Quote Originally Posted by sport_122 View Post
Its funny, I majored in Biology. Spent many days having this type of discussion.

first off: my case is again demonstrated in your reply: We dont need to take another persons word in order to have all of these things properly covered for us. Thats not observational science. The study that says something is true is only accepted in the scientific community when it can be demonstrated in a lab based off of the research as it was published. Observations must be repeatable. You and I should be able to reproduce the results of all of these claims. If we have to rely on the guy that "knows more" then we have ignored the scientific method at its core.
I started in psych, but changed to CIS. I still have to finish and will probably go back to psych.

Thats what I'm saying. I don't have to rely on that guy that knows more. I can just as easily get a research job and find out myself. But in the case of religion, the guy that knows more is the pastor, and he makes scientific claims, and yet doesn't provide repeatable evidence. The problem I have is that religion is trying to become too scientific, and its not. Admit your biblical claim is purely philosophical, and I don't have a problem

Secondly: Abiogenesis has not been proven. Not even wanting to go into it so you can look up any of the hundreds or thousands of PhD written journals that tear that idea apart. You can also look up Spontaneous Regeneration. Basically it requires "magic" as Richard Dawkins calls it when referring to miracles testified to in religious documents.
I haven't said abiogenesis has been proven. I know it hasn't. It has been tested, conclusively. As a biology major I'm sure you're familiar with Miller-Urey and other similar experiments. These experiments say "these may have been the conditions and the elements present when the earth was formed." No one has torn it apart. The only thing that seems to be debated is the conditions in which life began.

That leads to my next statement. The faith aspect of science. Scientific theories can be disproven. Maybe not today or tomorrow. Maybe 100 years from now. There are tons of things that were observed in our past that we have learned were not true, but were true to us at the time of their origin. Yet some of them were so foundational to the understanding of our universe that to have even started to go against them would have be met with mockery.
Theories don't necessarily get disproven. They're simply replaced by better theories as our understanding and our observational abilities evolve. Kinda like how Newtons gravity theory was replaced by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Religion is one thing that gives people comfort and stability. Some people aren't mentally equipped to deal with such a rock to their comfort zone as the thought that there's probably not a creator, that the stories that have been used to explain natural phenomenon are just myths, and that the end is just the end. I personally think of religion as a theory that has been replaced due to our drastic increase in observational abilities.

Science isn't definitive, or absolute at all. Anyone with an in depth knowledge of science will tell you that. But science will only explain what's within it's fundamental boundaries. It won't explain the supernatural and the philosophical.