09 Jan 09
Originally posted by divegeesterCreationists get crucified for making such unsubstantiated statements. In fact, if the tables were turned we would be laughed to scorn.
Scientists were trying to disprove 'creation' by demonstrating that they could creat basic life![/b]
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by divegeesterWith such a primitive understanding of science, its not difficult to see why you lapsed into Christianity. Scientists aren't trying to disprove creation. I don't think such a thing could be done. What they're doing is demonstrating that life could arise naturally by simulating the conditions of an early earth. The byproduct of that would be that a supernatural 'creator' would be unnecessary. Not disproved, but unnecessary. I've never seen the movie, but it sounds like they're doing the Miller-Urey experiment, from 1952, which did produce a number of amino acids.
I was and still am a fan of Carl Sagan (RIP) and have an old copy of his series COSMOS on VHS.
It's dated now of course, but there was one espisode in which he was is a research institute where the science team there were investigating the origin of life of earth through incidental causes.
As part of there work they were running an experiment i ...[text shortened]... sts were trying to disprove 'creation' by demonstrating that they could creat basic life!
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI repeat:
i have in the past went to great lengths to show, with reference! that it is indeed unscientific, believe what you will.
If you don't understand evolution or science, then you can easily come to that conclusion.
If you are a creationist and think that you can prove creation with scientific methods, then, again, you don't understand science.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasKeep up repeating ad infinitum🙂
I repeat:
If you don't understand evolution or science, then you can easily come to that conclusion.
If you are a creationist and think that you can prove creation with scientific methods, then, again, you don't understand science.
my trusty feer robbie will keep up just the same
for
he cannot kill his Enemy😵
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetlelol, i doubt it beetle dude, simply repeating and stating that something is so, does not mean that it is, plus as the learned Fabian has pointed out, this is the spiritual forum where one can get away with almost anything, including trying to pass of scientific postulation in the guise of established fact!
Oh ye leggedy beastie,
Fabian and the miserable scientific lot of his
had burn you 2 the ground
big time😵
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think a single person who took the time to read that debate failed to conclude you were talking through your hat.
lol, i doubt it beetle dude, simply repeating and stating that something is so, does not mean that it is, plus as the learned Fabian has pointed out, this is the spiritual forum where one can get away with almost anything, including trying to pass of scientific postulation in the guise of established fact!
Not a bad practice, as it happens -- depending on the hat.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK🙂
lol, i doubt it beetle dude, simply repeating and stating that something is so, does not mean that it is, plus as the learned Fabian has pointed out, this is the spiritual forum where one can get away with almost anything, including trying to pass of scientific postulation in the guise of established fact!
I remember somethin outta of that ole movie, the "7 Samurai".
...the samurai was helping a peasant to practice his martial skills and therefore he was fighting against him with wooden sword. Then the peasant claimed that he was the winner. The samurai said:
-- "If we were fighting with real swords you would be dead"
Then the peasant drove loco and challenged him.
And then 😵
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnDon't most scientists, whether Christian or not, have to fall in line with the prevailing naturalism rampant in scientific circles? If I'm not mistaken, naturalism already precludes the existence of God.
I think it's quite the faulty generalization and a faulty assumption that scientists come to their conclusions to avoid god.
Especially when there are a great number of scientists who do believe in god.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by David CIt is not so easy as you claim to discount the fine-tuning argument.
Actually, I consider the irony to be that anyone still feels "fine tuning" to be any sort of valid argument that requires investigation or hypotheses. Fine, the conditions in the universe led to, but will not end with, our species in this tiny corner of an immense galaxy in this ever-expanding universe. It did not, however, lead to talking lions or sentient ...[text shortened]... I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "[/quote]
..
The Cosmological Constant poses a genuine problem ("the cosmological constant problem" to be exact) to cosmologists in search of a naturalistic solution to how our universe came to be as it is. For instance, in order to have a flat universe this Cosmological Constant must be "fine-tuned" to one part in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. And the Cosmological Constant, it so happens, turned out to be exactly that.
In short, physicists can't explain why the initial conditions of our universe, the laws which govern everything, were so precisely tuned to produce a stationary universe. Since for naturalists it is unimaginable that our universe may have a Creator, they have to resort to alternate explanations, no matter how ridiculous. It is not for no reason that physicists are seriously considering that there may be an infinite amount of universes, among other theories, in order to make the apparent fine-tuning of our universe inevitable and unsurprising.