Does 'religion' even qualify to be a 'hypothesis'?

Then how can science say absolutely there is no Creator?

If one finds that prayer to a God has beneficial, repetitive effect (as the devout will attest to) would it not then be part of Unified Nature and therefore be a valid 'truth?'

Evolution is a hypothesis that includes human beings. The philosophical question is whether or not human beings evolved or were actually created or maybe even 'enhanced' from a lower life form by an outside source. The fact that life evolves is not the question here.

It is just as valid to look at the animal kingdom and contrast it with human beings and derive a UN theory that humans do not represent typical evolution. Therefore there is a question as to why. That question is, as yet, unanswered scientifically.

Like I said above, it is not evolution that is being questioned it is the hand of a Creator. For instance, you bring up dogs. Yes, they have 'evolved' from the grey wolf as far as we know however, their current diversity is NOT the result of 'natural selection' it is, rather, the result of their human 'creators' who have selected genetic combinations that satisfied their own ultimate goal that is completely separate and unknown to the canines.

 

hey; that comes from the hypothesis of 'evolution'.

ooops: the theory of evolution.

The story of genesis, is just a story with perhaps many metaphors that idiots dont seem to comprehend. For xample: adam being born of the 'dust' is actually kind of true, because the elements often found in just dust and dirt are the same elements found in most all living things.


or even; adam giving up a rib to make an eve is actually a reality of most every living species; the initial must give a portion of itself to live into the next generations. Evidence; cell division, procreation.

kind of weird

So another hypothesis: religious doctrine; are often full of interpretations of phenomenon, not yet understood but observed

 

OK so...who or what created the dust? The biblical story also includes the statement that Eve was created so that Adam would have a companion. Not until the expulsion from the Garden of Eden was procreation needed in order to carry the human race forward. If you are going to cite part of the story in order to scientifically explain it, you need to cite all of it. Saying that it is just an unsupported belief is not an option.

 

? What does that have to do with supernatural events?

 

The dust, like every other element, was created by exploding stars.

 

Er...um....if I zapped something to life you would not consider this to be supernatural?

If its natural then have at it man!! I'll get you a lab and as much equipment and chemicals you need.

 

And the formation of the star?.....

Keep going man, you can do it!!

 

Funny, I just saw a documentary with Steven Hawkings saying the Universe could have been created from nothing. That is part of religious teachings of the beginning.

 

How did he come up with that, or was it incoherent mumbo jumbo?

 

Science isn't.

If you come up with the hypothesis that prayer helps, and can produce a repeatable experiment that supports your hypothesis, then yes it would be a phenomenon of the observable universe. Of course we would have no idea by what means this occurs and the experiments that have tested prayer are pretty depressing for that hypothesis.

No, it is a theory that includes all life in its processes. It is not a philosophical question at all, it is a scientific question.

What do you mean we don't represent typical evolution? Because we have a unique trait amongst the animal kingdom? News flash, most species have traits that we don't have but that doesn't make them "outside of the ream of evolution".

And if humans can conduct artificial selection, think of what nature could do.

 

You mean the Miller-Urey experiment? The beginning of life MAY have been a supernatural event, but I doubt it.

 

Science cannot. From what I have read, folks have received great benefit from prayer even though they had no knowledge of the prayers.

The fact that evolution occurs is NOT the point. Prove that humans evolved to their current state. You cannot, no one has. There is only speculation and un-proven hypotheses.

Human beings are the most unique, powerful species on this planet. Clearly, we are unique way beyond every other species on this planet. Evolution alone cannot explain this. And has not.

'Nature' is only a human construct used to identify what we don't understand. The secular humanist equivalent of the religious figure 'God.'

 

That simply isn't true. There have been inconclusive results: some reported positive correlation between health and prayer, some reported negative correlation, and some reported no change at all. Thus, it seems that better health conditions come about randomly and aren't really influenced by prayer.

I hate saying this: there are no proofs in natural sciences. We are very certain that humans evolved to their current state due to fossil records and genetic evidence.

Humans are unique, but just because we can't currently explain exactly how we resulted this way via evolution doesn't mean that we won't be able to one day.

Not really. Nature is observed phenomena in the physical world around us.

 

nature (god itself), thru acreation.

Sounds like a stupid idea.

especially knowing that no man, ever walked unless a women was what birthed him.

man left the garden (in mind) because, like you, he thought he was not from it, a part of it, one with it; his maker!

ie... you dont know god, because you deny what is real]/b]

so where would you like to begin?

Gen 3: 22 And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

 

If what you claim is true then one cannot say prayers don't positively affect people either. Frankly, I'd rather have folks praying for me than not.

I understand that science has to follow the evidence and that there is a 'consensus' that humans evolved from ape-like forerunners. I also know that there are fossil records of different 'hominid' types. There has not, however ever been an established link to homo sapiens.

The structure of the human brain is not found to have evolved in any of the fossil records. Not only is it larger but its structure is significantly different. There is no 'smoking gun' evolutionary evidence to account for this.

I agree with that statement but don't limit myself to only 'natural' evolution.

OK then...explain 'phenomena.'

 

So much for evolution. If a woman was not there to give birth to man, than man cannot have evolved. On the other side of that same coin, if a man had not been there to impregnate the woman that also had too be there, then there could not have been any evolution.

 

Cheap, dirty word play.

 

Facts.... based upon the ultimatum that was established. Can't you deal with just a little bit of 'common' logic when they are applied to statements containing absolutes?

 

one of my dogs walks like a man

and the female dog can be a beech

did you say something?

 

that one should have been banned a long time ago.

That one twist up peoples words and misleads and blantantly lies and then argues about them lies, then just as you saw yourself, chooses not not address the errors and keeps on misleading............


I often like the example

So people can learn to have no mercy!

 

Yes! I did say something. You need to contact Ripleys Beleve it or Not. I think you might have something of interest to the entertainment world.

 

Hi! I am still here. So it appears that your opinion on that subject means little.

Who are you calling a liar? Don't you know that is a violation of the TOS?

What example? Example of what?

 

what subject? Everyone in this section knows what your posts represent and like the poster who commented on your cheap shot, your opinion is far below the bench.

do you fear the rules more than your preferred "god"?

. How to treat pigs

 

What subject? Below the bench? Actually my comment was on the computer screen and the computer screen is on my desk. The Bench is out in my workshop.

"especially knowing that no man, ever walked unless a women was what birthed him."

You made the silly, ignorant, lame brain remark above and I simply pointed out your error.... which you cannot refute... so you (and your cohort) sink into the depths of despair.... not knowing how to intelligently make a rebuttal. Oh! My goodness! Such a disaster.

Why should I fear my God? Is there a 'logical' reason that I should? As for the rules... I merely respect the rules ... has nothing to do with fear... You should do the same with all of your little innuendos regarding "liars".

Is that the title of your new book? Have you now ventured off into the noble art of animal husbandry?

 

I always thought a hypothesis had to be testable. So, unless someone has come up with some clever tests, religion does not qualify as a hypothesis.