01 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3No one knows, or will ever know.
Well, in the same way the presidential candidates treated evolution as a dirty word, a majority of scientists treat God as an equally dirty word. No compromise.
So let me ask you this: if the big bang happened, where did the material come from, to go bang in the first place?
Clearly, there are things we do not understand. The problem with the God compromise for scientists is that it permits the complete disregard for evidence. The discipline of science focuses on discrete questions and problems that form testable hypotheses in order to formulate conclusive results. You said that I "claimed" that protein structures evolved, but this is not a claim. It is entirely apparent from everything we know about biology. Nothing in biology, to date, contradicts evolution, which makes things very combative when supposedly smart people disregard it.
I met someone one time who told me that the book of Genesis was a metaphor. If you read the old testament as a metaphor, it is evolution. Instead of 7 days, it happened in 3 billion years. Does that count as compromise?
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassIf you are willing to say "no one knows, or will ever know", and "clearly, there are things we do not understand", does that not allow room for a creator?
No one knows, or will ever know.
Clearly, there are things we do not understand. The problem with the God compromise for scientists is that it permits the complete disregard for evidence. The discipline of science focuses on discrete questions and problems that form testable hypotheses in order to formulate conclusive results. You said that I "claimed" ...[text shortened]... is evolution. Instead of 7 days, it happened in 3 billion years. Does that count as compromise?
I don't see why a scientist cannot view evidence of science and believe in creation at the same time. There should be no reason to disregard any evidence.
As far as Genesis.....as long as God created.....then theists and scientists should be able to discuss every possible scenario 'after' God created.
Are there not Vatican priests who are scientists as well?
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3These two phrasese:
You explain it.
1. the sun was 300 times further away
2. 300 times closer to the moon
Are not even close in meaning. If you cannot see it, then I am afraid my trying to explain it would be a total wasted effort.
But what I really objected to was when you suggested that I was trying "to debate eclipse". This isn't a debate. It never was. This is a thread in which we see how long you can last before you either run away in shame or finally admit you have been knowingly making a fool of yourself all this time rather than admit you were wrong, or you manage to outlast us all and we give up. I warn you though, you have a long way to go to beat the current record holder for absolute stubbornness which is held by Freaky for his flat earth thread.
I am still waiting for that reference to support your claim that the moons orbit must be special for it to intersect the sun.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3How eclipses work is proven science.
I am open minded to proven science.
There will be an eclipse 9 days from now. See this site for details:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/eclipse-information.html
If it will be visible from where you live, I want you to watch it. While you watch it, I want you to remember the following:
1. Science predicted it would happen on that particular day at that particular hour and that it would be visible from that particular part of the earth.
2. None of your religions sacred texts predicted it would be visible on that day.
3. You are watching a phenomena that you don't understand. But you could understand it if you wanted to. All you have to do is open your mind a tiny tiny fraction, enough to head over to Wikipedia and start reading.
Education on the internet is free. You can learn almost anything you want. Please avail yourself of some of those opportunities rather than wasting your time on this forum wallowing in your ignorance.
01 Feb 17
6 edits
Originally posted by chaney3Then why do you dismiss evolution as the explanation for the creation of human life?
My short answer is that I see no reason why a Creator cannot co-exist with evolution..
You contradict yourself.
If you accept evolution as an explanation for the creation of modern life, then an intelligent designer for the creation of modern life wouldn't be an explanation because evolution would be the explanation and we wouldn't expect anything to be different from what they are if you add to that a now superfluous intelligent designer.
I am quite obviously not a scientist,
That is extremely painfully TOO OBVIOUS for all to see here. You obviously don't know what you are talking about when talking about the science you apparently criticize since you don't know the first thing about it.
01 Feb 17
13 edits
Originally posted by chaney3I read all wildgrass posts and understood and noted them all and ignored none of them.
The fact that you two clowns didn't address the posts by wildgrass is duly noted.
He had some really good things to say, and you ignored it? Skipped it?
What about them? He in general and clearly DISAGREED with your religious beliefs and I am in very good general agreement with that and with all what he said.
Exactly which parts/aspects of his posts did we not "address" that would have pleased you if we had 'addressed' them and in what way "address"? He didn't ask me any questions.
Just give us one example of that so we have at least just one clue to what the hell you are talking about....
Failure to give an example will show us you are talking nonsense; probably as a crap excuse to evade answering any of our questions.
Actually, it has generally and overwhelmingly been YOU, NOT us, who has been ignoring what we actually said in our posts and refusing to answer our questions, hypocrite.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3In what way am I a 'clown'? Please explain why you found that name calling necessary.
The fact that you two clowns didn't address the posts by wildgrass is duly noted.
He had some really good things to say, and you ignored it? Skipped it?
I did read wildgrass's posts and think they were well written. What do you think needed to be 'addressed' by me? What makes you think I ignored them or skipped them?
And when are you going to provide that reference I asked for?
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3I think you hit on an important distinction here. Scientific theories rely on evidence, while creation relies on belief. They can coexist as long as you keep the facts separate from belief, and do not substitute one for the other. I know many scientists who leave lots of room for spirituality in their lives, but they don't bring those ideas to work with them.
If you are willing to say "no one knows, or will ever know", and "clearly, there are things we do not understand", does that not allow room for a creator?
I don't see why a scientist cannot view evidence of science and believe in creation at the same time. There should be no reason to disregard any evidence.
As far as Genesis.....as long as God created ...[text shortened]... sible scenario 'after' God created.
Are there not Vatican priests who are scientists as well?
The reason why you cannot teach creation in science class is that it has no basis in evidence. There are no hypotheses that can be formulated, no set of experiments that can be done to prove or disprove it. It is a system of belief.
Scientific methodology relies on data, which tests hypotheses to explain the world we live in. Evolutionary theory explains why the perfect structure of bee honeycomb exists, slowly refined over millions of years and adapted to suit the environment in which each species of bee lives. This isn't consistent or inconsistent with creation. Since it can't be tested, creation is irrelevant to the underlying mechanisms.
You are completely justified in marveling at perfection. However, the scientific argument that the position of the moon was designed has no teeth, since there's no evidence to support that position. Simply saying, "You can't prove me wrong" isn't good enough. Rather, there is lots of evidence that the relative positions of the moon, earth and sun shift substantially over time, which indicates a degree of stochasticity or randomness to it all.
Perhaps the creator had all that in mind, but again, it's not science since it can't be tested. And where was He/She standing when/if the big bang happened?
Originally posted by chaney3I work in science. There are many atheists working in academia, of course, but I have never heard someone say or imply that God or believing in God is "dirty." God and/or design are not invoked in scientific theories because they have no explaining power and cannot be falsified. Although they are a minority in my field (physics), there are plenty of religious physicists who are more than capable of doing their work in their respective fields.
Well, in the same way the presidential candidates treated evolution as a dirty word, a majority of scientists treat God as an equally dirty word. No compromise.
So let me ask you this: if the big bang happened, where did the material come from, to go bang in the first place?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28863
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassMr cell biologist (nice to meet you). Could it not be argued that our very existence (as individuals) demonstrates the wonders of probability?
I do agree with you, though, that it is equally crazy to imagine that during the big bang, a handful of marbles were thrown in the air and they randomly landed all delicately balanced on top of one another. No one can explain it. There are many philosophical ideas that have emerged from this debate, but it's an age old question that we may never solve.[/b]
'Statistically, the probability of any one of us being born exactly as we are in
this precise time and place is so unlikely that your very existence verges on
the miraculous and should be a continuing source of dazzlement for you.'
(Odds are approx 1 in 400,000,000,000)
http://www.live-inspired.com/the1book/pdf/ONE_2.pdf
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI think part of the issue is a misunderstanding of probability. We often intuitively believe that because something is improbable then it couldn't happen by chance. The problem is this is obviously false, and we all know it, but it is the case in certain situations. The mistake is to think it is true in all situations and not think critically about why we are making the deduction in the first place.
Could it not be argued that our very existence (as individuals) demonstrates the wonders of probability?
Understanding the difference between throwing 3,4,2,6,4,3 and 6,6,6,6,6,6 with a repeatedly thrown dice is key. The two sequences are equally probable, but do not intuitively seem that way.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28863
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, good point.
I think part of the issue is a misunderstanding of probability. We often intuitively believe that because something is improbable then it couldn't happen by chance. The problem is this is obviously false, and we all know it, but it is the case in certain situations. The mistake is to think it is true in all situations and not think critically about why we ...[text shortened]... hrown dice is key. The two sequences are equally probable, but do not intuitively seem that way.
What many people don't seem to understand is that it is mathematically extremely probable if not completely inevitable that extremely improbable outcomes sometimes happen and thus there is no miracle or real mystery when they do.
They got that completely back to front because, if extremely improbable outcomes never happen, that would be a miracle!
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, this is what I was going to post using the lottery analogy.
I think part of the issue is a misunderstanding of probability. We often intuitively believe that because something is improbable then it couldn't happen by chance. The problem is this is obviously false, and we all know it, but it is the case in certain situations. The mistake is to think it is true in all situations and not think critically about why we ...[text shortened]... hrown dice is key. The two sequences are equally probable, but do not intuitively seem that way.
The odds of a single person winning the lottery are extremely long (say 20 million to 1). But there is also a very high probability that someone will win the lottery. Therefore, if there was going to be a winner anyway, the the statistical improbability of one participant winning isn't really evidence of anything. He/she was just lucky.
To extend the analogy to your existence in this universe, yes that is improbable. But given that some universe had to exist, we were just lucky to have this one. It is a fallacy to argue that a statistical improbability infers design.
I like the dice analogy better though.