Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[tigkal]

Sir,
     Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
     statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.

Who makes the maker? and maker of maker1, etc..

[docelmo]

If you think your statement is an axiom, then why can't you answer the question how did the creator cam about??? Or like what has been said, it's pure energy, pure energy that is so intelligent from the moment it "materialize" Or is that word even relevant to it...since it is creator anyhow, how can it materialize when its the one that eventually will create anything that is "CREATED" anyway??? 

NAGULUMIHANAN ako sa mga sinabi ko!!! 

Is it just like "PUFFFFFFF!!! IT BECAME COCO-CRUNCH!!!" 

Sir,
Kaya nga tinanong ko si sir barrister....He said not accepted as true.

I believe that the statement "all things that are made has a maker" is true, i was asking why it was not accepted as true. If there are examples that would contradict this statement. When we see all around us that it has basis...

When you look at a car, house a home theater system......what do you deduce or observe...you see the beauty, symmetry, planning, design....by the carmarker, carperter and interior designer.

 If this is true w/ inanimate objects what more of living systems which must continue to function properly or else it would wither and die...

 

[alistair]

I believe that the statement "all things that are made has a maker" is true

It's a tautology.

Here's another one: The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

[barrister]

Sir,
     Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
     statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.

Maybe I did not understand correctly.

Let's see...
          "All things that are made has a Creator"

          " If all things were Made"
          "Therefore All things has a Creator"

You did not originally say, "All things that are made has a maker."  You originally said, "All things that are made has a Creator."  By using the capital letter "C" for "Creator," I thought you meant God (did I presume correctly?).

If you assume all things have a Creator which is God, then that is not an axiom, because the fact of God's existence is not something that is so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

An example of a thing that was made without a Creator?  According to science, the earth's soil --- made by nature, not made by any so-called "Creator."  



======================



You are aware that I'm a creationist, so you are aware that I agree with that premise (but only from the point of view of religion).

But I'm sure you know what I'm driving at --- that it's not possible to prove the existence of a Creator by the use of logic.

[barrister]

Some things I agree and don't agree on both sides. I believe in Evolution and Creation...  

OK lang yon sir.  At least you have an open mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

"The application of the terms "fact" and "theory" to evolution is comparable to their use in describing gravity. ... The word "gravity", therefore, can be used to refer to the observed facts (i.e., that masses attract one another) and the theory used to explain the facts (the reason why masses attract one another). In this way, gravity is both a theory and a fact."

This is a common evolutionist argument --- That evolution is both a theory and a fact, just like gravity is both a theory and a fact.

I vehemently disagree.

It is true that gravity is both a fact and a theory.  In gravity:
(a) The fact is the observable force between two masses; and
(b) The theory is the attempt to explain how that observable force operates.

But in evolution:
(a) The so-called "fact" of evolution is mere speculation, not an observable fact; and
(b) Therefore, the theory is without any proper basis, because it attempts to explain a speculation, not an observable fact.

Therefore, that is the big difference between gravity and evolution ---- one is an observable fact; the other is not.

[docelmo]

Maybe I did not understand correctly.

You did not originally say, "All things that are made has a maker."  You originally said, "All things that are made has a Creator."  By using the capital letter "C" for "Creator," I thought you meant God (did I presume correctly?).

If you assume all things have a Creator which is God, then that is not an axiom, because the fact of God's existence is not something that is so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

An example of a thing that was made without a Creator?  According to science, the earth's soil --- made by nature, not made by any so-called "Creator."  



======================



You are aware that I'm a creationist, so you are aware that I agree with that premise (but only from the point of view of religion).

But I'm sure you know what I'm driving at --- that it's not possible to prove the existence of a Creator by the use of logic.

Correct sir, that's why I replaced the word "creator" with "maker" to remove the religious implication of the statement...

[docelmo]

^
In this way, gravity is both a theory and a fact."

Gravity has been observed and repeatedly tested and proven to be true! And you can say the same w/ evolution?

[barrister]

Correct sir, that's why I replaced the word "creator" with "maker" to remove the religious implication of the statement...

Well, that's what I'm trying to show.  We're both creationists, but I do not believe it's possible to prove the existence of the Creator by either science or logic, because it's ultimately about faith.

Try to prove the existence of the Creator by science or logic and I'll be the first to dispute it.

  

[docelmo]

Well, that's what I'm trying to show.  We're both creationists, but I do not believe it's possible to prove the existence of the Creator by either science or logic, because it's ultimately about faith.

Try to prove the existence of the Creator by science or logic and I'll be the first to dispute it.

  

Point well taken sir, however we do  have a difference of opinion on the limitation on how to prove His existence and I believe that Science will eventually catch up in its search for the ultimate TRUTH.

After all He did say: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21).

And Pasteur apparently once said:“ Science brings men closer to God” “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

PEACE!

[docelmo]

"On Mathematics and the Universe"
 
  Both Mathematicians, separated by 400 years of accumulated knowledge saying essentially the same thing...

Gallileo Galilei
                 
       “Mathematics is the language with which GOD has written the universe”

Prof Marcus du Sautoy

in BBC’s “The Code”

“The reason we can predict how the stars will move into the far future is because we’ve uncovered the rules that govern their behavior….and we found this rules not in the heavens…but in numbers!”

“It’s only through “The Code” that we can understand the laws that govern the universe”

“The fact that the code provides such a successful description of nature is for many “one of the greatest mysteries of science” and by discovering these connections we have in fact uncovered some deep truth about the world and perhaps the code is the truth of the universe and its numbers that dictate the way the world must be.”

[barrister]

Point well taken sir, however we do  have a difference of opinion on the limitation on how to prove His existence and I believe that Science will eventually catch up in its search for the ultimate TRUTH.

Ok lang yon sir.  So let's agree to disagree.  

After all He did say: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21).

I Thes. 5:21 refers to matters of religion.  It does not mean we're supposed to mix religion and science together.  

For example, we have faith that the universe was made by God.  This belief is not supported by scientific proof, that's why it's faith.  Otherwise, if it were provable scientifically beyond doubt, then that wouldn't be faith anymore.  

That is why Heb. 11:3 says: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."  It says we understand "by faith;" it does not say we understand "by science or logic."

What, therefore, is 1 Thes. 5:21 referring to?  It's an admonition against blind acceptance of the teachings of religious leaders.  For example, if your religious leader's doctrine includes a belief in the "secret rapture," should you search God's Word and discover for yourself that the so-called "secret rapture" is nothing but a load of nonsense, or do you just blindly accept the religious leader's doctrine?

We should discuss on the religion thread:

http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141525.630.html

We might have more points of agreement there.  But then again, maybe not (joke lang).  

[docelmo]

Hehehe copy that sir!

[docelmo]

Hehehe one "debate" thread is enough for me.

Discussing w/ such brilliant (and i do mean it) minds as Sir Alistair, Leo, Tempter, Dpogs, Barrister just to name a few is extremely rewarding!

[docelmo]

"Mutation and Evolution compatible?"

Copied from "University of Utah Genetic Science Learning Center "

What is Mutation

A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Mutations in a gene's DNA sequence can alter the amino acid sequence of the protein encoded by the gene.

How does this happen? Like words in a sentence, the DNA sequence of each gene determines the amino acid sequence for the protein it encodes. The DNA sequence is interpreted in groups of three nucleotide bases, called codons. Each codon specifies a single amino acid in a protein.

Mutate a sentence!

We can think about the DNA sequence of a gene as a sentence made up entirely of three-letter words. In the sequence, each three-letter word is a codon, specifying a single amino acid in a protein. Have a look at this sentence:

Thesunwashotbuttheoldmandidnotgethishat.

If you were to split this sentence into individual three-letter words, you would probably read it like this:

The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat.

This sentence represents a gene. Each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon. What if you shifted the three-letter "reading frame?" You would end up with

T hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at.

Or
Th esu nwa sho tbu tth eol dma ndi dno tge thi sha t.

As you can see, only one of these three "reading frames" translates into an understandable sentence. In the same way, only one three-letter reading frame within a gene codes for the correct protein.
Now, going back to the original sentence:

Thesunwashotbuttheoldmandidnotgethishat.

See how you can mutate the reading frame of this sentence by inserting or deleting letters within the sentence.

It's easy to make mutations that create "nonsense" sentences. Can you make mutations that maintain or change the meaning of the sentence without creating such nonsense?

Mutation results in about 3 types…
1.   No effect
2.   Diseases
3.   Loss of function/capability
All these effects does not support the Evolution’s use of mutation as part of the process of increasing complexity or emergence of new organism.

[docelmo]

Diseases of the Thyroid Gland….Mutation in action!

The release and regulation of thyroid hormones (T3 and T4) are part of a well-recognized and understood pathway feedback mechanism of the body. This mechanism includes the interaction between the Pituitary Gland (PG) in the brain the Thyroid Gland (TG)  in the neck. It starts with the release by the PG of TSH(thyroid stimulating hormone), this then binds w/ the TSH receptor sites on the TG, which in turn releases T3 and T4. Once in the blood the level is then detected by the PG and the cycle continues….

A mutation in the gene code for the tsh receptor will result in several diseases. A loss the of ability of the tsh receptor to bind w/ tsh will result in decrease amount of TH resulting in…..Hypothyroidism. This mutation is a recessive trait  which means that an offspring will only get this illness if both parents has the mutation otherwise the offspring will not manifest the disease.

On the other hand mutation which results in an increase in function will result in over production of TH will result  in  Hyperthyroidism! Another effect of this is increase in the size(hyperplasia) of the cells itself resulting in either goiter, nodules or worst cancer!

Here is a concrete demonstration of the effects of mutation in humans. The mutation either does not have an effect (recessive gene), loss of function(sensitivity)….hypothyroidism and increase in function(hypersensitivity)….hyperthyroidism, goiter, cancer.

It is highly doubtful that Mutations in the past would result in a positive outcome in an organism let alone emergence of an entirely new organism.

[sardaukar]

I have a question for creationists who are not YEC. I think that's docelmo and barrister (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

If you don't believe in evolution but believe that the earth is 4+ billion years old, is it your belief that God created the animals in batches? That is, single celled animals first, then billions of years later fish, then reptiles a few hundred million years after that. Then He created mammals and birds a few million years apart. And finally created man a few hundred thousand years ago?

[barrister]

If you don't believe in evolution but believe that the earth is 4+ billion years old, is it your belief that God created the animals in batches? That is, single celled animals first, then billions of years later fish, then reptiles a few hundred million years after that. Then He created mammals and birds a few million years apart. And finally created man a few hundred thousand years ago?

Yes, that's about right.  

In relation to the biblical account in Genesis 1, let me state it this way ---- It is not correct to assume that each of the creation days is only 24 hours long, because one "day" can mean one "age."  

The basis for my conclusion would be better-suited for posting on the religion thread, since it will require an understanding of the meaning and usage of the ancient Hebrew words "yom," "yamim," "olam," "qedem," "ereb" (qualitative & quantitaive ereb), and "boqer" (qualitative & quantitative boqer).
 

[sardaukar]

Thanks for replying. Yes, I think it's a valid interpretation that the 7 "days" mentioned in Genesis is not our 24 hour days. And I've seen you mention this before. But what about extinction level events. Are they also contemplated in Genesis?

[docelmo]

I have a question for creationists who are not YEC. I think that's docelmo and barrister (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

If you don't believe in evolution but believe that the earth is 4+ billion years old, is it your belief that God created the animals in batches? That is, single celled animals first, then billions of years later fish, then reptiles a few hundred million years after that. Then He created mammals and birds a few million years apart. And finally created man a few hundred thousand years ago?

Good question sir!

I am also of the belief that the creation story in genesis does not mean a 24hr cycle (as already pointed out by sir barisster) as we know it today. A day or a thousand year, or even a million year is of no consequence to our creator for He is not bounded by time and space. However it is clear that when He created the heavens, earth and all living things there was order in it. Each would produce variations according to its own kind and not coming from a single simple organism to producing all life on earth by mutation,natural selection or any other explaination that contradicts what is know today in various field of study.

[barrister]

But what about extinction level events. Are they also contemplated in Genesis?

Extinction Level Event?  By Busta Rhymes?  Walang rap sa Genesis ...  

Seriously, Extinction Event is the usual term.  They sometimes say Extinction Level Event, but that's not commonly used.

No, Genesis does not mention the Extinction Events of science.  The purpose of the bible is to provide information relevant to man's salvation.  Therefore, as regards the subject of science, it is correct to say that the bible is incomplete; but as regards the subject of salvation, the bible is definitely complete.  

Some say the K-T boundary (Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary, now called the K-Pg boundary) is the great flood of Noah's time.  However, I don't think the estimated time periods coincide.  

I believe in the story of the great flood as a matter of faith, but I also believe in keeping religion and science separate.  I strongly object to those who use pseudoscience to provide questionable "evidence" of their religious agenda.

[bumblebee]

Good question sir!

I am also of the belief that the creation story in genesis does not mean a 24hr cycle (as already pointed out by sir barisster) as we know it today. A day or a thousand year, or even a million year is of no consequence to our creator for He is not bounded by time and space. However it is clear that when He created the heavens, earth and all living things there was order in it. Each would produce variations according to its own kind and not coming from a single simple organism to producing all life on earth by mutation,natural selection or any other explaination that contradicts what is know today in various field of study.

Pano yung dinosaurs?

Sabay-sabay bang na-create? Kung hindi, bigla na lang bang lumitaw yung mga bagong species? Magkakaron pa ba ng bagong species?

[sardaukar]

The reason I ask is science has found numerous extinction events throughout history including 5 major ones. If God created every animal and species at a particular day/age, how does that reconcile so many animals that had gone extinct before man even arrived. Why create them in the first place?

[barrister]

The reason I ask is science has found numerous extinction events throughout history including 5 major ones. If God created every animal and species at a particular day/age, how does that reconcile so many animals that had gone extinct before man even arrived. Why create them in the first place?

Like I always say, I keep science and the bible separate.

Since your question assumes that God is the Creator, then the basis of the answer should not be science but the bible.

If you don't believe in the bible, then that's OK, but we won't have anything to talk about.

If you believe in the bible, then well and good, since we will have a point of common agreement.



=================================



The bible does not explain why God allows certain species to become extinct.  If the bible does not supply the information, then we should just admit that we don't know the answer, because part of the discipline in studying the bible is to be careful not to add things that are not written.

All the bible says is that God has sovereignty over all creation, so He is free to do what He wishes; therefore we, being His created, have no right to question His will.  All we know from the bible is that extinction, if brought about by nature and not by man's actions, is just part of the way nature works, as God designed it.  

We don't have to go into the topic of extinction, actually.  Why don't we just ask, "Why did God create animals at all?"  If the Creator is powerful enough to create the universe, then surely He would also be powerful enough to create a human that doesn't need food to survive, or to create an earth that doesn't need animals to maintain balance.  

But that's how God designed nature, and we have no right to question His design.  If a potter wants to make a pot in a certain way, will the pieces of pottery have any right to question the potter's decision?

This concept is explained by Isaiah as follows:

9 “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground.  Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’? (Is. 45:9)

Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “You did not make me”? Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”? (Is. 29:16)

And Paul explains it this way:

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Rom. 9:20-21)

[sardaukar]

I get where you are coming from.

"Why did God create animals at all?"

I can get behind "because He wanted it that way".

But from my point of view, making animals that man didn't get to use or even get to see seems wasteful. Or worse, implies that God was conducting a trial and error experiment, trying to see what worked best. Either option doesn't seem too "godlike" to me.

[barrister]

But from my point of view, making animals that man didn't get to use or even get to see seems wasteful. Or worse, implies that God was conducting a trial and error experiment, trying to see what worked best. Either option doesn't seem too "godlike" to me.

No, that's not how it works. 

You use the bible's point of view if you believe in the bible.  You use your own point of view of you don't believe in the bible.

If you want to use your own point of view, that's OK with me, but you should also reject the bible to remain consistent.

[docelmo]

Pano yung dinosaurs?

Sabay-sabay bang na-create? Kung hindi, bigla na lang bang lumitaw yung mga bagong species? Magkakaron pa ba ng bagong species?

The Bible is like an Instruction Manual given by God to man...on how he should act, behave and understand. As such what is included there are geared towards that  goal by giving us the tools and knowledge on how we could follow Him. The word "dinosaur" is a modern word which probably did not have an equivalent at the time of writing of the bible. My guess is knowing the existence of dinosaurs and all other animals that we may never see probably had a purpose, but that has little to do with our salvation so there was no point in naming all these creatures...except in stories were animals were actually named.

Curiously though,
In the Book of JOB it made mentioned two mysterious creatures namely "behemoth" and  "leviathan". Both were clearly described as fierce, enormous size and wild!

Starting with verse 38....The Lord spoke to Job, enumerating numerous instances challenging those who were questioning His work..


"38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3  Dress for action[a] like a man;
    I will question you, and you make it known to me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
    Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!"

This is then followed by a long list of His workings....of the universe,
environment, animals and asking Man if he can do the same! And
end with this!

40 And the Lord said to Job:

2 “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
    He who argues with God, let him answer it.”


I believe this also the scriptures  answer to Sir Sardaukar's question


Then he mentions two mysterious creatures...what were these your guess is as good as mine...


15 “Behold, Behemoth,[j]
    which I made as I made you;
    he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins,
    and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
    the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
    his limbs like bars of iron.



1 [m] “Can you draw out Leviathan[n] with a fishhook
    or press down his tongue with a cord?
2 Can you put a rope in his nose
    or pierce his jaw with a hook?

We may never know the reason why He made all these creatures and the world around us! What is evident is that all around we see evidence of His hand....everything follows certain rules, measurements, behavior...this could only mean that there was an all-powerful Mind behind everything.

One thing is for sure, He has give given us a great gift....what we do with it is up to us!
Peace!

[barrister]

Pano yung dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days.  On the 5th day, sea creatures and winged creatures.  On the 6th day, land creatures.  Kasama na ang dinosaurs doon.  A "day" is an "age," not a literal 24-hour day.

The Genesis account states that winged birds appeared before the land creatures.  That's the reverse of accepted evolution theory, which speculates that birds evolved from land-dwelling theropod dinosaurs.  Does this mean that the bible was wrong?

--- Not so fast:


Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)

— A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

... "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

... oops...  

[leomarley]

Dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days.  On the 5th day, sea creatures and winged creatures.  On the 6th day, land creatures.  Kasama na ang dinosaurs doon.  A "day" is an "age," not a literal 24-hour day.

The Genesis account states that winged birds appeared before the land creatures.  That's the reverse of accepted evolution theory, which speculates that birds evolved from land-dwelling theropod dinosaurs.  Does this mean that the bible was wrong?

--- Not so fast:


Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)

— A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

... "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

... oops...  

it didn't say that all dinosaurs came from birds only that some theropods that were thought to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.

"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

[barrister]

it didn't say that all dinosaurs came from birds only that some theropods that were thought to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.

I'm not saying therapod dinos descended from birds either, since I don't believe in evolution.  All I'm saying is the bird-from-dino theory is now facing a growing challenge within the scientific community.

Yes, of course the article didn't say that "all" dinosaurs came from birds.  Nobody can say that unless he's sure that all fossils of all prehistoric animals have already been found.  However, the article does say these:

...The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.

...Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from.

...More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said.  The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.

"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."

Note that the context is not about some "teeny-weeny exception" to the accepted theory.

It's about overwhelming evidence saying that the accepted theory could be very wrong and might need a major overhaul.

[docelmo]

"http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org


A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

 

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

 

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

 

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

 

"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."



This is not Faith vs Science, this is Science vs Science!