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

Whether or not it is testable, religion still exists... and science cannot explain it.

 

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. In order for it to be presented as a scientific hypothesis, testing is required. A 'working hypothesis' is a provisionally accepted hypothesis subject to more research.

Although both evolution and creationism have been studied and 'tested' neither can claim to have been adequately proven for them to become an accepted scientific hypothesis much less a scientific theory.

 

Finally someone who knows how to use the Queens English, and has used it in such manner as to make clear the futility of entertaining such questions pertaining to evolution and religion. Thank you RPA1.

 

best response on the thread

 

that post is a load of crap.


Science, has explained religion on more fronts than you can imagine. mankind created the religions.

mankind created 'words' and still does

religions are manmade

ALL of them!

ie..... aint a doc on the earth made by 'a god' (no matter how many liars, claim otherwise)

 

SO then evolution and creationism are on the same platform but will evolution having a huge lead in 'evidence' based on what is found, observed, recorded and varifiably sound, in nature.

but theologies only have written evidence and nothing more except places and objects that people can claim, confirms the literature.


little can be varified of the theological attributes of magic and miracles

evolution is a theory and evidenced in every layer of knowledge

'creation' by religious rendition is non existent as a proposal in any theory as no evidence can sustain it, period!

Religions on the other hand do exist as manmade concepts to belief, but untestable in any absolution except, that mankind 'created' each religion. That fact is proven in that mankind created "words" (to articulate knowledge that, of course, has evolved over time)

So religion and evolution can be considered theoretical to each party but natures evolution is grounded in nature, whereas religions are strictly manmade.

nature can reveal itself over time, whereas religions cannot return back in time, to sustain its foundation and only by its 'prophecies' of things to come can the overall merit be rendered with an understanding of truth. What i find is the funny part is that the 'property of nature' that could exibit the capability of a prophecy (entanglement) is a venue of science, that has evolved to comprehensive understanding, from knowledge (the evolution of).

That means overall, religion is not the theory to focus on but the evolution of knowledge is to understand both religion and science.

 

Religion concerns itself with a different thing than does science. Religion concerns itself with the supernatural world. Science concerns itself with the natural world. Faith is what matters in religion.

 

and since magic aint an option, then that world of make believe can be easily left behind.

For example; a child gives up on santa, one day!

which it is nature to convey facts with little false witness as a precept of improving.

But no where in faith is 'false witness' allowed.

So belief is all OK, but misleading truth is NOT ok. That is where the line must be drawn.

No one can say, 'x' religion is fact and all must do as it (the theology) is believed. As that is a lie and purely of 'false witness'!

 

I agree. Religion must be a matter of choice, and to believe or not is not a matter of fact, but of faith.

 

There is scientific evidence that suggests this is potentially true. But I am not surprised that you would doubt this. It is consistent with your ongoing know-it-all posting history.

 

Prove your claim.

Prove your claims.

An extremist response. I love it. What is "evolution" ? A "word" created by man. A creature of the mind.

Including the worship of the theory of evolution.

It must be a terrible thing KNOWING that you are surrounded by so many "liars", yet not being able to name a single one of them.

As for the emphasized text above....:

All 'docs' that have been referred to have to be objective (tangible, material) and have substance in order for science to study and analyze them. So, Yes! Your statement emphasized above is true which means that nature is not a 'god' ... as you have previously claimed.

 

No, it is simply just dirty word play. Classification of species is an arbitrary process and it is incredibly hard to pinpoint exactly when a new species was "born", even when we witness it.

 

Science can easily explain religion as mass hysteria or mass psychosis. It just cannot explain God.

As to myself, I am a believer. Just not a believer in religion. I think all priests, ministers, rabbis and mullahs ought to get jobs.

 

I don't consider evolution and creationism necessarily separate. We know that we can 'tweak' 'natural' evolutionary cycles through selective breeding and now through genetic manipulation and cloning.

Yes, some people, places and events reported about in the Bible have been verified through historical and archeological evidence. So-called miracles happen all the time. How many times have we heard about one person or another 'magically' escaping a death-diagnosis?

The evolution of human beings is is a hypothesis as there is no 'smoking gun' in the evolutionary chain linking modern-day humans to past species.

Mankind has had 'words' for as far back as we can find, all the way to cave paintings. The fact that those early depictions have resulted in the written word is not evolution it is learned, refined and passed-down behavior.

Recent findings show the early humans were much more capable than we have assumed in the past. The question really is, when and how did the 'light' of sentience get turned on? Neither evolution nor religion has the answer to that as yet.

The fact that species evolve mainly due to environmental conditions is well known. One of the oldest species on Earth, the alligator for instance, has evolved from a gigantic animal to its present-day form however, it has not changed its basic design nor has it attained human-like sentience.

Science can only study nature, experiment and analyze results. Science does not and should not cross the 'bridge' to belief unless one is talking about an unproven hypothesis.

Religion exists in the realm of belief in order to explain that which we cannot scientifically weigh, measure and analyze with our consciousness. Belief (religion) naturally expands its borders into scientific areas but, as science advances some religious beliefs may no longer be valid. This doesn't mean that belief and religion are not also part of nature, it just means we are distilling down the essence of belief.

Indeed, string theory, multiple universes, multiple dimensional hypothesis, etc. are all potential areas of research that could reveal a greater understanding to our conscious minds what the Universe and indeed human beings are all about.

Our consciousnesses are all about perception...What we experience through our senses we call reality. Science is an attempt to explain that which we do not know using our conscious senses with our conscious brains 'making sense' out of it.

Religion or spiritual belief is the conscious mind acknowledging the subconscious elements in life that can be as real as those things that science has weighed and measured.

I agree but would add the caveat that both have their place. Religious zealots who do not accept evolution and secular humanists that scoff at religious beliefs are both self-imposed, ignorant positions IMO.

 

Ah, that's what I wanted to reply to you about. We do have fossils as well as DNA evidence, but then you brought up the missing link argument. "Missing link" is a misnomer because there are literally millions of missing links from ancestral hominid to modern day humans. Even if we find one "missing link" people would just point out that now we have TWO missing links, one before the "missing link" and one after. There is no way we will find every possible fossil of our evolution, it is practically impossible considering the conditions necessary for fossilization, erosion, and their location being unknown.

 

100,000 years ago the world was populated by a diverse group of hominids. about 70,000 years later that diversity disappeared and only the 'modern' form of humans existed. Older humans had similar cranial structure and capacity however, may not have been as neurally active as we are today. Some scientists suggest a major neural reorganization occurring but, since brains do not fossilize it is conjecture.

Humans also have more similarity in genetics than our closest animal relative the chimpanzee. Recent evidence in Neanderthal DNA shows a distinct difference when compared to humans as well.

You are right, there are at least thousands of fossils however, so far, there is no direct correlation between modern humans and those earlier hominid forms. Below is a link to an abstract discussing the issue of evolution vs creationism. Fair warning...It is slanted away from evolution but it is interesting nonetheless.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v8/n1/erectus

 

Then evolution is a process that cannot be tested because of the arbitrary nature of the classification of species.

 

Not really because evolution is a process that doesn't require that speciation occur anyways.

 

The terms you have used to attempt to show that science can explain religion are actually ambiguous and capricious terms that are words of ridicule for that which science cannot explain. When something cannot be explained by science, that scientific community then resorts to ridicule. Plain and simple. Now, where is he 'REAL' scientific explanation of 'religion', which demonstrates objectively this mass hysteria and psychosis?

 

Hey, I promise to get back to you, I just have to read that long ass article. And yes, it is beyond a slanted source of "science". Creationism and intelligent design is not science. There wasn't even a need to have a court trial (Dover v Kitzmiller, watch the PBS documentary on it, very well done and interesting) because you can simply look at what they are spouting on these websites. You could even look at this non-profit "organizations" founders believe in, all hardcore YEC's that want to force their religion on everybody's throat.

And simply, this just isn't how science is done. If evolution were being "surpressed" or whatever, then scientists wouldn't create some organization and lobby the local and federal governments with petty things. There is a process that you have to go through to have your ideas recognized as legitimate, and that process is peer-reviewing. What these IDers, or simply creationists behind a very thin cloak, are doing is trying to bypass the system. They don't even have any evidence beyond what they call "irreducible complexity" and that isn't even good;every thing that Michael Behe has called "irreducibly complex" has been shown not to be.

One of my major contentions with that... "source" is that literally ANYBODY can just post random (*)(*)(*)(*) there. But I will look at that page because it does seem to be well written, at the very least.

 

I posted it for content AND gave you fair warning that it was slanted away from evolution so, enough with the holier than thou stuff. As you say, it is well written and there are many interesting referenced facts. All in all, there is reason to keep an open mind because nobody has yet figured out why modern humans are so different from the rest of the genetic line. The modern, erect, big-skull, perpendicular foreheaded, human has no direct link at all. It's almost as if these other species were 'experiments.'

 

If I may interject. Though not evidence of direct evolution from early hominids I think the recent DNA evidence showing the interbreeding of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal deserves a mention.

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

 

places......... ok Heck archeology proves ahkenatan created monotheism before anything 'abrahamic' (torah).. Archeology proves the commands are over a thousand years older from egypts book of the dead.

Archeology (amarna tablets) prove that canaan (palestine/israel) was under egyptian rule during the period of the so called exodus. iee..... what is an exodus from egypt to egyptian held lands?

Archeology proves that much of the beliefs of judaism are egyptian (circumcision, no pork, family lineage as heirarchy like 'chosen ones')

For example: to a religious wingnut, the diagnosis was "spirits of satan" are taking the life and to a doctor of medicine, 'your cancer went into remission'

ie... science and medicine saves more lives than any religion ever did. (population explosion of the last 200yrs proves it)

so are religions. Learned!

Knowledge evolves, the theological descriptions are about to become obsolete.

ie..... truth unveils itself

sure it does. Coherance of memories; consciousness was born.

ie.... the story of adam "making a choice" to eat the fruit is the metaphor (to me) of mankind moving from instinct to conscious awareness. It is when man names eve (words were born) and mankind began thinking it was separate from 'the gardan' (nature/god). but read Gen 3:22 and find, mankind became 'capable'

You are getting straight answers first hand.

Think it thru before ranting!

Think of YOU comprehending what is real.

 

Yes an ahkenatan as well as his belief in the 'sun god' was summarily rejected eventually.

So? That proves what regarding the existence of a Creator?

Again, so what? Belief in superior beings go back as far as there is archeological evidence.

I did not mention 'religious wingnuts' stop trying to rephrase the discussion.

Which other animal species has that ability? Do try to stay focused.

So is science.

No problem here...I accept scientific principle. Let me know when you have all the answers to the Universe.

That is more than possible but, how did this 'coherence' come about in the first place? Why are there no other species imbued similarly?

Again, how did this come about? Can you scientifically prove it? If so...You'd better get busy writing your paper because LOTS of Atheists want to know.

No you are laying your belief system on me just like some religious fanatic.

You should take your own advice.

Think of YOU actually dropping the put-downs and trying to have a decent discussion. Bet you can't.

 

Okay, after picking apart the article:

Right off the bat:

"The author makes claims such as: With an estimated age of about 11 years old at death, and a cranial capacity (EndoCranial Volume) of about 900cc, WT 15000 is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features."

Welp, how can I argue with that, it is clearly a human being!

The Turkana Boy had a cranial capacity of 880cc and scientists estimated that would have increased to around 900cc at adulthood. This is on the low-end of the human cranial capacity spectrum, considering the average is 1450cc for modern humans.

Secondly, the Turkana Boy had many features that clearly made it distinct from modern humans including: sloped forehead, no chin, a narrow pelvis, large brows, and longer arm length.

Also:

"In my high school days, I had a friend of age 15 who was short - around five feet two inches, yet by age 19 he had mushroomed to six feet. "

These types of statements should not be present in scientific papers.

Finishing off the Turkana Boy section, we have this statement:

"The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material is available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. "

Uh, what? ER 3733 was mentioned twice before this paragraph and in that paragraph the only thing stated about the fossil remains was that this specimen was dolichocephalic. I'm unsure of how the author randomly reached this conclusion.

Okay, after reading this paper, it only seems that the author wants to morph Homo erectus and Homo sapiens into the same specieis. I disagree with this fact because, on average, there were some distinct morphological differences between the two species and these should be recognized. Even if this is to be considered human variability someday, so what?

"I believe that human fossil study provides strong circumstantial evidence in favour of the theistic view of origins as outlined in the early chapters of the book of Genesis, as against the current view that random or chance genetic accidents were responsible."

See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That isn't science, it's just pure conjecture.