Missing the point so totally it's hilarious.
Science does not claim anything that isn't reproducible. It is the ability of one scientist in Venezuela to copy what a guy in Siberia did and get the same result that is at the heart of science. Thus, science does not make any claim about the origin of the Universe because, as yet, there is no way to test such a claim.
What science can tell you is that the world is about 4bil years old (not 7000 or so as claimed by Genesis), and that life evolves by a process of natural selection that we have observed in genetics, physiology, the fossil record, and speciation (eg. mosquitoes in the London underground, amongst others).
I don't give a whether you believe in God or not - you have the right to believe whatever you like - but it is ignorant to write off the painstaking work of millions of scientists this century as some sort of fairy tale.
Like I thought. You're not really here to talk science.
Go on... hurry on to some website to pursue another "copy and paste" tirade that suits your MO. One in which you will have very little understanding of what is actually being argued. Well... with the exception of your agenda.
You have been given a chance to state your point. You chose to behave like a little boy.
Off with you, troll
And it never will. Just like ID never will either. We will be having this argument tens and millions of years into the future, and that is the beauty of it.
Like I said; the truth will be revealed when you die. That's why everybody is dying to know.
incorrect. Science -will- figure out how all life can begin from nothing.
Origin of the entire universe? That one is tough. Maybe, maybe not. All we need is a breakthrough, etc...
Religion on the other hand, is man-made fairy tale that can never be proven because it doesn't exist. It's not science. It's faith, believing in a boogieman and thinking everyone else's religion is wrong.
you are a grown man and you still believe in a version of santa claus. Be good, little boy, and I'll give you a present ! but if you are a bad little boy, oooh, bad present for you.
by the vay, ID will fail miserably when seriously challenged.
ID is religious teaching. The Cons ution contains what is known as an establishment clause, stating that congress shall never pass a law respecting an establishment of religion.
But that's how they work together. You can't have Science without having Religion and vice versa. They;re like yin and yang. All I know is that whatever "life"/"reality" is, it's that it allows us eat/ , and love and most importantly, watch the Spurs.I'll smoke and drink to that!
It's hard to fault Einstein for his belief that "God does not play dice with the universe". It seems like it was Einstein's belief that physical laws were simple at their core which led him to publish the theory of special relativity.
The argument goes something like this:
Mechanical laws are invariant in inertial frames: F=ma no matter whether you measure it standing on Earth or inside a train going straight a constant 200 mph. So in essence, you can't tell if this train is moving (relative to the ground) or standing still without looking out the window. If the Galilean relativity transformations are right (and the speed of light is not the same in all reference frames), all you have to do is measure the speed c' of a light beam in the train and subtract it from c (the speed of light I measure from outside the train when I see you shoot the beam from inside it) to determine the train's speed... i.e., c = c' + v implies v = c - c'.
In this way you can know if it's moving without looking out the window, and therefore electromagnetic laws would not be invariant in inertial reference frames. To Einstein this was ridiculous that one set of physical laws would obey invariance in inertial frames and another wouldn't, and he was vindicated.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle really threw a wrench into Einstein's ideas of simplicity. Still, he would have never come up with special relativity if he didn't have that strong belief in the simplicity and elegance of natural law, and our technology would be way behind. Imagine satellites without relativity, or all the huge errors our space program has avoided with a better understanding of gravity that started with this simple idea that had profound consequences.
EDIT: By inertial frame, I mean measurements made when there is no acceleration... i.e., the direction of movement is not changing and neither is the speed.... so at rest on Earth or moving 200 mph in a straight line on a train would fit.
By Galilean reference frame I basically mean the idea that if you drive behind a car going 100mph while your car is going 90, you measure the car in front of you getting away at 10mph (for any values of 100, 90, and 100 - 90)
Last edited by baseline bum; 01-24-2009 at 02:40 AM.
Wrong! Cause, don't you need atoms/sub atomic particles for molecules to form, thus forming the chemical composition of a cell? Where do Atoms come from?
I love physics. Every time you answer one interesting question, it springs 100 better ones on you.
no, I am not wrong. I said 'life'
atoms are not defined as life. are you trying to tell us that atoms are living things?
That's why I do to. I think it was Japanese American Theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku who once said, "We Physicist are the only scientist who use the word "god" without blushing".
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
- einstein
Anyone who latches onto religion just because they are mystified by a lack of answer at the present moment is being lazy and irresponsible. Ok, so humanity does not know the answer to your question AT THIS TIME. That doesn't mean you should go off to la-la land and start imaging boogiemen.
Well, we are made from them so in essence they are "life", if you look deep inside how far the rabbit hole goes. I have a feeling it will keep going and going and going.
No, in essence they are not life.
In essence, I am made of carbon and other elements. Carbon is not alive.
Please, put down the marijuana.
I wasn't trying to paint Einstein as a theist with his god and dice quote (he's clearly not a believer in god in any theistic sense; arguably in a deistic sense, but probably not).
It's just the one he's famous for in his disagreements with QM.
It's not a "boogiemen", it's something deeper than that. Einstein said "Personal god" such as the god of Moises and Abraham and the Judeo-Christianity/Islam god. What these guys believe in is a "Physics god". A god that is good at Mathematics.
Why are you, like so many other athiests, so bent on this? If you don't believe then why do you give a what other people think?
Repeat after me "I do not personally believe in God" and be done with it
Does it also drive you crazy to think that your little brother/sister/son/daughter believes in Santa Claus? I'm guessing no, so what is the underlying issue here?
By whose standard? Yours? Please.....This is not a "I'm smarter than you debate." Some of history's most prominent, intellectually gifted minds were Deists.
In fact, I'm pretty sure if the evidence were so conclusive this debate would have been over decades ago. Can't you see? Everybody wears blinders... even if they don't admit to it. Apparently however, it seems as though you missed the point of my reply. Ironic, considering the condescending tone of your post.
Which is why science is not a tool meant for disproving GOD's existence, as some routinely assume. When baseline bum made his 'impressionable youth' comment I made sure to interject that the impressionistic agendas can come from either camp.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Did I not state that I don't believe ID belongs in the classroom? So what exactly are you arguing?
Only if one were to interpret Genesis literally. I haven't asserted that as fact. But I also haven't completely discarded that possibility. Why? Simply because I recognize the fact that the supernatural cannot be defined scientifically.
But while I'm fine with that element of faith in my belief system, others don't even realize that they themselves have developed faith of their own - especially when there is no scientific basis for their disbelief.
Faith is inherently required for one to deduce that GOD doesn't exist by scientific principles. I mean you just said, "Thus, science does not make any claim about the origin of the Universe because, as yet, there is no way to test such a claim."
Therefore, erroneously believing that science explains the subject of origins and using that to justify one's position of disbelief requires faith. Faith in that one day we'll find the answer to the origins riddle. So if one's disbelief is founded on other principles fine.... just don't expect me to buy the notion that the GOD vs. Science debate can be settled on the terms of either side. Think about that for a second.
I'm sorry, the fossil record only supports micro-evolution. Attempts to show how it conclusively supports macro-evolution are spotty at best. In fact, when macro evolution is conclusively supported, the Theory of Evolution will have nothing hindering its reclassification from a 'theory' to a 'law'.
But that will be kind of difficult to do. After all, science does have its standards. I'm counting on them.
....mosquitoes which remain interfertile with other mosquito species...
Simmer down. I haven't written off their work... But your allegation that I have done so is what find distasteful and ignorant.
Read the topic of the thread before you go off on your ing rants.
ID trying to be passed off as 'science' and forced upon everyone.
It's not a rant, it's an accurate observation that YOU are the one who goes off on multiple rants on these religion threads. Any thread involving religion and you're there debating nonstop for days. And it always boils down to you telling everyone God doesn't exist.
What I'm trying to say is why do you athiests get your panties in such a wad? I think if I didn't believe in something I just wouldn't believe and leave it at that. But the majority of athiests not only don't believe but are adamantly against religion, mainly christianity, and it makes me curious.
To not be concerned with science education being watered down smacks of laziness and apathy from anyone who loves the pursuit of knowledge. I don't think many of us are saying the books should tell young students there is no god, but we are saying there should be no state-sponsored mandatory religious education that contradicts what one is trying to teach, which is what intelligent design in science classrooms is.
I perfectly understand and agree with that. What I'm trying to figure out is why any thread involving "God" or "religion" attracts this guy like flies to a horses ass and gets him all worked up.
I couldn't tell you, I've lived in Pennsylvania basically all of my life.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
