Reply With Quote
Before we could fly above the clouds we needed God to explain thunder.
In order to have a big bang you need a big gun and someone to pull the trigger.
Before we could fly above the clouds we needed God to explain thunder.
Did someone say that? I must have missed that......can you show me where that was posted?
All I recall is that z0sa said that science has disproven evolution.
I really don't have a problem with science, evolution,Darwin,Catholics,and law abiding overly educated tree huggers like RuffNReady.
I have a problem with anyone who lets a book or a person dictate to me what they think took place over 20,000 years ago, so you can imagine how I feel when you start talking about what you read that took place Millions of years ago. You make yourselves sound very foolish.
No man on earth can say for sure what was around 25,000 years ago they can only speculate with carbon and fossils and even then it's all theory.
If there was any hard proof topics like these could not exist.
That is why the Atheist love to use words like 450 Billion years ago, you figure if you pick a number large enough anyone could easily believe anything from monkeys that made beautiful cave drawings to Animals talking.
Yeah, you only let the bible tell you what's up.
This controversy has been raging on for decades... it spilled over to the internet years ago, and more specifically onto this forum for as long as SpursTalk has been around... Regardless of the 'when,' hardline atheists must accept this principle as one of their core tenets or otherwise they would have no basis for their disbelief.
For them, everything we know: the universe, matter, order, and Life; all sprung out of nothingness... They keep trying to use Science as an ends to establishing that premise. Hence by that rationale, athiests must usher the belief that Science can prove or disprove GOD's existence.
Show me the quote where I said I go to church and read the bible. All I have said is the Bible does have some history to it. And many scientist have agreed the big flood was around 6,000 years ago like the bible said it was.
If the world was to end today due to a huge explosion as sick as it may be to have to read your perverted diary 2,000 years from now to accurately pinpoint the time of the explosion, It doesn't mean the people reading your diary are huge johnsmith fans.
so many things wrong with this poster...i'll just touch on 2 things
1) Science does not attempt to 'disprove' anything. Science always attempts to PROVE, not disprove. If I had a crazy idea about atoms having the power to turn into invisible hands and able to wash dishes, the burden is not on science to disprove my crazy idea. The burden is on me to PROVE my idea to the world.
Therefore, you have to PROVE your creationist crap. Your religion has to PROVE your 'crazy' (imo) idea about everything having been created by a magical being. If you can't prove it scientifically, then your idea is in the same category as me, the guy who thinks atoms can morph together into an invisible man who washes dishes in restaurants. It'll make $$ millions!
If that's the case, then stop bothering people with your crap. Until you can prove it, you will continue to be excluded in scientific discussion.
ok and now for #2
2) Scientists are not 'trying to establish a premise'... Science does not have bias. Scientific evidence has led us to establish this premise. It's the evidence leading us to the premise, not the human scientists forcing the issue to reach that premise as if it's some sort of ideological war.
If the scientific evidence leads us to a supernatural deity, then scientists will work hard to 'establish that premise'. If scientific evidence leads us to God, then we will believe in God.
The fact of the matter is, there is no scientific evidence leading to a supernatural being and THAT is the reason the scientists all over the world do not believe in God and are working to 'establish a premise'
Blame the evidence, not the scientists. This isn't some conspiracy. If there was evidence to God, we would have known it by now. A scientist is noble in his approach to the world - he seeks only the truth
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 02-26-2009 at 06:38 PM.
Science doesn't need to disprove anything they have you!
And why do you call creationist crap? Can't you just disagree without displaying your hate? And who made you the authority on who believes in God? Why can't someone believe in a creator without being a religious person? You just want to pool everyone together so you can look so smart. Well if you was half a smart as you try to look in this forum you would agree with many points others make, but you never do because your stubborn, and you hate your life so God must not exist.
You never answered my question on if you have ever had a girlfriend.
This is ridiculous, Pheomanul. The alleged supernatural cannot be tested by science, because it is by definition outside of the natural world. The hardcore atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural because it's conjecture and tradition.
Oh great.... MiamiHeat, the worst Spurstalk poster ever... "You must accept my ideas or else you are stupid, I always win..."
Some part of me believes mouse and MiamiHeat are one and the same... as mouse really loves to stir the pot.It wouldn't surprise me to say the least... His troll fame is second to none...
Anyways...
FAIL: I didn't claim that my belief in GOD's existence was based on scientific principles... Belief in GOD occurs on grounds of faith... and I am fine accepting His existence on those terms. To each his own. But your camp can't claim to hold the keys for universal knowledge (when that certainly is not the case), and then presume to dictate what the rules are, as far as acceptable beliefs go. A little more on that below...
As for your mock "atom man belief"... I don't care what you believe in... But if that belief can tranform your life, can unify you with others in spirit, and can bring peace to your life, then you got yourself a belief that is greater than the sum of its parts... And while many 'religions' can claim to satisfy these requisites, only a relationship with the GOD that created the universe can fill that void. So before you go complaining about all this "religious" talk it was you who spilled it over into the ideological sector.
You're right... science does not have bias... but the people using it for their atheistic means certainly do. Otherwise why even involve Science in the GOD-controversy?
It's like attempting to suggest that an ameoba is capable of defining and understanding the human experience; his consciousness, his essence - an impossible task. Likewise, science is wholly incapable of defining or even measuring the supernatural. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the scientific tools are capable of that...
Not necessarily... You will just find some other excuse not to believe in Him. Afterall, didn't you claim that everyone was in fact really worshiping the sun god?
"Only a fool says in his heart, there is no GOD..."
No, but we do know that biological complexity does not arise from chaos. A notion important enough to question the prevailing movement that suggests creation occured without the need for a Creator.
RG's entire schitck on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was one big rant that never addressed the actual controversy. For all the equations and math that his source 'derived' on the subject it failed to deliver the 'smoking gun' blow to the dissention...
For one, the order conveyed by biological molecules is hundreds, to thousands, of times more entropic than that of most other molecules. So while other highly ordered molecules are in fact produced through natural processes, biological molecules cannot be produced without biotic precursors... That 'natural' process simply doesn't exist (and in my belief never did). Hence experiments that have attempted to find this process (such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have only shown that human interaction is needed for them to succeed*. Hardly an argument in favor of abiogenesis.
RG's article also brought up the amazing structure of snowflakes as proof that order is produced from chaos... while complex, their fractal-like creation is the result of a simple phase change, impacted by the Brownian motion of vapor molecules condensing on the surface of the flake. Nevertheless, a snowflake's chemical structure does not contain any information that would drive the flake to produce any order of its own. Once they land, and under the melting influence of the sun or pressure, the crystals amalgamate to produce a solid piece of ice, or water... at you guessed it... a lower entropic state.
It also mentioned the formation of crystals that are produced when aqueous solutions are boiled. Sure, such crystals are highly ordered, but they too are the product of a simple change in state. The resulting crystalline structure, however, is formed at the lowest energy state available. In fact, the ionic energies which chemically fuel that physical transformation are but a mere wisp when compared to the energy stored in complex biological molecules. Like snowflakes, the information contained on these batch-created crystals doesn't convey any other directive. Say... like the surface of a CD, DVD or Bluray whose designed crystalline groves allow for the transmission of a higher-order 'message'.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "knowledge is power", or "information is is the key"? It applies to molecules as well. Their structures convey messages, perform functions and represent a purpose that is greater than their empirical breakdown alone. The prime example of this concept is 'embodied' by molecular strands of DNA and RNA. The codified information contained in strands of DNA and RNA is far more significant than the actual makeup of the atoms that form the genetic molecules to begin with. What's amazing is that this premise still stands despite the fact that the complexity of said structures is nothing to scoff at. Unfortunately, the day that science embraces this importance of this concept will likely never arrive.
BTW, If the author of that article had no agenda of his own, he would have also thrown the existence of polymers or alloys into the fray... but then he would have found himself questioning why the majority of those molecules aren't naturally occurring.
In anycase, the article then proceeded to name some biological examples of small-scale structures producing massive order (such as seeds and enzymes)...Apparently the author did not understand that the crux of the argument has always been abiogenesis; i.e. said biological examples could only exist after the event in question took place. Those examples, hence, cannot be used to make the argument; it would be akin to using a word to define itself. I mean he's using the simple fact that enzymes exist to suggest that the origin of their existence cannot be questioned...
Come again? Biological enzymes are created by DNA/RNA and sometimes even prionic molecules through the use of transcription/translation enzymes... The genetic code is always present. Without that code no driver exists for those molecules to be embodied with a purpose. Contrary to popular belief the basic Evolutionary theory does not address the origin of the code; it only addresses the mechanisms by which the code is changed and the phenotypical ramifications of those changes, as imparted on a population.
No credible, naturalistic scenario exists, however, where the code develops itself from scratch. It would be like wishing for letters to assemble themselves to form coherent phrases, sentences, and paragraphs to produce a book, complete with a plot, and a flowing story!!!! Now consider the fact that the genomes from even the smallest of biological organisms are comprised by millions of codified base pairs... how long would the first viable strand of genetic code have taken to form under such a purposeless process? Further still, what would have kept that first strand from immediately breaking down in the absence of stabilization enzymes??? Despite this severe flaw in logic, I'm supposed to blindly accept the fact that such a natural process occured sometime in our past, without evidence of its existence? What's worse is that the Evolutionary theory doesn't answer that origins riddle, even though some of its adherents certainly think it does...
On a side note, seeds are designed to produce order, and enzymes are designed to overcome entropic odds. I don't expect a Ford Truck to be assembled out of it's own accord if I acquired all the parts (steel, rubber, plastic etc...) and stored them in a cave (no matter if 4 billion years were allowed to pass by) If, however, I sent them to a truck assembly line no one would be surprised by the finished product... That's because automotive plants are designed to produce vehicles.
Anyways MH, for all of your supposed handle on the subject... your stated admission of hatred towards Christians precludes you from throwing the 'bias card' out there.
True, unfortunately there are many misguided scientists who are consumed by the GOD-question. And like I've stated repeatedly, the origins question cannot be settled by science.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-27-2009 at 02:41 PM.
So your own disbelief is based on what grounds???
Here's what I wrote above:
Swap out the word "establishing" with "justifying" and it's not like I've stated an incoherency....
This an argument that will go on forever for one simple reason. One of the most basic tenets of any religion is to have faith. One of the definitions of faith is to believe in something in the absence of proof. That's the ballgame right there. If you are truly religious a truly profess a faith in God, no amount of evidence to the contrary (or lack of evidence for) is going to sway you away from that. If your faith is strong enough, and for some it is, then you will actively try to find holes in the evidence that goes against what you believe.
For some of us, we have decided that the whole faith thing is overrated, and we base our outlook on the universe on evidence. What can we prove to be true? For us, the answers aren't in religion, they are in science. We wish to understand how the natural world works.
There is no smoking gun piece of evidence for evolution. There never will be. There are just a lot of pieces of evidence. When you put all of the pieces of evidence together, evolution is our best model for how life has formed over time. Darwin was not 100% right. Evolution is not 100% right. But Darwin was right about a few things, and he got us started on the right path. As we've learned things over the years, we've changed the model to incorporate those findings. When DNA was discovered and genetics took off, evolution was even more solidified. Evolution only becomes more accurate with time. Science is about learning, about discovering new things and about finding the truth of how the world works.
It's not everyone's cup of tea, I can understand that. And though religion isn't my cup of tea, I'll respect your right to worship however you choose and believe in whatever you choose. To argue that the evidence is against evolution however is a waste of time. It really just isn't. If you don't want to believe in it, that's ok. Just don't try to have creationism taught in science class.
As for not believing in evolution or creationism..... that's just being indifferent. Which is ok too I suppose. If you have an alternate theory or belief, I'm willing to listen, but I can't imagine what it is.
I was born and I'm here and that is all that matters to me. I'll be gone soon enough so who gives a rat's ass.
Speak for yourself.
I didn't think I was speaking for anybody else....
Do you have any specific objections to Darwin's work?
I don't but this guy may,
Why would Patrick Ewing have a problem with natural selection? He's probably a fairly good example. Some combination of his genes, or possibly even a mutation led to him being 7 feet tall. 7 feet tall at a time when basketball players could make millions of dollars and be all sorts of famous. This has led to him having a very successful life, instead of trying to scratch out a meager existence. He has passed on some of these successful genes to his son Patrick Ewing Jr. (Who isn't quite the ball player his father is, but is still much taller than the average human male)I don't but this guy may,
This is an example of passing positive random traits on to your offspring. The positive traits make it much more likely the Ewings will survive, and pass on their positive traits to more offspring.
It's a very simplistic view of natural selection, but it gets the rough gist of it across. Now, why would Mr. Ewing have a problem with that?
Hmm. Perhaps you are right.
I should rephrase:
Scientists have rebutted rather successfully every creationist critique that I am aware of.
Perhaps there are one or two that I am not aware of, or that are obscure enough to not make it onto that rather comprehensive list.
The only claim I have made is that evolutionary theory better explains observed phenomenon than any other competing theory.You go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. If anything; your self delusion of having single-handedly put this controversy to rest is laughable. You've done that on three occasions in this thread alone. Wow....
While you might find this statement arrogant or "patting yourself on the back", I simply stated my own observation.
If you were reasonably sure someone was lying to you, would you question their motives?So go ahead and pick on those who might not be 'smart' enough to explain their dissention... question their motives... but don't ridicule them for questioning those things which are unanswerable through science. Further still, don't step out and try to make claims that science itself has yet to define and settle... otherwise your own motives, and your own atheistic agenda are the ones taking centerstage... on a side note, having the 'landslide' support of other spurstalk members who share a similar mindset is little to rave about. Mob-mentality carries very little weight on such matters.
As for my "atheistic agenda":
Um, No. You know exactly about my religious beliefs, other than I don't buy biblical literalism and the young earth creationism that comes with it.
For all of your statements about my seeming self-righteousness, your own hypocrisy comes through rather crystal clear. You think you are better than the "atheists" and anybody who doesn't believe 100% identically to you is an atheist. GMAFB.
Yet another strawman. I never claimed God doesn't exist, or that evolution somehow disproves God. In fact, I went quite out of my way to fully make that distinction.Science cannot explain the unnatural... or the supernatural; particularly because the supernatural is not bound to the physical laws that define our universe. The very ones that Science attempts to explain. Hence to claim that Science can disprove GOD's existence is foolish at best. There is a gross mismatch of the tool and the task.
Are we ever going to be able to see the beginning of life again? No.And for the Umpteenth time... Science, by definition, cannot address the subject of origins (neither the cosmological event or the biological one is testable, repeatable, or for that matter even observable).
But evolutionary theory does predict that we will eventually find that simple organic molecules can self-replicate.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...catingrna.html
We take steps towards figuring out how exactly such molecules might work on a fairly regular basis.
Sooner or later, we will figure out a pretty close model as to how it is a fairly reasonable event to get such replication out of non-life under the right cir stances.
When we do the last real creationist "but it is too complex" will be whittled away. Irreducible complexity will forever be laid to rest as a failed idea.
Another distortion of what the website, or for that matter, what science itself says about it. There is a vast gap between explaining the how life began and explaining why.Hence your quoted source (and the very name of the link itself):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
fails to adhere to the very principles Science is trying to uphold. It is one of many arrogant attempts to settle controversies that lie outside of the capabilities of Science.
Why wait, if you are going to say something about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics too, go ahead, because I would be willing to bet that if you do, you will end up using the same tired old distortions of actual science that have been dragged up countless times in debates such as this.I mean, one of your quoted arguments against the use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as a deterrent to evolutionary principles was to claim that biological en ies (such as seeds) frequently overcome entropic hurdles to produce order where none exists. Really?
Since I am pretty sure that I know what it is and says, I don't see how you have a point, but maybe I am truly missing something. Illuminate me.
Once again:If you don't believe in GOD... fine. That is your perogative. Just don't ask me to buy the fact that you've reached that conclusion purely from the use of the scientific method.
Please don't assume you know what someone believes before you ask them.
For the record: I do believe in God. You will pardon me if my concept of what that is/should be is different than yours. If you keep saying I have some "atheist agenda", you will be making yourself into a liar AND a hypocrite.
Not that I can/want to stop you from being such, it is your perogative after all.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-02-2009 at 12:14 PM. Reason: removed pointless acrimony
Anyone notice how certain posters don't have the patients to have an adult debate?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...catingrna.html
Once again, you do make mention of that research, and rightly so. The self-reproducing enzymes here still need short segments of RNA.
I see what you are saying here. You are also still distorting what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is/says to make your case.
You do it in a more educated and erudite manner, but still do the same thing.
Before research like the link I quoted, people like you were saying that it was impossible for simple molecules to reproduce by themselves, and used that as the basis for your arguments. Lo and behold, they find organic, self-replicating molecules, and that schtick goes out the window, so you fall back another step.
As we learn more about the basics of organic chemistry, evolutionary theory says we will eventually find self-replicating molecules of a VERY basic type.
What will happen to your "it is still too impossible" critique when we do?
When we find how rather simple organic molecules can self-replicate, with or without RNA, what will you say then?
If we simulate the conditions present on the earth billions of year ago, and find that if you mix a common array of inorganic chemicals together, and find that not only is is possible, but it is PROBABLE that you end up getting self replicating molecules, and that those molecules CAN make more complicated self-replicating molecules,
What will your argument against evolutionary theory be then?
Ultimately, if God created the universe in such a way that life from inorganic chemicals was not only possible, but an eventual certainty, that makes evolution merely the tool that was used. We will ultimately have explained the how, which is all science really attempts to do.
God's existence or not doesn't depend on which tool he chooses. Anybody who says otherwise is blowing smoke.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-01-2009 at 07:54 PM.
Anyone notice that spelling is not one of mouse's strong suits?
I have plenty of patience, but when someone decides to make their case by assuming what I believe in order to talk down to me, as if that makes their case, I will NOT put up with that .
Call me what you will, but don't talk about what I believe or don't believe if you don't have clue one as to what those beliefs are.
Claiming that "evolutionists" claim that the pickup parts self-assembled into a truck "by chance" is a distortion that is used rather cleverly and commonly.
A better analogy for the Ford truck is:
If you have a planet with iron in the crust and some gaseous nitrogen atmosphere, you will eventually get wind that will pile some iron-rich ore into a pile. If the universe was put together in such a way that iron ore, and the other basic materials involved in a Ford truck would natually form into truck parts, the analogy might begin hold some water.
BUT
It doesn't. Ultimately the metaphor is itself a lie about what evolutionary science says. A clever turn of phrase to be sure, but it is still inaccurate at least, disingenuous at worst.
You people that are into Evolution seem to have a very strong passion and a relentless determination to prove your points.
I can only wonder what drives a person to do that on a daily bsisis?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions