public forum about known scientific facts like denying species evolution then you can expect your asinine claims to receive the derision they deserve. 

Demanding evidence at the top of your lungs that you'd not understand and has been provided many times is pretty meaningless even before we take on board you're substituting bronze age superstitions about magic for those scientific facts.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Strange how others very considered opinions based on the available facts are always cliches., whilst scientific theories are always accepted by you.
I have never denied scientifics facts only scientific theories and you might just consider the difference.

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

polyglide wrote:only those who experience can be 100% certain about anything other than the obvious.

No one can 100% certain about anything, unless they have no concept of epistemology whatsoever, and then they should go away and study the basics of the concept before making such embarrassing claims.

Epistemology

Dr, Sheldon,
One thing is certain, one day you will die.

Another thing is certain, water is accpeted as being wet.

You have a very synical view of everything and most of which is stupid nonsense.

Polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
One thing is certain, one day you will die.

Aren't you a theist who denies this? Hilarious. 




That irony aside, as I said you really need to grasp the basics of epistemological philosophy or you will continue to make embarrassing claims that anything can be 100% certain. 

I notice you don't care to address the evidence scientifically validated that refutes your earlier bombast. Quelle surprise.  Ironic really as you keep lying that I am the one who ignores scientific evidence.


I've never considered myself overly cynical. Though I'll happily defer to your obvious expertise in stupid nonsense. I'm cynical about self righteous hypocrits who preach piously about universal love then show their true colours when their absurd superstitionsare questioned.

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible.  Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true.  There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.  That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past.  Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years.  This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals.  It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.

So much for original sin, and with it of course goes any need for the biblical claims that Jesus needed to come to earth to be sacrificed.

MORE HERE

A quote here from Jerry A. Coyne's "Faith vs. Fiction".

"The Gordon Cronwell Theological Seminary estimates that there are forty-four thousand sects of Christianity alone. Hardly compelling evidence of an omnipotent desperate to communicate with us and have us worship the  "one true god".

If the particulars of belief and dogma were really bestowed upon humans by an omnipotent deity, there is absolutely no obvious reason why there should be more than one brand of faith.

Dr, Shedlon,
A theist believes in God and is aware that a human will die under the existing conditions on earth and until God takes over, a theist does not believe in everlasting life until God brings back to life those who have died an earthly death and whom he welcomes into the new world.

Certain.
irrefutable
infallible
undeniable
exact.

You use a word according to the circumstances and one day it is cetain you will die.

If you want I can quote all the diffrent stages of the developement of life according to scientists as can anyone else by pressing a few keys, there are too many leaps and bounds that no one can answer for any of them to make complete sense.

The Shroud of Jesus is a prime example of the way in which carbon dating is disputable.

Just look it up and see how wrong it can be and over a very short period.

What theists believe or don't believe is not really the point, the thread is asking why some theists think their religious dogma and faith can challenge scientific empiricism.

You are entirely missing the point about absolute certainty being epistemologically impossible, philosophical epistemology is a vastly complex subject, but if you think you can be 100% certain about anything then it's clear you are entirely ignorant of it. As I said go away and read the basics, or don't and continue to make embarrassing claims, your call.

Polyglide wrote:If you want I can quote all the diffrent stages of the developement of life according to scientists as can anyone else by pressing a few keys, there are too many leaps and bounds that no one can answer for any of them to make complete sense.

That's for science to evidence, and it has, and your asinine denials are as laughable as they are idiotic.

Polyglide wrote:The Shroud of Jesus is a prime example of the way in which carbon dating is disputable. Just look it up and see how wrong it can be and over a very short period.

As ill informed as ever I see. The Turin shroud is a faked medieval forgery, and this was proved by scientific testing when it was submitted for examination in the hope it would date accurately to support the myth surrounding the forgery. It didn't of course, and rather than accept this was yet another of a multitude of forgeries that Catholicism has milked as cash cows over the years duping its ever gullible credulous flock, they have locked it away and tried to make excuse about the part being tested being a medieval "repair" to a section that had been fire damaged.

Radiometric carbon dating has not and has never been disputed by anyone other than nutjob young earth creationist. Lunatics who think the world was magic'd into existence roughly when the ancient Sumerians were invented glue, and humans were domesticating feral dogs. One assumes they believe their chosen deity magic'd the light from all the stars that are too far away for the light to have reached us in that time "en route".

LINK HERE

"The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming. There is perhaps no greater attack upon science and rational thought than the doctrine of a recent creation of the planet Earth and/or the universe. This article collects known evidence that places a minimum age of the Earth beyond the usual 6,000 years quoted by Young Earth creationists (YECs). Deep time is the idea, held to be credible by natural researchers since the early 19th century, that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, rather than the few thousand of young earth creationism. The accepted age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years, while the entire universe is around 13.77 billion years.

These ages weren't just made up. They were devised from a range of experiments and observations made across multiple disciplines of science such as astronomy, geology, biology, palaeontology, chemistry, geomorphology and physics. They have been revised several times based on new evidence, but never to the degree of the many orders of magnitude required to bring them in line with Biblical literalism. YECs, however, ignore these experiments and evidence in favor of pseudoscience and their biblically-based view that the world was created by magic.

The entries below are listed in alphabetical order, while in the contents box they can be found listed by the approximate minimum they put on the age of the earth. It is also important to note that these dating methods are not mutually exclusive: where their range, accuracy and applicability overlap, the dates they produce are concordant with each other. It should be noted that YECs regularly claim that all types of radiometric dating are unreliable, going so far as to attempt to discredit the discipline through dishonest practices."