The vicious circle of religion.

[KilljoyKlown]

What go that far , on how heavy elements were made. We don't know If God is an very advanced being and reside in some planet in some distant galaxy .
Why overflow to invoke something to far removed

Sorry I was assuming the standard definition of God in the broadest sense. Anyway given that humans lie a lot to influence others, why should I believe in made up bullshit? If there was an all powerful God that wanted me to know that he existed and that I should live by his rules, all he has to do is ask. Damn, I've never been asked.

 

[arauca]

I should live by his rules, all he has to do is ask. Damn, I've never been asked.

I don't understand the last part " Damn, I've never been asked."

 

[lightgigantic]

Reductionism actually works because it led to the discovery of the fundamental units of both life (cells, DNA) and matter (atoms, quarks).

and its precisely because no one can provide a working model for life in the language of dna matter and quarks that abiogenesis remains a theoretical concept.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

I think you are correct.

Then why talk about what is excluded in the creation of the universe

What has that got to do with anything? I like the fact that we still don't know it all.

yet you just let rip with statements tot he contrary ...

When a star creates heavy elements that doesn't require a God

however our universe was created was also natural and didn't require a God

etc etc

I just don't see how that means I should believe in God.

I didn't present it as a means for you to believe in god

I presented it as means to point out how you are over-stepping the credibility of the knowledge base of science

By the way which God do you believe in?

as maintainer, sustainer and ultimately destroyer

I would guess Christian and then ask why that one? Let me guess, you were brought up that way.

wrong on all counts

I don't see what my personal approach to religion has to do with the manner you incorrectly borrow from the credibility of science to inflate your arguments

 

[Aqueous Id]

When a star creates heavy elements that doesn't require a God, and however our universe was created was also natural and didn't require a God. Whatever you believe about God is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay...etc. all the way back to superstitious primitive people and for some reason you want to believe in that shit.

I liked this because it reminded me of Thomas Paine:

When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

I also like the remark about heavy elements being created in stars, since creationists seem to not be aware of this, at least it never seems to come up in the fundamentalist attacks on science.

 

[arauca]

I liked this because it reminded me of Thomas Paine:



I also like the remark about heavy elements being created in stars, since creationists seem to not be aware of this, at least it never seems to come up in the fundamentalist attacks on science.

Perhaps you are not familiar , many pf are familiar , so don't overestimate your knowledge. because you can get embarrassed

 

[aaqucnaona]

Evolution requires a formed cell.

How long did it take us Identify DNA, 120000 years or more . Do we know how old is the universe 13,7 B years , what about before B.B.

There is no before the big bang. Time and space both were created from a singularity at that instant. There was no time before big bang just like there was no U before ur birth [n pls dont go into my soul was eternal, etc, I mean u, not ur soul, if it even exists].

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no before the big bang. Time and space both were created from a singularity at that instant. There was no time before big bang just like there was no U before ur birth [n pls dont go into my soul was eternal, etc, I mean u, not ur soul, if it even exists].

The earlier you go down the timeline of the Big bang, the less likely you will find a scientific consensus on it ... what to speak of issues before it

 

[aaqucnaona]

I don't understand the last part " Damn, I've never been asked."

It means he would accept the existence of god, all he needs is god to give him some conclusive evidence. It like if there were a god and he is confronted by him in the afterlife;
God - Why did u not believe in me?
KillJoyKlown - U didn't provide enough evidence.

 

[aaqucnaona]

The earlier you go down the timeline of the Big bang, the less likely you will find a scientific consensus on it ... what to speak of issues before it

Well its a field in constant flux. We just dont know enough and the theories have to be modified to incorporate new evidence. That why there is no evidence. Indeed I wonder if big bang cosmology will be resolved in this century at all.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well its a field in constant flux. We just dont know enough and the theories have to be modified to incorporate new evidence. That why there is no evidence. Indeed I wonder if big bang cosmology will be resolved in this century at all.

so its not an effective point to offer leverage for arguments for/against evolution etc

 

[aaqucnaona]

so its not an effective point to offer leverage for arguments for/against evolution etc

Of course not. Abiogenesis is only slightly less worse off. Anyway, what do either have to do with evolution? Evolution only explains and describes changes in living, replicating populations. It doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life or of the universe.

 

[wynn]

So I would hold that over the next 3 decades the world should become more secular and less attentive to religion. Anyway it happens, we can safely bet that religion will be extinct in 500 years.

You think it is reasonable to "safely bet" on something that you won't live to see??

 

[wynn]

I think you are correct. What has that got to do with anything?

When someone says God talks to them, you are sure that they are crazy or liars:

Anytime someone says god talks to them I know they are crazy or they are liars. I usually go with the latter, and at that moment I lose interest in talking to them. After all what's the point of talking to a liar. As a matter of fact if you do continue talking to them, you give them hope that they can troll you.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2874650&postcount=24

You don't think that considering someone to be "crazy" or a "liar" is a serious matter?

I like the fact that we still don't know it all. I just don't see how that means I should believe in God.

The fact that we still don't know everything can be taken to mean that we must apply high epistemological and ethical standards to our pursuit of knowledge and how we communicate with others in this regard.

 

[aaqucnaona]

You think it is reasonable to "safely bet" on something that you won't live to see??

Why not?

 

[wynn]

Why not?

Oh dear.
So do tell - who will collect or pay out your bet, in 500 years?

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course not. Abiogenesis is only slightly less worse off.

they are both "worse off" since they are theoretical ideas only, plain and simple.

Anyway, what do either have to do with evolution? Evolution only explains and describes changes in living, replicating populations. It doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life or of the universe.

You're the one who brought in the topic of the origins of the big bang as effectively ruling out a god
:shrug:

 

[aaqucnaona]

You're the one who brought in the topic of the origins of the big bang as effectively ruling out a god
:shrug:

When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out. Till then, I am open to deism and panenthesim.

 

[wynn]

When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out. Till then, I am open to deism and panenthesim.

Why bother with being now "open to deism and panenthesim,"
if you are already sure that "When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out"?

That's like saying "I'll get drunk, until I am sober."

:bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out. Till then, I am open to deism and panenthesim.

what do they call in science an over-bearing determination to fix information to a conclusion?

Type 1 errors ?