Science cannot explain origins

[MRC_Hans]

Our intelligence CANNOT demonstrate creation of life, its impossible, but if it can (for the sake of the sorry atheist), it means the success of our intelligence improved, and this proves the higher intelligence exist.

Not correct; our intelligence has not yet demonstrated creation of life, but that doesnt mean its impossible. We are getting closer almost daily to understanding life.

The success of science DOES NOT prove "earthquake, tornado, wind, hurricane, and sunlight" created the life form, again success of science proves success of intelligence.

Therefore scientifically Higher intelligence exist. We call it "God", not "elves" not "giant purple squid monkey" "not toothfairy", but we call it "God", because we are mature.

I dont quite understand the first sentence, are you saying that science has not proved how life originated, but it has proved the success of intelligence? If so: Well, yes ---- and?

"Higher intelligence" is not neccessarily "Divine intelligence". You could easily imagine a being with much higher intelligence than a human, without that creature being in any way godly.

Life is ordered, complex, detailed, imagine the human body, how the heart functions, the brain, etc. and each creature have purpose. Carnivors, omnivors, etc. seasons, etc. A TRUE AND PERFECT DESIGN.
U can probably fill 1 million pages describing the ordered complexity of life.ANY DESIGN IMPLIES A DESIGNER. INTELLIGENCE IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE THECAUSE OF ANY DESIGNS, FROM BIOLOGICAL TO TECHNOLOGICAL. "CHANCE" HAS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER, AT ALL, NONE, NADA. GOT IT?

A million pages HAVE been filled describing that. And another million showing in details how it all evolved WITHOUT the interference of an intelligence. The word "design" implies a designer, but nature is not a design in that sense of the word. Anyway, this is just semantics, we cannot prove anything with semantics.

Hans

 

[muscleman]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Not correct; our intelligence has not yet demonstrated creation of life, but that doesnt mean its impossible. We are getting closer almost daily to understanding life.

Again relying on psychic phenomenon, I only rely on scientifical facts, not 1-800-Ipredict. WELL GOOD LUCK with hoping science can bring a dead person back to life even though they cant find a cure for cancer, meanwhile Ill hope u will realize that u r all blinded...And while u r trying to take God's place by creating a life form (like God) because yur PRIDE is so high, just to remind u, if i were u ill be prepared to meet someone who has done that already, i think u know him very well, in fact he is the one using u, his name is lucifer.

"Higher intelligence" is not neccessarily "Divine intelligence". You could easily imagine a being with much higher intelligence than a human, without that creature being in any way godly.

How can a being live over 1 billion years? hahahaaa...ohh.hhmm..? Creature? then again that implies a designer....hahahaha...ohh...hmm...Ill try to b quite and serious.



"And another million showing in details how it all evolved WITHOUT the interference of an intelligence."

ARE U ANOTHER FRENCHENEEZ? ARE U STUPID OR SOMETHING? LISTEN, A MILLION PAGES DESCRIBES HOW IT EVOLVED WITHOUT THE INTERFERENCE OF AN INTELLIGENCE...READ THAT AND ILL GIVE U ABOUT 5 MIN TO THINK ABOUT WHAT U JUST WROTE....(LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL). So who describes that? Scientist intelligence? hahahahahaha, O my God this is funny. Scientist intelligence gives the theory evolution evidence, though it only makes it more likely but not a fact, but it doesnt matter, the church accepts evolution and so do I.

Again thats already settled a long time ago, in fact the church teaches a divine intervention is a necessity in human nature, life.

God is the alpha and the omega, the beggining and the end. Things evolve, from the human brain, to even the church, thats unquestionably a fact. If theres anything u want to debate with me in proving your fathers church is right (satan's atheism), then u should debate with how the first life form to evolve exist, or any life forms. If u deal with that scientificly, U LOST, but if we deal with that in a psychic sense, that I lost, because Im not a psychic.


Hans

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by muscleman

...again success of science proves success of intelligence.

:bugeye:

I contest. You, muscleman, are disproof of intelligence.

~Raithere

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK, so you accept evolution, that was not clear from the beginning, but fine! So where exactly does your God come into the picture? He made the universe and the rules that eneabled life to come int oexistence and evolve? Fine, this may or may not be so, I cannot contest that. But what is the message you are conveying then?

Lucifer? If Lucifer exists, he is Gods creation too.

Hans

 

[Xelios]

"Again relying on psychic phenomenon, I only rely on scientifical facts"

roflmao!

"And while u r trying to take God's place by creating a life form (like God) because yur PRIDE is so high"

At least we keep our egos in check, unlike you.

"How can a being live over 1 billion years? "

Who's to say one can't? Nothing on Earth can, that's obvious, but whos to say there isn't life out there that could?

"reature? then again that implies a designer...."

God implies a designer too, God must have been created as well.

"If theres anything u want to debate with me in proving your fathers church is right (satan's atheism), "

You are implying that atheism is a religion. Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color.

" then u should debate with how the first life form to evolve exist, or any life forms. "

Thats what science is trying to figure out.....

"If u deal with that scientificly, U LOST, but if we deal with that in a psychic sense, that I lost, because Im not a psychic. "

No, if we deal with the question scientifically neither side lost, because we simply don't know yet how it happened.

 

[Ekimklaw]

Science... oh, science...

Science can do wonders for telling us why our teeth rot, but when it comes to origins... it fails like a paper condom.

-Mike

 

[MRC_Hans]

Uhhh, Mike, if you take it that way, then neither can religion.

Religion claims: God created life and the universe and life by divine power.

Science claims: The universe and life came into existence by processes we do not fully understand and may never fully understand.

If you a priori believe in God, the first claim may make sense, but if not, or if you believe that God works within the physical laws, religion has little to offer in the way of explanation.

Science, on the other hand, can supply a number of explanations that, while incomplete, at least fit observational data.

Hans

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Religion claims: God created life and the universe and life by divine power.

Science claims: The universe and life came into existence by processes we do not fully understand and may never fully understand.

When put like that, MRC, it puts the whole creation/evolution thing into perspective. One is complete, the other incomplete. One will always be, the other will never be.

or if you believe that God works within the physical laws,

Isn't it obvious that God can work within physical laws, as He is the Supreme Author of them, but is not bound by them.

....religion has little to offer in the way of explanation.

On the contrary, real religion offers a complete explanation, regarding creation, science offers, at best, hypothesis.

Science, on the other hand, can supply a number of explanations that, while incomplete, at least fit observational data.

Observational data of what though?
Science can say, to a small degree, what the building blocks of (physical) life are, but it has no idea of what life, itself is. The real prize is life.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[MRC_Hans]

When put like that, MRC, it puts the whole creation/evolution thing into perspective. One is complete, the other incomplete. One will always be, the other will never be.

Problem is -- correction: MY problem is, I dont find the religious answer complete. God created everyting using divine (=magic) powers --- to me thats really, what do you call it, a straw man? No disrespect meant, but basically its no different from saying: "The pink unicon sneezed and ----". Its just a statement that cannot be substantiated.

The observational view of the world is, we can follow a track, we can glimpse the goal. We may never reach it, but we can try.

If God created the universe, and I dont deny that possibility, he also created us with the ability to observe. Surely we were meant to use that ability?

Hans

 

[Xelios]

"When put like that, MRC, it puts the whole creation/evolution thing into perspective. One is complete, the other incomplete. One will always be, the other will never be. "

Problem is you can't do that. You can either approach both theories philosophically or scientifically, not both. Scientifically, evolution is the better theory, philosophically, creation is probably better. They can't be compared in the way you are attempting.

"On the contrary, real religion offers a complete explanation, regarding creation, science offers, at best, hypothesis. "

I can easily offer a complete explanation of our origins, the question is is it the right one?

"Observational data of what though? "

Of the universe. When we look at the universe we don't see things predicted by creationism, but we do see things predicted by the BB theory and Evolution.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Religion claims: God created life and the universe and life by divine power.
Science claims: The universe and life came into existence by processes we do not fully understand and may never fully understand.

When put like that, MRC, it puts the whole creation/evolution thing into perspective. One is complete, the other incomplete. One will always be, the other will never be.

Science: Admits ignorance where the truth is unknown.
Religion: Invents pretty stories in it's ignorance and pretends the stories are true.

Isn't it obvious that God can work within physical laws, as He is the Supreme Author of them, but is not bound by them.

The part that isn't obvious is the existence of God. Other than that, an imaginary being can have whatever imaginary powers you imagine it to have.

On the contrary, real religion offers a complete explanation, regarding creation, science offers, at best, hypothesis.

Proof?

Science can say, to a small degree, what the building blocks of (physical) life are, but it has no idea of what life, itself is. The real prize is life.

So what is life itself, according to "religion"? And is there any proof that the claim is true?

~Raithere

 

[spookz]

are we not better and smarter than god since we have improved the original design? doesnt designing stuff that is flawed make god somewhat of a halfwit? maybe he dropped out of school? had one too many swigs of kool aid?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I dont find the religious answer complete.

You should do, whether you believe or not. It is all there.

God created everyting using divine (=magic) powers --- to me thats really, what do you call it, a straw man?

God is divine, He created everything by His Will.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, there is no other credible explanation.

No disrespect meant, but basically its no different from saying: "The pink unicon sneezed and ----". Its just a statement that cannot be substantiated.

In the same way a baby perceives a car to be moving all by itself, until it develops knowledge and awareness, you are correct. However if you really make a point of “understanding” the scriptures, in the way you are meant to, you may just come to a different realisation.

The observational view of the world is, we can follow a track, we can glimpse the goal. We may never reach it, but we can try.

Yes, this is known as “ascending” knowledge, it may be fun and temporarily rewarding, but eventually, you waste your life searching for something you will never find.

If God created the universe, and I dont deny that possibility, he also created us with the ability to observe. Surely we were meant to use that ability?

Yes, to use the ability to come to the platform of God-consciousness.

Originally posted by Xelios
Problem is you can't do that.

The reality is that you can. You have to stop giving science this false credibility of being one day able to give answers to such questions as origin of life. It is nothing more than tool to extract certain aspects of knowledge, not all. The institutions of religion we see today, are non-sensical, as are the claims of some modern scientists. They have nothing to do with real religion or real science.

Scientifically, evolution is the better theory, philosophically, creation is probably better.

That is your opinion. In my opinion, the theory of evolution, is trick designed to fool the mass of people into becoming anti-God. In the Qur’an, Iblis (the satan) states that he will bring all but a few under his control, and it is happening right before our very eyes.

I can easily offer a complete explanation of our origins, the question is is it the right one?

The same can be said for everything, so there must be some mechanism inside us that can, at the right time, disciminate correctly.

Of the universe. When we look at the universe we don't see things predicted by creationism, but we do see things predicted by the BB theory and Evolution.

But you still don’t know anything about the origin of life or the universe, so what is the use of such data.
So you die knowing the sun is approximately 93 million miles away……big deal.
It is more benificial to learn how to sing, than to know how far away the sun is.

Originally posted by Raithere
Science: Admits ignorance where the truth is unknown.

True science, I agree.

Religion: Invents pretty stories in it's ignorance and pretends the stories are true.

Name one “pretty” story.

The part that isn't obvious is the existence of God. Other than that, an imaginary being can have whatever imaginary powers you imagine it to have.

The fact that you think God is imaginary, is your opinion, however, the explanations are there for everybody to form their opinions.

On the contrary, real religion offers a complete explanation, regarding creation, science offers, at best, hypothesis.

Proof?

Evolution of the species.

So what is life itself, according to "religion"? And is there any proof that the claim is true?

Life itself, is consciousness and awareness, it is described as “spirit,” the soul, the reservoir of life is the Supreme Spirit, commonly known as God.
There is proof that this claim is true, but it can only be understood through utalising our intelligence, it is an “axiomatic truth.”

Originally posted by spookz
are we not better and smarter than god since we have improved the original design?

In what way have we “improved” the design?

doesnt designing stuff that is flawed make god somewhat of a halfwit? maybe he dropped out of school? had one too many

This is what I mean about being tricked. You may sound impressive to your like-minded colleagues, but in the cold light of day, you are the half-wit who has had one too many.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[MRC_Hans]

God is divine, He created everything by His Will.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, there is no other credible explanation.

Life itself, is consciousness and awareness, it is described as “spirit,” the soul, the reservoir of life is the Supreme Spirit, commonly known as God.
There is proof that this claim is true, but it can only be understood through utalising our intelligence, it is an “axiomatic truth.”

What you are really saying is: It is true because I believe it and I believe it because its true.

An axiom is something we agree is thrue, but we dont agree that this is true.

As for Genesis as the only credible explanation, I could go on for some time about the inconsistencies and contradictions, but I'm sure you have heard all that before.

Hans

 

[Xelios]

"The reality is that you can. "

No, it's like comparing apples and oranges. One theory is based on science, the other philosophy. You cannot say that one gives a more complete or accurate account of what happened than the other, they are not comparable.

". You have to stop giving science this false credibility of being one day able to give answers to such questions as origin of life. "

I have the upmost confidence that science will answer how life arose. I admit it will not be able to answer exactly how the Big Bang started, that's a limitation of science.

"In my opinion, the theory of evolution, is trick designed to fool the mass of people into becoming anti-God. "

..... And I suppose you think it is the goal of all scientists to destroy other people's beliefs? Evidence and proof is not open to opinion, it doesn't matter if you think light travels at 1 m/s or 3x10^8m/s, the fact is it will travel at the latter no matter what you believe. This is true science.

"The same can be said for everything, so there must be some mechanism inside us that can, at the right time, disciminate correctly. "

The right one is the one that fits what we see, makes sense, is logical and is possible. I believe empiracle evidence will decide which theory is right, not an individual's opinion or feelings. Is there something wrong with this?

"But you still don’t know anything about the origin of life or the universe, so what is the use of such data. "

?? We know a ton about how we got here. We know how the Earth would have formed, how stars form, we know the universe started with a Big Bang event, the cause of which is irrelevant as it is outside of time. We know that life seems to have progressed smoothly over the millenia to what we see today. We know chimps are our direct ancestors. The only thing we don't know yet is how the initial life started on Earth and how the Big Bang started (the latter is a meaningless question, because time did not exist prior to the big bang).

"So you die knowing the sun is approximately 93 million miles away……big deal. "

And you die after spending your whole life trying to understand a being that doesn't even exist in this universe, big deal. But it doesn't matter, you choose to believe in something beyond this universe, I choose to study what lies in this universe. Your way of life is no better than mine, just as mine is no better than yours.

"It is more benificial to learn how to sing, than to know how far away the sun is. "

Says who? If you're going to compare the two then you should say it is more benificial to learn how to sing a single note than to know how far away the sun is, and I don't agree.

"Name one “pretty” story. "

How about the biblical flood? Healing blind people? Adam and Eve? Since there is nothing to say these are any more than stories they may as well be considered stories.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Name one “pretty” story.

Xelios already mentioned a few. There are also stories about God or one of his avatars appearing before people and talking to them in person, the dead rising from their graves. Nice little stories with absolutely nothing to lend any credence to them.

The fact that you think God is imaginary, is your opinion, however, the explanations are there for everybody to form their opinions.

So, how does one then determine which are correct?

Evolution of the species.

No. I was asking for proof of your comment "real religion offers a complete explanation, regarding creation"

What proof is there that the religious (and I might query as to which one) is correct.

Life itself, is consciousness and awareness, it is described as “spirit,” the soul, the reservoir of life is the Supreme Spirit, commonly known as God.

Life is consciousness and awareness. So when someone is in a coma or under anesthesia they are dead?

There is proof that this claim is true, but it can only be understood through utalising our intelligence, it is an “axiomatic truth.”

Since I (and many others) disagree that this concept is self-evident and it is obviously not universally accepted you'll need an argument. You labeling it an axiom does not make it so. An axiomatic truth is a statement such as "The whole is greater than the part." or "A circle is not a square.". What you're positing is not an axiom.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
What you are really saying is: It is true because I believe it and I believe it because its true.

Apologies.
What I meant was, consciousness is the symptom of life.
Life goes through various stages, it comes into being, grows, produces by-product, stays for some time, dwindles, then vanishes.
Why I think it is true, is not because I believe it so it must be, but because I observe this partly (thusfar) through myself and other things.
We can see that our bodies are changing, it has been observed that it is changing at every moment, due to the influence of time, but we ourselves do not change, we do not become different people at every moment, we are still recognizable as the same person.
When we see a dead body, it is still recognizable to those who knew the person (if not horribly mutilated or something), but we know that the person is no longer there, there is no consciousness (symptom of life), this is why we lament.

An axiom is something we agree is thrue, but we dont agree that this is true.

That is a fair comment, I thus withdraw my “it is an axiomatic truth” statement.

As for Genesis as the only credible explanation, I could go on for some time about the inconsistencies and contradictions, but I'm sure you have heard all that before.

Yes you are right, I have heard all that before, but always from only one perspective.
The explanation the genesis gives, i.e. God created the heavens and the earth etc, is the only credible explanation, but it is not only in the Bible that you will find this explanation. The idea that the god in the Bible is essentially different from the god in the Qur’an, is different from the god in the Vedas, is what, IMHO is wrong. So what is needed, is to get a complete picture, to have a discussion regarding genesis.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Xelios
..... And I suppose you think it is the goal of all scientists to destroy other people's beliefs?

Of course not, some scientists, at the cost of their reputation within the community, do not bow, to the increasing pressure, to teach adamantly, the theory of evolution, and a lot of them are in fact, atheists.

Evidence and proof is not open to opinion,

So, does “life come from life” fit into that rule?

I believe empiracle evidence will decide which theory is right, not an individual's opinion or feelings. Is there something wrong with this?

Is it as cut and dried as that though, what if an individual’s opinion or feelings are correct, why shouldn’t that be a deciding factor?
Are you saying we should accept nothing until it has been approved by science?

Originally posted by Raithere
Xelios already mentioned a few.

Oh yeah, the biblical flood, healing blind people, very “pretty.”

So, how does one then determine which are correct?

You have to use your own intelligence.

No. I was asking for proof of your comment "real religion offers a complete explanation, regarding creation"

Srimad Bhagavatam, for one.

What proof is there that the religious (and I might query as to which one) is correct.

What proof is their, that anyone is correct?
When it boils down to it, every individual has to make choices, some are good some are bad, but hopefully they learn from the mistakes.
Religion is education of the self and the super self (God), once you understand these two points (self-realisation), you develop your relationship with God. It is a personal thing.
The correct religion is one which teaches you to love God.

Life is consciousness and awareness. So when someone is in a coma or under anesthesia they are dead?

Read my reply to MRC.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Xelios
A more appropriate statement would be Science has yeilded many answers, but most of the time more questions come with them.*

Yopu seem to be unaware of the fact that if more questions follow then the "answers" are wrong, as they have been repeatedly proven to be.

*If telling yourself that over and over makes you more comfortable with your religion then more power to ya tony. Just goes to show how insecure you are about your beliefs.*

Playing Junior Psychologist, are we?
On the face of it, science has repeatedly proven its own answers wrong for thousands of years.
What that leaves me wondering about you is why you seem incapable of realizing that if all previous "scientific answers" have been proven wrong (by science!!), then all present "scientific answers" will be proven wrong by future science.

*Can religion explain why things fall to Earth? No? Then by your logic all of reigion can explain exactly nothing.*

Aside from the fact that you asked for only a single example, I'm not basing my position on any single datum provided by science.
Besides, science, FOR SURE, cannot explain why things fall to earth.
The best science can do with difficult questions like that is to describe the process and attempt to pass it off as an explanation.

*Originally posted by FunkyJuice
Sorry to but in Tony but just because science doesn't lay down a strict doctrine of what to believe such as "Thou shalt not (put in anything applicable)".. doesn't make science limited or even limit science....*

Cute, but the limitation of science is not the presence or absence of some doctrine, but the total absence of any reliable "answers," which are routinely proclaimed by pro-science types like Xelios, but with zero evidence of any such "answers."

*I think the fact that science asks questions is NOT condemning*

Questions are fine.
However, answers are what are required when questions are being asked.
Science is very short on answers.

*Originally posted by James R
Science is the best tool we have found so far for understanding the world we live in.*

Unless you can provide some corroborating evidence from some other method, besides the scientific method, of analyzing the universe we live in, you are committing a scientific faux-pas, namely, that you are assuming the scientific method works based on a single, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable guess.

IOW, you are basing your entire life on the following "scientific" principle: "I guess the scientific method works."

*Originally posted by Xelios
When we look at the universe we don't see things predicted by creationism, but we do see things predicted by the BB theory and Evolution.*

We DO actually see things predicted by creationism.
What we specifically do NOT see are things predicted, or even described, by evolutionism.
As for BB theory, since the earth was created, we would expect a beginning.
In the BB theory, the age of the universe is questionable, since some assumptions have been made concerning the invariability of the speed of light, among other things.

*Evidence and proof is not open to opinion, it doesn't matter if you think light travels at 1 m/s or 3x10^8m/s, the fact is it will travel at the latter no matter what you believe. This is true science. *

LOL!
That is exactly "true" science.
What was the speed of light 5000 years ago?
Provide examples.

*...Healing blind people? ... Since there is nothing to say these are any more than stories they may as well be considered stories.*

This happens today.
You could consider them "stories" if you want to.

 

[Xelios]

"So, does “life come from life” fit into that rule?"

Yup. And I know where you're getting at, just because life comes from life doesn't mean it can't possibly come from anywhere else too.

"Is it as cut and dried as that though, what if an individual’s opinion or feelings are correct, why shouldn’t that be a deciding factor? "

Because we have no way of telling if feelings or opinions are correct without evidence.

"Are you saying we should accept nothing until it has been approved by science? "

No, I'm saying science should not fully accept anything until it has been proven. And yes, this includes evolution.

"Oh yeah, the biblical flood, healing blind people, very “pretty.” "

I don't think he was using 'pretty' to describe how the stories make you feel...


Posted by tony1

"Yopu seem to be unaware of the fact that if more questions follow then the "answers" are wrong, as they have been repeatedly proven to be. "

That's not true and (I hope) you know it.

"What that leaves me wondering about you is why you seem incapable of realizing that if all previous "scientific answers" have been proven wrong (by science!!), then all present "scientific answers" will be proven wrong by future science. "

There are many many theories that have not been proven wrong. Most theories are not wrong, they simply need to be modified slightly as more information arises. Take Newtonian gravity for example. It's not completely wrong, but you have to work relativity into it as well. We still use Newtonian gravity to measure orbits of planets and so on. Most theories are simply improved on over time, not proven wrong.

"Besides, science, FOR SURE, cannot explain why things fall to earth. "

Gravity?

"The best science can do with difficult questions like that is to describe the process and attempt to pass it off as an explanation"

So you say gravity is simply the process and not the reason why? Did I miss something here? Where I come from saying space is curved around an object causing other objects to deviate from their paths is answering why and not how. Saying space is curved because of mass is answering the how.

"We DO actually see things predicted by creationism. "

Like what?

"What we specifically do NOT see are things predicted, or even described, by evolutionism. "

So I suppose we don't see fossils, or genetic lines, or common ancestors then? Could of fooled me.

"In the BB theory, the age of the universe is questionable, since some assumptions have been made concerning the invariability of the speed of light, among other things. "

The age of the universe is accepted to be around 15 billion years. Light speed only varies depending on the medium it is travelling through. It will travel slightly slower in water than it does in space for example. I suppose it's a good thing there aren't giant oceans in space to throw off our calculations.

"What was the speed of light 5000 years ago?
Provide examples. "

The same as it is now, take a look at red and blushifts of galaxies billions of light years away, they are exactly the magnitude predicted by a speed of light of 3.0x10^8m/s.

"This happens today.
You could consider them "stories" if you want to."

I haven't yet heard of someone smearing mud on a person's eye and healing their blindness.