12 Jan 09
-Removed-……It's just ironic that scientists who (in the majority) do not accept creation, were trying to create life...…
In the first part of that sentence i.e. “It's just ironic that scientists who (in the majority) do not accept creation….” you are obviously referring to “God’s” creation of life as according to the Bible (which is just mythology) while in the second part of that sentence i.e. “…were trying to create life” you are obviously referring to scientists attempt to artificially create life (which is not mythology but real life) to gain clues to how it actually started in real life.
These two things are totally different so I fail to see what the “irony” is here.
12 Jan 09
7 edits
-Removed-……Was there a creator of life or not. Yes or No? ...…
No -at least that is if you are referring to is specifically a conscious creator in this context as opposed to a chemical/physical process.
…I've noticed that you try to hijack the term 'creation' in other posts to refer to the process of life initiating and evolving through a series chance events which was driven by the randomness of probability.
....…
Given the fact that 'creation' can come from a series of chance events, in what way is that “hijacking” the term 'creation' ?
…However, creation requires a creator and by definition...
Wrong -at least if you are referring to a “conscious” creator in the above assertion.
For example, crystals can be created by a physical process and you may call that physical process the “creator” (of the crystals) if you wish -nothing wrong with that. But; the fact remains, that physical process would not be presumed to be “conscious” and nor would it be “conscious by definition“.
…I'm not arguing about the origin of life per se, I'm saying that it is ironic that scientists who do not believe in a creator, due the concept being mythical or unprovable, would be attempting to create life through an interventive, imaginative and therefore creative process.
...…
I vaguely see your point (just) but do the scientists presume that the process that created life that they are trying to understand through creating life artificially is “interventive, imaginative” etc?
(by the way, not sure what the word “interventive” actually means. Do you mean “inventive“?)
12 Jan 09
-Removed-……Oxford dictionary definition of creation:
Noun
1 the action or process of creating.
...…
It is this first common meaning (1) of “creation” that I and most scientists use when referring to either how life was created through a chemical/physical process or how, for example, crystals were created. I also sometimes hear people in everyday life using the word that way with meaning (1).
Note that meaning (1) does not imply consciousness, intent, plan etc -so what is your problem?
…You could call it the "product of" or the "outcome of" certain chemical or molecular coincidences, but to call what you envisage as the origin of life "creation" is semantic manipulation. I do not consider ice has been "created" overnight when I see it outside in the morning - it is produced. ....…
ok, lets just suppose, hypothetically, that you are “objectively correct” in asserting that it is not proper English for me or any scientist to ever talk about the "creation" of life if we don’t assume that what created life is a conscious process -so we should we call it? …
lets say for the sake of argument you say it is only correct English to say we should talk about the "production" of life if we don’t assume that what created life is a conscious process and you are “objectively correct“ about that …now what……..? -I mean what if all scientists start agreeing with what you say and actually always use “correct” English and only talk about the "production of life” and never the “creation of life”; I presume that you would agree that the word "production” does not imply consciousness, intent, plan etc so what would your argument be now for the hypothesis that the "production of life” must have involved consciousness, intent, plan etc?
17 Jan 09
I've never seen so many religious scientists or science followers (worshipers) on one site before all trying to prove the unprovable.
How ever I also find it amazing how we can spend billions researching how to kill each other and billions going into space and still more billions getting people elected. But can't feed our fellow man, can't come up with a cure for cancer, can't stop all sorts of nasty stuff. The answer to the thread if anyone is interested "Have scientists become fantasists" I beleive is yes.
'For we like sheep have gone astry we've turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.' Can't remember if this is a song or a bible verse.....but it hits the button regarding mans in humanity to man.
Peace Love and Mung Beans
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by fishin27With no science, we would certainly still be grazing around.
I've never seen so many religious scientists or science followers (worshipers) on one site before all trying to prove the unprovable.
How ever I also find it amazing how we can spend billions researching how to kill each other and billions going into space and still more billions getting people elected. But can't feed our fellow man, can't come up with a ...[text shortened]... but it hits the button regarding mans in humanity to man.
Peace Love and Mung Beans
With no religion, many wars certainly wouldn't be faught.
17 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by fishin27….I've never seen so many religious scientists or science followers (worshipers) on one site before all trying to prove the unprovable.
I've never seen so many religious scientists or science followers (worshipers) on one site before all trying to prove the unprovable.
How ever I also find it amazing how we can spend billions researching how to kill each other and billions going into space and still more billions getting people elected. But can't feed our fellow man, can't come up with a but it hits the button regarding mans in humanity to man.
Peace Love and Mung Beans
..…
Err, no.
Firstly, science is not religion.
Secondly, we are not “trying to prove the unprovable”. We are trying to make a credible detailed hypothesis to explain something that currently has no credible detailed hypothesis. This is so that we can get an insight into what is the most probable correct explanation is -so no futile attempt to prove anything that cannot be proven.
….However I also find it amazing how we can spend billions researching how to kill each other and billions going into space and still more billions getting people elected. But can't feed our fellow man, can't come up with a cure for cancer, can't stop all sorts of nasty stuff. The answer to the thread if anyone is interested "Have scientists become fantasists" I believe is yes.
…
Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. Politicians that, typically, don’t know too much about science, fund scientists into do wasteful and expensive research on things that don’t really mater when they could have funded those same scientists into do useful research into, say, preventing crop failure and famine, or finding a cure for cancer etc. This is not a result of “scientists become fantasists” but as a result of the stupidity and the scientifically ignorant politicians and, also, in part, as a result of voters that have poor understanding of science and a strange sense of priorities voting in these idiot politicians.
If everybody was better educated in science then this problem will be reduced but I presume not eliminated because I am not sure how people can be also educated to have a better sense of priority.
Have you got something against science?
17 Jan 09
Firstly, science is not religion.
Define religion? Do you beleive in it?
Your more religious than any theist zelot I've ever come across. Sounds religious, has more faith than I can muster....mmm must be religious.
Don't get me wrong be proud of your religious beliefs but be prepared to give an defence of you blind faith and beliefs. All I've heard so far from you is to pull others down and come up with text book answers. I thought science was supposed to keep an open mind to all things.
There are quite a few guys that get paid to sit in a shed and listern to deep space for a repetertive sound since the 1960's and possible further back. With no results (that's faith) it's also science, so why can't someone looking for a creator not be a scientist?
I beleive your walking around with blinkers on, but hay that's just my opinion.
Peace love and poeple