Science cannot explain origins
- Thread starter Xelios
- Start date
Jan, Scientists are as diverse as all other people. They have all sorts of ideas. You can belive what you will, naturally. But to say that scientists as such dont really believe in revolution is nonsense. And to say that the reason science cannot explain everything because it leaves God out is also nonsense.
First of all, a large percentage of scientists are religious people, there is no contradiction between believing in God and exploring His handywork. It is, however, rare to find scientists that believe in Genesis taken literally, because even if science cannot explain everything, it is no problem to prove that Genesis cannot be taken at face value.
Religion cannot complete science, if we try that, we are just substituting one theory with another equally or even less substantiated theory. Religion can on the other hand supplement science. Whatever science can and will do, it will never be able to explain the MEANING of things, only religion can do that. Thus we can use science to find out HOW the world was created, but only religion can give us an idea of WHY.
I'm always puzzled at the animosity that some religious people feel against science, as if this is a struggle. The realization that God didnt just tinker around with one little planet, a few thousand animal species, some clay and a rib, but actually created an inifinite universe hardly makes things less awesome.
Hans
First of all, a large percentage of scientists are religious people, there is no contradiction between believing in God and exploring His handywork. It is, however, rare to find scientists that believe in Genesis taken literally, because even if science cannot explain everything, it is no problem to prove that Genesis cannot be taken at face value.
Religion cannot complete science, if we try that, we are just substituting one theory with another equally or even less substantiated theory. Religion can on the other hand supplement science. Whatever science can and will do, it will never be able to explain the MEANING of things, only religion can do that. Thus we can use science to find out HOW the world was created, but only religion can give us an idea of WHY.
I'm always puzzled at the animosity that some religious people feel against science, as if this is a struggle. The realization that God didnt just tinker around with one little planet, a few thousand animal species, some clay and a rib, but actually created an inifinite universe hardly makes things less awesome.
Hans
To be honest - I don't think science is supposed to explain anything. 'Explanation' is a discursive tool, combining theory with reality, while science is the study of reality, cause with effect, natural law with natural consequence. It has great value in describing physics and measurable phenomena, just like psychology attempts to measure and describe human experience.
Does psychology deny God? It has no business in denying God. Christian people are no different than other people. The same goes for physics, medicine, biology and all other branches of science. Physics perhaps comes closest to probing the boundaries between "tangible" reality and perception, and that is why the controversy culminates there. People use science as a weapon of reason, but it's a misuse.
To reason from the other side of the maze: If God wanted as many people as possible to be able to come to knowledge about Him, would He have chosen science as His "weapon of choice"? It is sometimes amusing to see how people attempt to use anything from quantum physics to philosophy to explain God away. As if advanced theories based on the latests facts would suddenly expose God for either existing or not existing. How would the destitute, the poor, blind and the illiterate of all time be able to get to know Him if science was the only 'real' way into knowledge? Even philosophy and ethics have little value to people with no hope. Only religion can give hope.
Like they say in business: your only worry should be, where's the money? I.e. where's the value? Even a religion has no value if it cannot offer real hope. The test of anything that supposes to be god is whether it can exist independently of science, philosophy, etc., and whether it offers hope and peace at the very core of a person at the most unstable and hostile of times. Even love fails if it comes only from one side.
Who are the champions of reason? The people supposed to come the closest to discovering God? Why isn't Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, or even Planck seen as beams of hope by all Christians? People who depend on the equations and theories of these scientists (even the select few who can do the mathematics themselves) will gladly jump to another champion if these claim the possibility of God (thanks for the wonderful quotes, Jan). Did Ghandi of Mother Theresa need M-theory or supersymmetry to demonstrate the miracle of love?
Are Tuareg nomads trekking through the Sahara worried about the virtues of a vegetarian diet? The Israelites had no wealth except cattle and sheep. They had nothing to offer God except that, but in modern society animal sacrifice is butchery, indicating a cruel God. This is the only God in ancient times who did not expect human sacrifice - The story of Isaac was to demonstrate this, He described love and mercy by example.
Science describes. People explain. Science can't describe God and people can't explain Him. Science tries to minimise the human factor as far as possible. It's a variable that gives unpredicatble results, and human error is a scientist's worst nightmare. Science doesn't forgive mistakes. How can you measure forgiveness or prove patience?
Does psychology deny God? It has no business in denying God. Christian people are no different than other people. The same goes for physics, medicine, biology and all other branches of science. Physics perhaps comes closest to probing the boundaries between "tangible" reality and perception, and that is why the controversy culminates there. People use science as a weapon of reason, but it's a misuse.
To reason from the other side of the maze: If God wanted as many people as possible to be able to come to knowledge about Him, would He have chosen science as His "weapon of choice"? It is sometimes amusing to see how people attempt to use anything from quantum physics to philosophy to explain God away. As if advanced theories based on the latests facts would suddenly expose God for either existing or not existing. How would the destitute, the poor, blind and the illiterate of all time be able to get to know Him if science was the only 'real' way into knowledge? Even philosophy and ethics have little value to people with no hope. Only religion can give hope.
Like they say in business: your only worry should be, where's the money? I.e. where's the value? Even a religion has no value if it cannot offer real hope. The test of anything that supposes to be god is whether it can exist independently of science, philosophy, etc., and whether it offers hope and peace at the very core of a person at the most unstable and hostile of times. Even love fails if it comes only from one side.
Who are the champions of reason? The people supposed to come the closest to discovering God? Why isn't Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, or even Planck seen as beams of hope by all Christians? People who depend on the equations and theories of these scientists (even the select few who can do the mathematics themselves) will gladly jump to another champion if these claim the possibility of God (thanks for the wonderful quotes, Jan). Did Ghandi of Mother Theresa need M-theory or supersymmetry to demonstrate the miracle of love?
Are Tuareg nomads trekking through the Sahara worried about the virtues of a vegetarian diet? The Israelites had no wealth except cattle and sheep. They had nothing to offer God except that, but in modern society animal sacrifice is butchery, indicating a cruel God. This is the only God in ancient times who did not expect human sacrifice - The story of Isaac was to demonstrate this, He described love and mercy by example.
Science describes. People explain. Science can't describe God and people can't explain Him. Science tries to minimise the human factor as far as possible. It's a variable that gives unpredicatble results, and human error is a scientist's worst nightmare. Science doesn't forgive mistakes. How can you measure forgiveness or prove patience?
Last edited:
"Well, unless you have any evidence to the contrary, aren’t you compelled, by the laws of science to believe that life comes from life? "
The laws of science do not include supernatural beings existing outside of our universe snapping his fingers to produce life.
"That may be so, but it does not alter whether something is true or not. "
No, but that's irrelevant because we have no way of knowing if something is true without evidence.
"Then why did he use the word, in your opinion?"
You'll have to ask him.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429. "
Lets see, the last one is a whole century out of date, the middle one is 40 years out of date and the top one simply that guy's opinion because there has been no experimental evidence to support creationism. Unless you can give me reference to an experiment that does.
The laws of science do not include supernatural beings existing outside of our universe snapping his fingers to produce life.
"That may be so, but it does not alter whether something is true or not. "
No, but that's irrelevant because we have no way of knowing if something is true without evidence.
"Then why did he use the word, in your opinion?"
You'll have to ask him.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429. "
Lets see, the last one is a whole century out of date, the middle one is 40 years out of date and the top one simply that guy's opinion because there has been no experimental evidence to support creationism. Unless you can give me reference to an experiment that does.
I'm always puzzled at the animosity that some religious people feel against science, as if this is a struggle. The realization that God didnt just tinker around with one little planet, a few thousand animal species, some clay and a rib, but actually created an inifinite universe hardly makes things less awesome.
Well said.
However, I find it even more awe-inspiring to believe that the beauty of the universe all around us occurred naturally, and what mankind has accomplished in the very short time it's been here is totally credited to it alone, and doesn't need some overlooking god to make it possible.
- Jaxom
Well said.
However, I find it even more awe-inspiring to believe that the beauty of the universe all around us occurred naturally, and what mankind has accomplished in the very short time it's been here is totally credited to it alone, and doesn't need some overlooking god to make it possible.
- Jaxom
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
And to say that the reason science cannot explain everything because it leaves God out is also nonsense.
Not just anything, the origin of life.
It is, however, rare to find scientists that believe in Genesis taken literally, because even if science cannot explain everything, it is no problem to prove that Genesis cannot be taken at face value.
From a scientific perspective though, yeah?
I'm always puzzled at the animosity that some religious people feel against science, as if this is a struggle.
I don’t think any theist here, feels animosity against science, science has its place, as you have pointed out. But science teaches (to the vunerable), life comes from matter. This is an out and out lie.
The realization that God didnt just tinker around with one little planet, a few thousand animal species, some clay and a rib, but actually created an inifinite universe hardly makes things less awesome.
???
Originally posted by Xelios
The laws of science do not include supernatural beings existing outside of our universe snapping his fingers to produce life.
But the laws of science does include life (as scientists are alive), which from the scientists point of view, must be super-natural, as they have not a single clue as to what it is, or how it came into being, what its mechanism is, etc, wouldn’t you say?
And if it includes life, then the next stage must be to find out the source of that life, yeah?
Now, if that is the case, they can see that life “only” comes from life, yeah?
So why do they stick to a, way out of the ball park notion, that life comes from nothing? :bugeye:
No, but that's irrelevant because we have no way of knowing if something is true without evidence.
But that is not my point. If you or I do not know a truth, because we have not, as yet experienced or observed it, but somebody else has, it is still a truth, the fact that it has not be “proven” by some guys in white coats does not make it any different.
You'll have to ask him.
Well I thought I’d ask you, seeing as you brought it up.
Lets see, the last one is a whole century out of date, the middle one is 40 years out of date and the top one simply that guy's opinion because there has been no experimental evidence to support creationism. Unless you can give me reference to an experiment that does.
The failed Stanley Miller experiment, occurred almost 50 years ago, but it doesn’t stop people reffering to it as proof of evolution.
Originally posted by Jaxom
….and what mankind has accomplished in the very short time it's been here is totally credited to it alone, and doesn't need some overlooking god to make it possible.
How do you know God didn’t create not only the earth, but mankind as well?
How do you know He didn’t inspire men to perform great tasks?
And what makes you think His role is only one of an overlooker?
What do you know?
So many questions?
Love
Jan Ardena.
"But the laws of science does include life (as scientists are alive), which from the scientists point of view, must be super-natural, as they have not a single clue as to what it is, or how it came into being, what its mechanism is, etc, wouldn’t you say? "
Not at all. Just because science cannot currently explain it doesn't mean it is a mechanism above nature, it simply means we have not yet developed the tools or knowledge to examine it.
"So why do they stick to a, way out of the ball park notion, that life comes from nothing? "
No one is saying life comes from nothing.
"If you or I do not know a truth, because we have not, as yet experienced or observed it, but somebody else has, it is still a truth, the fact that it has not be “proven” by some guys in white coats does not make it any different. "
If the world were this way then everyone could claim anything is truth and you know that. I could claim to have seen a talking elephant and there would be nothing to say I'm lying. Evidence is what seperates truth from untruth, not feelings or individual emotions. If we lived by what you are describing the world would be absolute chaos, there would no longer be such thing as truth because truth would truely be in the eye of the beholder.
"The failed Stanley Miller experiment, occurred almost 50 years ago, but it doesn’t stop people reffering to it as proof of evolution. "
Can you perform the same experiment today with the same results? If you can and those results can still be applied to the modern theory of evolution then it is still valid. However opinions based on theories that are now 100 years out of date are completely invalid. Evolution has changed much in the last century.
Not at all. Just because science cannot currently explain it doesn't mean it is a mechanism above nature, it simply means we have not yet developed the tools or knowledge to examine it.
"So why do they stick to a, way out of the ball park notion, that life comes from nothing? "
No one is saying life comes from nothing.
"If you or I do not know a truth, because we have not, as yet experienced or observed it, but somebody else has, it is still a truth, the fact that it has not be “proven” by some guys in white coats does not make it any different. "
If the world were this way then everyone could claim anything is truth and you know that. I could claim to have seen a talking elephant and there would be nothing to say I'm lying. Evidence is what seperates truth from untruth, not feelings or individual emotions. If we lived by what you are describing the world would be absolute chaos, there would no longer be such thing as truth because truth would truely be in the eye of the beholder.
"The failed Stanley Miller experiment, occurred almost 50 years ago, but it doesn’t stop people reffering to it as proof of evolution. "
Can you perform the same experiment today with the same results? If you can and those results can still be applied to the modern theory of evolution then it is still valid. However opinions based on theories that are now 100 years out of date are completely invalid. Evolution has changed much in the last century.
Last edited:
"But it could also mean it is above nature, right? "
It could, but the much more likely circumstance is that is isn't.
"So you have so much faith in future science, that you don't even consider for a moment, that their is a "spiritual" element to the origin of life? "
I consider every theory. Including God. I have considered God, I have been to Sunday school and Church. I used to go to church every week. However it's been my experience that religion (at least Christianity) is nothing more than wishful thinking.
"What about the BB theory, you say that it may not have had a cause, therefore it came out of nothing and from that life was formed. It is the same thing. "
I never said it came from nothing. I said it had no cause. Asking where or what it came from is like asking what is 100 miles north of the north pole.
"Isn't that whats happening? "
To a point. Thankfully we have science to seperate truth from fiction. Like it or not, that is what it does.
"Is there evidence to prove someone love you?"
Yes. Anyone can say they love you, but that is only shown through their actions. Their actions are the evidence, as well as their brain waves and chemical reactions when they see you, that sort of thing. I could say I love you, while in actuality I hate you. This is not the case, but it's an example.
"How do you know the world isn't in absolute chaos because we don't think like that? "
Because there is order in our world. Laws are one example of this, and courts of law are based on (guess what) evidence, not feelings or opinions.
"How can there not be truth?
Truth can only be in the eye of the beholder. "
Can it? If someone were to claim 2+2=6 would that be truth? No, the universal truth would be that 2+2=4, any other answer is false. In the same way evidence shows which answer is true and which are not. Without this system of evidence anyone's crackpot theory has to be taken as true, and science, law, mathematics and suchlike would not exist.
It could, but the much more likely circumstance is that is isn't.
"So you have so much faith in future science, that you don't even consider for a moment, that their is a "spiritual" element to the origin of life? "
I consider every theory. Including God. I have considered God, I have been to Sunday school and Church. I used to go to church every week. However it's been my experience that religion (at least Christianity) is nothing more than wishful thinking.
"What about the BB theory, you say that it may not have had a cause, therefore it came out of nothing and from that life was formed. It is the same thing. "
I never said it came from nothing. I said it had no cause. Asking where or what it came from is like asking what is 100 miles north of the north pole.
"Isn't that whats happening? "
To a point. Thankfully we have science to seperate truth from fiction. Like it or not, that is what it does.
"Is there evidence to prove someone love you?"
Yes. Anyone can say they love you, but that is only shown through their actions. Their actions are the evidence, as well as their brain waves and chemical reactions when they see you, that sort of thing. I could say I love you, while in actuality I hate you. This is not the case, but it's an example.
"How do you know the world isn't in absolute chaos because we don't think like that? "
Because there is order in our world. Laws are one example of this, and courts of law are based on (guess what) evidence, not feelings or opinions.
"How can there not be truth?
Truth can only be in the eye of the beholder. "
Can it? If someone were to claim 2+2=6 would that be truth? No, the universal truth would be that 2+2=4, any other answer is false. In the same way evidence shows which answer is true and which are not. Without this system of evidence anyone's crackpot theory has to be taken as true, and science, law, mathematics and suchlike would not exist.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
You have to use your own intelligence.
Not much of an answer there. Are you suggesting the use of reason and logic, or empirical evidence, or emotion and feelings, or guessing, or the i ching, or subjective experience... etc. etc. etc.?
Srimad Bhagavatam, for one.
The story of Krishna is proof? How so? Why not "James and the Giant Peach"?
What proof is their, that anyone is correct?
I depends on the concept you're trying to prove true or false. There are some things that are axiomatic. That is, you cannot understand them to be false. Such as 2+2=4 and "the whole is greater than the part". There are other concepts that can be proven logically. Empirical evidence is also usually a good indicator of truth. Truth is correspondence with reality. Thus an idea is true if it corresponds with reality.
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.
So you're saying it's entirely subjective? The why posit it as truth? How can you make an objective assertion from purely subjective experience?
The correct religion is one which teaches you to love God.
And what if you love God without having to be taught? Or what if God is not worthy of love?
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.
But the determination that although something (or someone) may change it is "the same thing" is based purely upon observational evidence. We know, though empirical evidence that a person changes, yet is the same person and we apply this assumption quite freely but it is an assumption. What if a friend were abducted and altered, his personality and memory were changed through radical procedures, skin tone, bone structure, eye color, etc. were all changed. When next you met this person you would have no idea it was the same person. Or what if the friend were abducted and duplicated, cell by cell, personality, memory, everything... so that there was an exact duplicate. When you met the duplicate you would have no idea it was a different being.
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.
A person is more than a body. Yes, I agree to this. A person is a mind, personality, experience, memory, etc. and when the person dies all of these things that made it more than a slab of meat is gone. But life is not these things. If one were to bring life back to the corpse but without these things would we consider it to be the same person? What if the body were functioning but the mind ceased to function on any but the most basic autonomic level? What you are referring to is no life.
~Raithere
You have to use your own intelligence.
Not much of an answer there. Are you suggesting the use of reason and logic, or empirical evidence, or emotion and feelings, or guessing, or the i ching, or subjective experience... etc. etc. etc.?
Srimad Bhagavatam, for one.
The story of Krishna is proof? How so? Why not "James and the Giant Peach"?
What proof is their, that anyone is correct?
I depends on the concept you're trying to prove true or false. There are some things that are axiomatic. That is, you cannot understand them to be false. Such as 2+2=4 and "the whole is greater than the part". There are other concepts that can be proven logically. Empirical evidence is also usually a good indicator of truth. Truth is correspondence with reality. Thus an idea is true if it corresponds with reality.
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.
So you're saying it's entirely subjective? The why posit it as truth? How can you make an objective assertion from purely subjective experience?
The correct religion is one which teaches you to love God.
And what if you love God without having to be taught? Or what if God is not worthy of love?
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.
But the determination that although something (or someone) may change it is "the same thing" is based purely upon observational evidence. We know, though empirical evidence that a person changes, yet is the same person and we apply this assumption quite freely but it is an assumption. What if a friend were abducted and altered, his personality and memory were changed through radical procedures, skin tone, bone structure, eye color, etc. were all changed. When next you met this person you would have no idea it was the same person. Or what if the friend were abducted and duplicated, cell by cell, personality, memory, everything... so that there was an exact duplicate. When you met the duplicate you would have no idea it was a different being.
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.
A person is more than a body. Yes, I agree to this. A person is a mind, personality, experience, memory, etc. and when the person dies all of these things that made it more than a slab of meat is gone. But life is not these things. If one were to bring life back to the corpse but without these things would we consider it to be the same person? What if the body were functioning but the mind ceased to function on any but the most basic autonomic level? What you are referring to is no life.
~Raithere
Originally posted by Jenyar
To reason from the other side of the maze: If God wanted as many people as possible to be able to come to knowledge about Him, would He have chosen science as His "weapon of choice"? It is sometimes amusing to see how people attempt to use anything from quantum physics to philosophy to explain God away.
But science does help to eliminate religious misconceptions such as a geocentric universe, a perfectly ordered universe ("no rocks in the sky"), the story of genesis as a literal truth.
How would the destitute, the poor, blind and the illiterate of all time be able to get to know Him if science was the only 'real' way into knowledge? Even philosophy and ethics have little value to people with no hope. Only religion can give hope.
But now you're speaking to the psychological value of religion, which is a far cry from assessing it's truth. And "only religion can give hope" seems a bit assumptive. Having religion didn't free the slaves in America, it took the effort of others.
The test of anything that supposes to be god is whether it can exist independently of science, philosophy, etc., and whether it offers hope and peace at the very core of a person at the most unstable and hostile of times.
But what if it's false hope? What if people bide their time waiting for a false hope when they might be making an effort to improve things now. And please don't tell me that many people don't do this. It is compassion and action that is needed not dreams of something better.
Did Ghandi of Mother Theresa need M-theory or supersymmetry to demonstrate the miracle of love?
Of course not. Just as I don't need a theory of god to demonstrate love.
Science describes. People explain. Science can't describe God and people can't explain Him.
Science can't describe God because there's nothing to test or experiment with. Every religious "truth" that science has been able to address has failed (see some examples above)... this "cutting away" has only been going on a short while. And it is religion, not science, that has had to adapt to the truth. Until we get to a definition of God that is simply untestable and no longer falls into the realm of science.
Science tries to minimise the human factor as far as possible. It's a variable that gives unpredicatble results, and human error is a scientist's worst nightmare.
Actually, science tries to eliminate all variables except the ones being examined. This is simply logical.
How can you measure forgiveness or prove patience?
Forgiveness is subjective and emotive and not currently measurable.
But I might prove patience (or at lease measure it) by testing how long a person endures frustration or irritation.
~Raitehre
To reason from the other side of the maze: If God wanted as many people as possible to be able to come to knowledge about Him, would He have chosen science as His "weapon of choice"? It is sometimes amusing to see how people attempt to use anything from quantum physics to philosophy to explain God away.
But science does help to eliminate religious misconceptions such as a geocentric universe, a perfectly ordered universe ("no rocks in the sky"), the story of genesis as a literal truth.
How would the destitute, the poor, blind and the illiterate of all time be able to get to know Him if science was the only 'real' way into knowledge? Even philosophy and ethics have little value to people with no hope. Only religion can give hope.
But now you're speaking to the psychological value of religion, which is a far cry from assessing it's truth. And "only religion can give hope" seems a bit assumptive. Having religion didn't free the slaves in America, it took the effort of others.
The test of anything that supposes to be god is whether it can exist independently of science, philosophy, etc., and whether it offers hope and peace at the very core of a person at the most unstable and hostile of times.
But what if it's false hope? What if people bide their time waiting for a false hope when they might be making an effort to improve things now. And please don't tell me that many people don't do this. It is compassion and action that is needed not dreams of something better.
Did Ghandi of Mother Theresa need M-theory or supersymmetry to demonstrate the miracle of love?
Of course not. Just as I don't need a theory of god to demonstrate love.
Science describes. People explain. Science can't describe God and people can't explain Him.
Science can't describe God because there's nothing to test or experiment with. Every religious "truth" that science has been able to address has failed (see some examples above)... this "cutting away" has only been going on a short while. And it is religion, not science, that has had to adapt to the truth. Until we get to a definition of God that is simply untestable and no longer falls into the realm of science.
Science tries to minimise the human factor as far as possible. It's a variable that gives unpredicatble results, and human error is a scientist's worst nightmare.
Actually, science tries to eliminate all variables except the ones being examined. This is simply logical.
How can you measure forgiveness or prove patience?
Forgiveness is subjective and emotive and not currently measurable.
But I might prove patience (or at lease measure it) by testing how long a person endures frustration or irritation.
~Raitehre
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
But science teaches (to the vunerable), life comes from matter. This is an out and out lie.
It is unproven (but gaining in evidence), not an "out and out lie". But I love how you attack Abiogenesis as a lie because it has yet to be proven when you support a "hypothesis" for which there is no evidence what-so-ever.
But the laws of science does include life (as scientists are alive), which from the scientists point of view, must be super-natural,
This statement makes no sense. What about science is "supernatural"?
as they have not a single clue as to what it is, or how it came into being, what its mechanism is, etc, wouldn’t you say?
Do some reading... science has a good handle on what life is and what it's mechanisms are. And has some good theories about how it came into being. As opposed to what? Where is your proof for creation? Where is your evidence of the "super natural"?
Now, if that is the case, they can see that life “only” comes from life, yeah?
So why do they stick to a, way out of the ball park notion, that life comes from nothing?
As opposed to life comes from some imagined being of which we have no proof? You argument from the observation that "life comes from life" falls flat on it's face, Jan. All you have evidence is that biological life comes from biological life... where is your proof that "supernatural life" can create life? Any evidence at all? Care to conjure a creature from nothing by praying to God? No? Okay then... nuff said.
The failed Stanley Miller experiment, occurred almost 50 years ago, but it doesn’t stop people reffering to it as proof of evolution.
IT DIDN'T FAIL. How many times to you have to be told? The object was not to create life in a test-tube, the object of the experiment was to prove that amino-acids would develop through natural processes... and it succeeded. This isn't ignorance on your part anymore it's pathetic and deliberate refusal to accept that someone might know something you don't.
~Raithere
But science teaches (to the vunerable), life comes from matter. This is an out and out lie.
It is unproven (but gaining in evidence), not an "out and out lie". But I love how you attack Abiogenesis as a lie because it has yet to be proven when you support a "hypothesis" for which there is no evidence what-so-ever.
But the laws of science does include life (as scientists are alive), which from the scientists point of view, must be super-natural,
This statement makes no sense. What about science is "supernatural"?
as they have not a single clue as to what it is, or how it came into being, what its mechanism is, etc, wouldn’t you say?
Do some reading... science has a good handle on what life is and what it's mechanisms are. And has some good theories about how it came into being. As opposed to what? Where is your proof for creation? Where is your evidence of the "super natural"?
Now, if that is the case, they can see that life “only” comes from life, yeah?
So why do they stick to a, way out of the ball park notion, that life comes from nothing?
As opposed to life comes from some imagined being of which we have no proof? You argument from the observation that "life comes from life" falls flat on it's face, Jan. All you have evidence is that biological life comes from biological life... where is your proof that "supernatural life" can create life? Any evidence at all? Care to conjure a creature from nothing by praying to God? No? Okay then... nuff said.
The failed Stanley Miller experiment, occurred almost 50 years ago, but it doesn’t stop people reffering to it as proof of evolution.
IT DIDN'T FAIL. How many times to you have to be told? The object was not to create life in a test-tube, the object of the experiment was to prove that amino-acids would develop through natural processes... and it succeeded. This isn't ignorance on your part anymore it's pathetic and deliberate refusal to accept that someone might know something you don't.
~Raithere
"IT DIDN'T FAIL. How many times to you have to be told? The object was not to create life in a test-tube, the object of the experiment was to prove that amino-acids would develop through natural processes... and it succeeded. This isn't ignorance on your part anymore it's pathetic and deliberate refusal to accept that someone might know something you don't. "
Ah, that's what this experiment was. I was pretty sure it was the one involving amino acids and electricity, but I didn't want to say if I wasn't sure.
Ah, that's what this experiment was. I was pretty sure it was the one involving amino acids and electricity, but I didn't want to say if I wasn't sure.
Thanks Raithere
I think your post is a good example of science and religion going parallel without having to eat each other. Science and religion are two ways of describing the same thing: reality. They should complement each other. In my view, God wouldn't have created things as they are and then contradict himself. It is people who contradict each other. Even though God created the universe, science might find out how. Why not?
People might say mountain don't move. Then geology says mountains don't fly, but they do move. Then physics says flying is relative. Gravitational fields are more accurate. In that sense we are all flying, just with a different mass. Why shouldn't the rest of science be relative as well? Indeed, multiple dimensions are needed to explain even this one sufficiently.
Visit the Superstring theory website
Just one thing: don't you think the slaves might have prayed for their release? Why are African-American churches some of the most alive and active churches in the world?
I think your post is a good example of science and religion going parallel without having to eat each other. Science and religion are two ways of describing the same thing: reality. They should complement each other. In my view, God wouldn't have created things as they are and then contradict himself. It is people who contradict each other. Even though God created the universe, science might find out how. Why not?
People might say mountain don't move. Then geology says mountains don't fly, but they do move. Then physics says flying is relative. Gravitational fields are more accurate. In that sense we are all flying, just with a different mass. Why shouldn't the rest of science be relative as well? Indeed, multiple dimensions are needed to explain even this one sufficiently.
Visit the Superstring theory website
Just one thing: don't you think the slaves might have prayed for their release? Why are African-American churches some of the most alive and active churches in the world?
Jan:
Actually, simple logic is enough.
No, Jan it is not a lie. It is contrary to your beliefs, yes, but that does not make it a lie. Actually, I find it a little bit arrogant to dismiss the hard and meticous work of generations of scientists as simple lies, on the basis that it does no fit your beliefs.
Hans
Actually, simple logic is enough.
No, Jan it is not a lie. It is contrary to your beliefs, yes, but that does not make it a lie. Actually, I find it a little bit arrogant to dismiss the hard and meticous work of generations of scientists as simple lies, on the basis that it does no fit your beliefs.
Hans
Hans? Where did science ever prove or demonstrate life comes from matter? Yes life is carried by matter - you would be a ghost of you didn't have a material body (whether ghosts are real or alive is a story for another day). You don't even know why you are conscious, not to mention alive.
By the way - how does one prove or even measure creativity scientifically? Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does it perhaps fall outside the realm of science?
By the way - how does one prove or even measure creativity scientifically? Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does it perhaps fall outside the realm of science?
Science and religion are two ways of describing the same thing: reality
That would depend on whose reality you're referring. Religion, in my reality for example, is fantasy, while science, in your reality for example, is fantasy. Both of our views on reality are completely different. However, one of these realities is based on faith while the other is based on fact.
Therefore, only one view of reality can be valid.
That would depend on whose reality you're referring. Religion, in my reality for example, is fantasy, while science, in your reality for example, is fantasy. Both of our views on reality are completely different. However, one of these realities is based on faith while the other is based on fact.
Therefore, only one view of reality can be valid.