Can we use "Science" to find all the answers?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you strongly believe that something definitely happened accidentally with no intelligent intervention even though we cannot use our own intelligence to conjure up the right conditions to reproduce it? Is Science not based on observations and the reproduction of experiments? Surely if life happened by chance with no intelligent intervention then scientis ...[text shortened]... e able to use the intelligence they have to reproduce the conditions in the lab and create life.

So basically you are saying that science can say nothing whatsoever about anything that won't fit in a lab. This includes:
The sun, the moon, just about all astronomy, plate tectonics, volcanoes, global warming, the life cycle of whales and elephants, very tall trees, economics, government, shall I go on?
If the 'right conditions' includes much of the earths surface with atmospheric conditions different from today and a few million years, then your request to have it done in the lab will almost certainly be denied funding.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I always find the intelligent design argument curious. If you need an 'outside' intelligence to explain how we got our intelligence, the question for me is - How did the 'outside' intelligence get it's intelligence?

Where does the 'cosmic buck' stop?

Obviously it stops with God, the creator. You do not have
enough intelligence to understand the answer to your questions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Obviously it stops with God, the creator. You do not have
enough intelligence to understand the answer to your questions.

Obviously!? Don't you mean 'i believe it stops with God, the creator'?

The only thing that is 'obvious' is your ever increasing insulting nature. Would you say that is part of your Christian makeup?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So basically you are saying that science can say nothing whatsoever about anything that won't fit in a lab. This includes:
The sun, the moon, just about all astronomy, plate tectonics, volcanoes, global warming, the life cycle of whales and elephants, very tall trees, economics, government, shall I go on?
If the 'right conditions' includes much of the e ...[text shortened]... years, then your request to have it done in the lab will almost certainly be denied funding.

No I'm saying that anything that scientists have to say about origins that lacks scientific observation and demonstrable evidence is purely speculation until it can can be validated by use of the scientific method.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said, no matter what the odds were against it, you think it is a 1.
You are a true believer.
Kelly

I repeat the question; “odds” against what?
Do you mean the “odds” of Evolution happening given favourable conditions for it? Or the “odds” of Evolution giving the EXACT outcome it did?
You still haven't said exactly what you are referring to.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The probability of me having producing EXACTLY whatsoever order of card that I did when I dealt out those 1000 card would be one in a zillion -that, of course, has nothing to do with the probability of me having actually dealt out the cards which is STILL 100% ."

Your right, there is a difference between dealing the cards and saying what
cards have ...[text shortened]... be forced to agree with them. Much
like the complaints people rail against the JW for.
Kelly[/b]

“...Your right, there is a difference between dealing the cards and saying what
cards have to show up in what order before they are dealt. You error in that
you assume that there is an ORDER that can be dealt that will PRODUCE life
under the conditions that were present X years ago. ...” (my emphases)

you are being unclear: “ORDER” of what type/kind of sequence of events? Give me just ONE example of one of these “events”.
And when you say “ will PRODUCE life”, are you still talking about evolution or have you just changed the subject to abiogenesis?

“...This is like saying like
getting life from non-life is like a combination lock, you assume there is a
right sequence of numbers to hit, and once it was hit, the lock will open or life
will start. You do not look at it in such a way that questions if life can be
reached by getting the right cards in order, you assume that there is a right
sequence of NUMBERS that will open the lock under the conditions being
suggested, you just assume there is so you assume the odds are 1. Which again
puts you on par with those of faith you question from time to time. ...” (my emphases)

what kind/type of thing are you referring to by “NUMBERS” in “ a right
sequence of NUMBERS” in the above statement? Just give me ONE specific example of such a “number” in this context?

“...Evolutionist assume all the right answers are theirs, they assume the ODDS of
them being right are 1, ….”

“odds” of them being right about what? -That evolution will happen in favourable conditions for it? -Or that evolution would have produce the EXACT outcome it did? Or the odds of....what exactly?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Go back a few posts and see that the evolutionist Andrew Hamilton
said the odds were "1".

It is you who is not paying intention and not following this thread.
When I said what the “odds” are, I said the “odds” of evolution happening is 100% because we have evidence for it but then you responded to twhitehead post when he said:

“...So you have gone from saying that evolutionists believe evolution can overcome all odds, to saying that evolutionists believe that THE ODDS OF ANYTHING ARE 1 ...” (my emphasis, twhitehead quote)

with

“...Go back a few posts and see that the evolutionist Andrew Hamilton
said the odds were "1". ...” (your quote)

so CLEARLY you are saying here that I said THE ODDS OF ANYTHING ARE 1 which I never said! (which is why I asked “ odds” of what? “ )
If you dispute this, I challenge you to show where I said/implied that THE ODDS OF ANYTHING ARE 1 !!!!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Obviously!? Don't you mean 'i believe it stops with God, the creator'?

The only thing that is 'obvious' is your ever increasing insulting nature. Would you say that is part of your Christian makeup?

I guess, it is just my natural reaction to you insults toward
God and Christianity in general. I apologize for my insulting
nature.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
"odds" of what?

You apparently need to be checked for Attention deficit disorder, too.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you strongly believe that something definitely happened accidentally with no intelligent intervention even though we cannot use our own intelligence to conjure up the right conditions to reproduce it? Is Science not based on observations and the reproduction of experiments? Surely if life happened by chance with no intelligent intervention then scientis ...[text shortened]... ergy for the big bang came from a greater source of energy e.g. God, is just plane stupid right?

“...So you strongly believe that something definitely happened accidentally ...”

NO. evolution is not an “accident”. Unless what you are referring to above is abiogenesis and NOT evolution in which case I assume that, given the right conditions, the probability of it happening may be close to 100% . If you role a dice 1000 times then the probability of you throwing a six twice in a row is very close to 100% .

“...with no intelligent intervention even though we cannot use our own intelligence to conjure up the right conditions to reproduce it? ...”

I assumed you definitely changed the subject to abiogenesis in the above?
The reason why we cannot reproduce abiogenesis in the lab is because that would be a hard thing to do and NOT because it couldn't happen in nature without intelligent intervention. There are many other things we would find hard reproduce in the lab but which can happen in nature without intelligent intervention.
For example, the production of the complexity of the rings around Saturn via gravitational effects of the moons etc. and yet there still is no evidence of intelligent intervention being involved.
Other examples of things hard to produce in the lab which do not involve intelligent intervention include supernovae explosions and the formation of massive black holes, galaxies, the jet-stream , coal, ball-lightening, large lumps of diamond and hurricanes.


“...Science has no explanation for where the energy for the big bang came from, ...”

the energy came from the singularity which is at least half of an explanation.
But even if they didn't have half of an explication, it is really stupid to assume supernatural involvement just because you do not know the explanation of something. There was a time when nobody knew what the explanation of thunder and lightning was. So, when they heard thunder, they may sometimes stupidly say “the gods are angry! “ 😛
Then came science and we learned there can be rational explanations for of things thus no need for stupid superstition.

“...and anyone who ventures to say that maybe the energy for the big bang came from a greater source of energy e.g. God, is just plane stupid right? ...”

yes

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess, it is just my natural reaction to you insults toward
God and Christianity in general. I apologize for my insulting
nature.

My insults towards God and Christianity? My good man, what are you talking about?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently need to be checked for Attention deficit disorder, too.

It is you who is not paying intention and not following this thread.
When I said what the “odds” are, I said the “odds” of evolution happening is 100% but then you responded to twhitehead post when he said:

“...So you have gone from saying that evolutionists believe evolution can overcome all odds, to saying that evolutionists believe that THE ODDS OF ANYTHING ARE 1 ...” (my emphasis, twhitehead quote)

with

“...Go back a few posts and see that the evolutionist Andrew Hamilton
said the odds were "1". ...” (your quote)

so CLEARLY you are saying here that I said THE ODDS OF ANYTHING ARE 1 which I never said! (which is why I asked “ “odds” of what? “ )
If you dispute this, I challenge you to show where I said/implied that THE ODDS OF ANYTHING ARE 1 !!!!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
It is you who is not paying intention and not following this thread.
When I said what the “odds” are, I said the “odds” of evolution happening is 100% but then you responded to twhitehead post when he said:

“...So you have gone from saying that evolutionists believe evolution can overcome all odds, to saying that evolutionists believe that THE OD ...[text shortened]... spute this, I challenge you to show where I said/implied that THE ODDS OF ANYTHING ARE 1 !!!!

You need a little math education - 1 is equal to 100%.

Originally posted by dj2becker
No I'm saying that anything that scientists have to say about origins that lacks scientific observation and demonstrable evidence is purely speculation until it can can be validated by use of the scientific method.

But would you agree that the scientific method does not necessarily include repetition in the lab? Do you therefore agree that you made strawman?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What about the outside intelligence has always existed and is the ultimate source of energy?

Any scenario i can conjure up is equally as valid as yours.