My opinion is that god and gods where created to explain why everything happens. that they are a early form of scieance. but then it was built in with scieance and it hasn't left. The god theroy has been proven wrong many times by scieance, but it is a tradition now.
God:the early answer to a problem?
- Thread starter fusion4577
- Start date
what are the examples of god's existence being proved wrong by science?
Last edited:
The big bang theory, cloning, areas of scieance that have discussion on reproduction and the creation of man and matter
if abiogenesis remains a theoretical term and life is only seen to come from life, it's not clear how these arguments help your case
The mechanism of life is clearly not a mystical process, but one that involves blind and unconscious chemical reactions. You don't need to see abiogenesis happen to know that.
let's call a little theory of mine the "chance"
by chance an organic life fom was made on a planet in the remains of a supernova far away. it was bactrea. it multiplyed, and eventuly a comet blew up the planet and it was part of big enough chunks of rock that haddevolped thin thin layer of amostphere. it survived, and so on so forth
and besides, even if the bible has the "answers" it could be a false one to.
by chance an organic life fom was made on a planet in the remains of a supernova far away. it was bactrea. it multiplyed, and eventuly a comet blew up the planet and it was part of big enough chunks of rock that haddevolped thin thin layer of amostphere. it survived, and so on so forth
and besides, even if the bible has the "answers" it could be a false one to.
the bible and most religons are not open enough for new thought to aprove of these new discoveries, scieance is flexible enough to do so. 
I agree. Religion is an early form of science. It was a best guess given that they didn't know about genetics, microorganisms, lightning, diseases, mental illness, and many other things we now know.
if there is no experiment or phenomena observed of blind and unconscious chemicals coming together to form life, it's not clear what you are seeing exactly.
scieance can look into the formation a bit more, religon is more fixed
others, even scientists, disagreethe bible and most religons are not open enough for new thought to aprove of these new discoveries, scieance is flexible enough to do so.
Prof. J. Weizenbaum
As many have observed, modern science has become a religion, at least for Western man. Like other religions, it has a priesthood, roughly organized on hierarchical lines. It has temples, shrines, and rituals and it has a body of canons. And. like other religions, it has its own mythology. One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works.
In fact, some people have the same type of very deep faith in modern science that others do in their respective religions. This faith in science, grounded in its own dogma, leads to a defense of scientific theories far beyond the time any disconfirming evidence is unearthed. Moreover, disconfirming evidence is generally not incorporated into the body of science in an open-minded way but by an elaboration of the already existing edifice (as, for example, by adding epicycles) and generally in a way in which the resulting structure of science and its procedures excludes the possibility of putting the enterprise itself in jeopardy. In other words, modem science has made itself immune to falsification in any terms the true believer will admit into argument.
Perhaps modern science's most devastating effect is that it leads its believers to think it to be the only legitimate source of knowledge about the world. Being a high priest, if not a bishop, in the cathedral of modern science— my university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology —I can testify that a great many of what we sometimes like to call "the MIT family," faculty and students, believe that there is indeed no legitimate source of knowledge about the world other than modern science. This is as mistaken a belief as the belief that one cannot gain legitimate knowledge from anything other than religion. Both are equally false.
science (or more correctly, empiricism) works exclusively with the senses
that is the basis for its credibility
the moment you make a claim that is outside of sense perception in the name of science (like life arose out of unconscious chemicals for instance), you discard the credibility
It also works on making deductions and inferences from observation.
yes
technically they are called "theories" until such time as they can be practically shown to be true
It could just as easily be "Abiogenesis: the early answer to a problem?"
Last edited:
go visit an open casket funeral and see if you can spot any differences between the person in the casket and the people in the aisles
It seems like you regard scientific theories as a "best guess." Maybe you don't but in case you do I just want to say that scientific theories, especially old, heavily peer reviewed and tested ones are on essentially the same level as fact. They are an attempt to unify known facts and through this make predictions. In the case of the theory of evolution many many predictions have been made and have been proven correct. A good theory is not strong because of the evidence it has supporting it, it is strong because of the lack of evidence against it. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying
never encountered a dead bug before?
thankyou for your kind responseIt seems like you regard scientific theories as a "best guess." Maybe you don't but in case you do I just want to say that scientific theories, especially old, heavily peer reviewed and tested ones are on essentially the same level as fact. They are an attempt to unify known facts and through this make predictions. In the case of the theory of evolution many many predictions have been made and have been proven correct. A good theory is not strong because of the evidence it has supporting it, it is strong because of the lack of evidence against it. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying
Science prides itself on "getting the job done". In this reagard we are talking about abiogenesis.
Is abiogenesis falsifiable?
peer reviewed?
been the basis of any solid predictions?