Can science disprove God?

I have not heard of any studies done on the nerve of the giraffe, maybe because evolutionist believe their assumptions. Maybe if there was a study done, biology have may progress further.

Actually evolutionist are religionist too. Evolutionist like religionist have a belief system based on faith.
Nothing in the fossil record demonstrates evolution. No slight modifications in animals turning them from one kind to another.
Only theories upon theories that turn out to be wrong. All the past hoaxes that was needed to get people to believe.
Hoaxes like the embryo drawings were continued to be used even after it was discovered to be a hoax.
Only the orthodox view of evolution is presented to the public. All dissenting views are silenced.
Evolution has all the hallmarks of being a religion.

Suppression of dissent against evolution is a widespread tactic of supporters of evolution. Suppression itself denies academic freedom and cases of suppression include denial of earned degrees, loss of careers, refusal to publish in peer reviewed journals, and government bans on even religious schools teaching students about creation or Intelligent Design.

Suppression of dissenting views occurs in a number of fields other than evolution, including the Big Bang and Global warming. Suppression includes not just suppression of dissenting views, but discrimination against those holding dissenting views, or even those who are deemed (sometimes incorrectly) to be giving support to dissenting views.

Tactics include vilification, whereby critics of evolution are not merely subject to academic disagreement, but are ridiculed, called names, and compared to groups such as holocaust deniers or fundamentalist Muslims. The effect is to intimidate others from also taking a stand on the issue.

http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution

I tried to watch it, but after reading this on the host site, I’m pretty sure there is nothing valuable or scientific about it, so it’s not a good source for truth or science:

This is so wrong that the rest of the site is worthless. Even representatives for the Institute for Creation Research have admitted, under oath (Kitzmiller v. Dover) that there is no such research going on, nor ever was. It’s a proselytizing site, not a scientific one.

You have a lot to learn about evolution and science. Before you repeat such nonsense, it would be good to learn about what science is. It does your argument no good to make claims based upon ignorance.

Science is the opposite of faith. Jerry Coyne says:

Science is not based on faith

So now you want to play the conspiracy card. The truth, as you define it, is being suppressed. Ho-hum, we’ve heard it all before and it doesn’t carry any weight in this forum.

Nice cut 'n paste. Nothing original. Every one of your arguments have been refuted. Misconceptions about evolution.

This is remarkably ignorant.

Quick question: do you believe the vast majority of scientists are lying about evolution, or do you think they’re such fools that they’ve been unable in a lifetime to spot flaws you noticed with just a casual interest?

Darwins Heritic is history. Your evidently so biased that you can’t take the blinders off.

Intelligent design is discrimanted against so evolutionist do not have to face the arguments it makes.

Religious people have strong biases too. It prevents them from even gazing at the truth. Personally I’m not afraid to look at both sides of an issue.

Science is the opposite of faith. That is why evolution is a religion and not true science. When you look for evidence of evolution it just melts away. This is why there are dissenters. Why not present both sides? Why are evolutionist afraid to present both sides? If ID is wrong then it would come to nothing. Problem solved.

Wrong.

We do not need fossils when we have observed evolution in currently living life forms.
Beyond that, you claim is just silly. We have hundreds of examples of fossils that are clearly related animals in separate layers of stone, with each life form showing differences in a progression of increased or decreased size or advanced or deteriorating usage. Turning a blind eye to those examples is simply willful ignorance.

Name “all” the past hoaxes. I know of two hoaxes and one misinterpretation–none of them were actually accepted by mainstream paleontologists, biologists, etc. as evidence for Evolution; all of them were exposed by scientists studying evolution.
What “hoax” has ever been “exposed” that changed anyone’s thoughts on evolution?

The embryo drawings were placed in textbooks by textbook publishers, not scientists studying evolution. You would not even know that Haeckel had distorted his images if scientists had not pointed it out.

Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit.
Every scientific challenge to the Theory of evolution is published and discussed in papers that anyone can read. Even nonsense like the sort of bad “science” produced by the authors of “Intelligent Design” are published (and refuted) publicly. No one has suppressed the nonsense spouted by Behe and Dembski. It is out there for anyone to read (if they want examples of bad logic, poor math, and silly claims).

Really? It has a liturgy? People come together to worship it in some hall or another? There are prayers associated with it? It sets forth a moral code?
Those are hallmarks of a religion and evolutionary science demonstrates NONE of them. You are just being silly.

Go back and tell whoever fed you this line of bullshit that they need to stop lying to you.
The three foremost proponents of Intelligent Design have been Behe, Dembski, and Johnson. Every one of their books has been published without any attempt to suppress them.

Every one of their books has been rigorously trashed using science to demonstrate their errors. The only “discrimination” that they have faced has been the refusal to allow their errors to be fed to kids in high school classes, wasting time and money on stuff that has already been refuted.

Behe made claims about “irreducible complexity” in his first book, pointing to the Bombardier Beetle and the chemicals it uses. Within a couple of years, biologists had already examined his claims and shown that he was wrong–not in theory, but by actually looking at the chemical process. Dembski’s math has been shown to be so bad that he probably should not get a job teaching algebra, much less biology.

You really need to stop believing the liars from whom you are “learning” this stuff.

Intelligent design should be discriminated against, because it’s irrational claptrap.

Evolution Fraud and Myths to name a few:
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link”). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction
http://digilander.libero.it/avifauna/classificazione/sequence6.htm

Lucy
http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html

The Peppered Moth

This is what I have been talking about. Pure bias. You don’t even know issues. There are so many people that don’t believe evolution maybe time should be spent on ID. If you want to change peoples minds you have to know something about ID. Your totally ignorant on it.

I have looked at both sides. I understand why evolutionist don’t want to acknowledge the issues. To write it off as claptrap so you donn’t have to be embaressed for your beliefs. I’v seen this in religious people before.

You’re right, science is self-correcting. Another reason it’s better than faith.

I’m okay being ignorant of the finer details of something that is crap.

Fortunately, not everyone has to understand or accept evolution to benefit from it

I’m embarrassed for your beliefs.

But self-correcting many years too late. And when it is correcting some don’t get the message because its not headline news. Some still believe in primordial soup and the giraffe’s long neck fallacies.

Yep, this could also apply to astrology. Those damn biased astronomers not devoting enough time and effort to understand it.

Astrology must be a science, right? The word itself ends with -ology. That’s a dead give away right there. It has theories about cause and effect and makes predictions.

I bet the astronomers are intimidated.

I once heard Kenneth Miller talk about his role in the Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. case.

He had an interesting figure in his talk. It was a graph of the occurrence of the terms “Creationism” vs. “Intelligent Design”. It was pretty obvious use of the terms had flip-floped and, IIRC, Miller pointed out that the year when this occurred was 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that requiring the teaching of creationism was unconstitutional. After 1987, creationist textbooks replaced the terms creation and creator with intelligent design and designer.

He also showed an example in Of Pandas and People of how this was just a Find and Replace job of editing and they had missed a few instances of the terms in a draft the plaintiffs had acquired.

It seemed pretty obvious this change in terms was a legal tactic to get around the Supreme Court ruling and not the introduction of a scientific theory.

Yes astrology used to be science. In the future will be laughing about evolution being science.

Well, at least nobody got crusaded in the meantime. Besides, what do you mean “too late” ? I don’t recall Piltdown Man going on any killing sprees.

So? It’s not hurting them or telling them to hurt others.

Kent Hovind? Is that you?

You misspelled evolution. It should read “Intelligent Design”.