Meme stuff

I bet the same result occurs if it were the other way around too. 😀

Lol 😆 yup

Coincidence????

I tend to agree more with tbwp10. Any vocation contains a spread of personalities and all that's true is that science will have a greater proportion of truth seekers than religions, or that their version of truth seeking is more practical and based on observation. But just look at this nonsense some supposed scientists talk about "Many Worlds" or "The Big Bang". Neither are verifiable and falsifiable. Both are magical in wholly the wrong sense ... that of inducing other, supposedly less knowledgeable people, to believe them because they have reached the conclusions they've reached by looking at the evidence available.

Yes, and also by interpreting it in a skewed fashion. Confirmation bias exists in science just as much as in religions.

The "Many Worlds" concept is a purely speculative explanation for some of the bizarre conclusions that emerge from Quantum Theory, not some idea that scientists have come upwith because it's pleasing to them!

And "The Big Bang" was a disdainful (not particularly accurate) description invented by Fred Hoyle who utterly rejected the theory. It's now accepted because there's so much evidence to support it such a the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Suggesting these things amount to little more than 'scientific dogma' is nonsense.

I'm familiar with their histories, thanks. They're different but they're both dogmatic. Many Worlds is accepted as a likely explanation by a surprisingly large number of scientists or theoreticians working in the field, despite the fact that it's logically completely speculative and unfalsifiable. It also commits many more sins, such as ignoring the recommendation of parsimony in hypothesis formation.

Big Bang is VERY much dogma. Completely unproveable and there's so much evidence against it. Ignorant people imagine that "Big Bang" refers to universal expansion but what it describes is an origin of the universe that isn't steady state but is actually miraculous. Theoreticians are increasingly rejecting it and I've talked to many who believe that it's a sort of "holding theory". My son thinks it's incorrect. He, like me, thinks that the reality is steady state. He's qualified to hold that opinion and that it should be respected.

Believe what you will.

<<Suggesting these things amount to little more than 'scientific dogma' is nonsense.>>

You shouldn't think you can get away with writing something like that. Although it suggests that you're incapable of actual discussion, it also borders on being a personal attack. Do you have any particular qualifications to support your attempt to force your opinions onto others? For instance, because you're a Prime Minister or High Court judge?

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/refutation-of-creationist-memes/

For a species supposedly designed by the creator of all things, isn't it a little curious that we're riddled with so many physical faults?

Even our bipedal means of locomotion has meant that childbirth is considerably more perilous than in our close Great Ape relatives due to the necessary narrowing of the pelvis in females.

Wouldn't you expect something 'designed' to function better?

I expect the design to do what needs to be done, which is what we see, and it is surprising that, in a state of decay for thousands of years, we don’t see more issues.

No idea what that means. If the proposition is that an entity of vast ability and power created our species it's baffling why we are afflicted with so many faults. Some people carry genetic mutations that condemn any children to short, deeply disabled, diminished and distressing lives.

Why would any "designer" design a creature in that way? I can't imagine any human designer doing such a thing on ethical grounds and we fall vastly short of any creator.

And I notice you don't address the problem of a bipedal species when it comes to giving birth? Walking upright necessitates the narrowing of the 'pelvic canal', resulting in a host of birthing problems causing death of both mother and child in some cases.

This is "designed", really?

And on #77, merely because this or that scientific figure from the past proclaimed some form of religious belief doe not mean they rejected evolution and the emergence of our species by purely evolutionary processes.

I think you are reading into that something that isn’t there. The question isn’t evolution or God; it never was, nor is it science or God.