Curiosity?

Deeje · Dec 28, 2020

nPeace said:
Remember Deeje, facts are different to scientific facts, just as theories are different to scientific theories, so you might be speaking a different language to Heyo.

Yep...amazing how a theory can become a fact just with the power of belief.....and how many people subscribe to that belief based on the power of suggestion?

It depends on how evidence is interpreted....not just on the evidence itself. So how is a fully convinced scientific community ever going to admit to having “beliefs” just like we do? It is unscientific!!!!

nPeace · Dec 28, 2020

blü 2 said:
So, having rejected evolution, how exactly do you explain the origin of species?

Without magic, that is.

Wait. Isn't the origin of species a magical experience according to the evolution theory? Explain that. The first life.

McBell · Dec 28, 2020

blü 2 said:
So, having rejected evolution, how exactly do you explain the origin of species?

Without magic, that is.

He can't.
Thus the desperate diversion

nPeace · Dec 28, 2020

Deeje said:
Yep...amazing how a theory can become a fact just with the power of belief.....and how many people subscribe to that belief based on the power of suggestion?

It depends on how evidence is interpreted....not just on the evidence itself. So how is a fully convinced scientific community ever going to admit to having “beliefs” just like we do? It is unscientific!!!!

I have no problem they calling it a scientific fact, as long as they don't call it a fact.

If they are going to tell me it's not a theory, but a scientific theory, then let's stick to the terminology.
However, you're right. beliefs are scientific facts.

nPeace · Dec 28, 2020

Mestemia said:
He can't.
Thus the desperate diversion

I can't? Why not speak for yourself. A five year old can explain it.
Can man make a robot?
What does he make it from? POOF?

What is the fist living thing supposed to be made from? Poof?
Chemicals came together under ideal conditions, where chemicals of just the righ amount; the right types; assembled in a practically impossible way with a lot of fairy dust assembling the right and left handed ... is it amino acids, and voilà - life.
Oh, and the RNA DNA collaboration was kept secret by the fairy.
That's magic.

An intelligent being on the other hand, does not depend on magic. Just go into a lab, and see for yourself.
There are intelligent agents mixing together the right amount of chemicals in just the right way, to build things.

What can be so hard to understand how a super intelligent Mathematician can put together the right chemicals, to make bone, and muscle, etc. to form different life forms.
Elementary stuff really. Anyone who knows about baking knows this. A five year old could make that simple connection.
Why can't you?

Deeje · Dec 28, 2020

Heyo said:
What about "facts are direct, repeatable, objective measurements"?

What about them? We do not deny science when facts are provable, but when it comes to some aspects of (theoretical) science (e.g. macro-evolution) the “proof” is simply not there. The bits and pieces they do have are a demonstration of how to assemble a jigsaw puzzle when most of the pieces are missing. All the blanks are filled in by "scientific" imagination.

So "this sample is 50.000 years old" is not a fact, "this sample contains a ratio of C14 to C12 that is compatible with an age of 50.000 years" is.

I found this interesting....

"Radioactive decay can be used as a “clock” because it is unaffected by physical (e.g. temperature) and chemical (e.g. water content) conditions. In 5,730 years half of the 14C in a sample will decay (see figure 1, below).

Therefore, if we know the 14C:12C ratio at the time of death and the ratio today, we can calculate how much time has passed. Unfortunately, neither are straightforward to determine.

The amount of 14C in the atmosphere, and therefore in plants and animals, has not always been constant. For instance, the amount varies according to how many cosmic rays reach Earth. This is affected by solar activity and the earth’s magnetic field."

You see, the Bible states that a dense water canopy surrounded the earth at one time, creating an overall temperate climate with not much variation in the seasons and no precipitation because of the high levels of humidity.....and so if this vast canopy of water was removed, as it states concerning the global flood of Noah's day, the level of radiation reaching the earth's surface would have been drastically increased to what it is now, therefore interfering with 14C and 12C levels in the time before.

The following is also interesting because this confirms what the Bible says....

"The New Siberian Islands (north of the Siberian Arctic mainland) have yielded an abundance of fossils (mammoth, woolly rhinos, musk ox, antelope, deer, bear, horse and more than 50 other species), requiring forests and meadows to sustain them. Embedded in Arctic muck are a large number of mammals that have been frozen before they could decay. A completely preserved frozen woolly mammoth was excavated. In Alaska, duck-billed dinosaurs, turtles, conifers, herbaceous vegetation, and broad-leaved trees bear testimony to a tropical environment that once existed. Dr. Jack Wolfe in a 1978 U.S. Geological Survey Report submitted evidence of tropical vegetation in Alaska: mangrove, palm trees, Burmese laquer trees and others. (Dillow, Joseph, The Waters Above, 1982 p. 348.). . . . .

“Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.” (Williams, Lindsey, The Energy Non-Crisis, 1980, p. 54.)
A report about “weird forests” that once sprouted in the Antarctic appeared in 2013. Trees that appeared to be a mix of evergreen and deciduous grew in a land that is always icy today. Scientists have been examining the wood under a microscope to determine how the trees could grow without sun for half the year. They surmise that “Some 250 million years ago, during the late Permian and early Triassic, the world was a greenhouse, much hotter than it is today.” (Pappas, S. “Weird Forests once Sprouted in Antarctica, LiveScience, November, 2013.)

It seems obvious that there was a dramatically different climate on the land masses that are now at the poles. “The discovery of thousands of well-preserved leaves in Antarctica has sparked a debate among geologists over whether the polar region, rather than being blanketed by a massive sheet of ice for millions of years enjoyed a near-temperate climate as recently as three million years ago.” (Raymond, Chris, “Discovery of Leaves in Antarctica Sparks Debate over Whether Region Had Near-Temperate Climate,” Chronicle of Higher Education, March,1991, p. A9, as cited in Morris, 1997, p. 273.) Not only is there the evidence from extensive warm-climate paleoflora, but frost rings are rare to nonexistent. We conclude then that the pre-flood earth was temperate worldwide."
Temperate Climates at the Poles | Genesis Park

This evidence is just as "scientifically" collected and analyzed as any other....so who do you believe? :shrug:

I like to examine all the evidence, not just the stuff that backs up what I believe. One of my favorite sites is Berkeley Ed as it presents its science for students in easy to understand language. When you take out the jargon, the simple explanations cannot mask the absurdity of what is presented.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/guide_to_us.php

They are based on real evidence and they are not contradicted by available evidence. It is just the acknowledgement that not all the facts may be known.

That is not exactly true. There are legitimate contradictions. If all the facts are not known, then how can a subject be presented as actual fact when it clearly isn't? Ask any scientist if macro-evolution is a fact? How many of them will say "no"? They would be laughed out of academia.

Those entering college science courses have already been indoctrinated at High School so that they never question the "science" that is fed to them.

Iirc we had that discussion and you backed out of it.

I never back out of a discussion....I just acknowledge when my replies are falling on deaf ears. I have no need or desire to repeat myself to the same person.....on the same topic multiple times.

blü 2 · Dec 28, 2020

nPeace said:
What is the fi[r]st living thing supposed to be made from? Poof?

That's something particular branches of science are actually working to find out. As for informing yourself as to how well that's proceeding, >here's< a quick overview.

I provide that link because you don't speak like someone who's taken a considered look at the science.

Science's approach has many advantages over your proposal. For one thing it's from actual research, unlike your close-your-eyes-and-imagine model.

For another, your idea of "intelligent agents mixing together the right amount of chemicals in just the right way" answers nothing about the beginning of life ─ because your hypothesis doesn't specify what exactly the "intelligent agents" were, or where they came from, or why they bothered, or what techniques they employed.

Or ─ of course ─ how they came to exist without magic.

nPeace · Dec 28, 2020

blü 2 said:
That's something particular branches of science are actually working to find out. As for informing yourself as to how well that's proceeding, >here's< a quick overview.

I provide that link because you don't speak like someone who's taken a considered look at the science.

You provided that link because you thought scientist had that covered, and didn't realize they didn't until you went searching to answer my question.
It was for you, not me

blü 2 said:
Science's approach has many advantages over your proposal. For one thing it's from actual research, unlike your close-your-eyes-and-imagine model.

I made no proposal. Nor did I imagine a model.
This was written as a fact centuries before your mom and dad even had a thought. Genesis. In the beginning God... Remember?
There's also evidence to support it... which you would never accept... apparently.

blü 2 said:
For another, your idea of "intelligent agents mixing together the right amount of chemicals in just the right way" answers nothing about the beginning of life ─ because your hypothesis doesn't specify what exactly the "intelligent agents" were, or where they came from, or why they bothered, or what techniques they employed.

Or ─ of course ─ how they came to exist without magic.

So you asked a question... "how exactly do you explain the origin of species? Without magic, that is."
You got a good - very reasonable - answer. You snatch up the goal posts, and move them. Build a strawman in front of them, and hope and pray I don't score.

Nice sportsmanship. Try another thread. There are plenty where that's been covered.

Deeje · Dec 28, 2020

blü 2 said:
That's something particular branches of science are actually working to find out. As for informing yourself as to how well that's proceeding, >here's< a quick overview.

I provide that link because you don't speak like someone who's taken a considered look at the science.

Science's approach has many advantages over your proposal. For one thing it's from actual research, unlike your close-your-eyes-and-imagine model.

For another, your idea of "intelligent agents mixing together the right amount of chemicals in just the right way" answers nothing about the beginning of life ─ because your hypothesis doesn't specify what exactly the "intelligent agents" were, or where they came from, or why they bothered.

Or ─ of course ─ how they came to exist without magic.

You seem obsessed with what you call "magic"...where is this "magic"?

Does science know all there is to know about black holes and anti-matter, and an assortment of other things yet to be discovered? Are there things that science will discover in years to come? Considering what has been learned about matters of science in just the last 100 years or so...what is there still to learn? Science is actually still in its infancy compared to what we are still to find out.
What you call "magic" may well be established science in years to come...who knows?

Is there some reason why intelligent life cannot exist outside of this earth?....because, according to the Bible they have existed since before the Universe came into being....before the Earth was prepared for habitation. "Extra terrestrials"......do you believe in them? What do you think angels are? The Bible portrays them as messengers from another realm who are able to materialize at will and shift between the visible realm and the invisible, when required to do so. This is not "magic" but it is supernatural from our limited perspective. How ridiculous to assume that we are the most intelligent life forms, or the most advanced in existence, and that we got here by accident?

They do no tell us a great deal about themselves.....only that we are all in the service of our Creator...the deity we all hold in common. Imagine what knowledge is still to come....? I believe we have barely scratched the surface.

sayak83 · Dec 28, 2020

nPeace said:
I suppose some people prefer to accept things that are considered by opinion the best explanation.
That's why I prefer the best evidence.

By evidence the best explanation.

sayak83 · Dec 28, 2020

nPeace said:
You can come up with a belief through scientific investigations.

All knowledge is belief. Logic 101.

nPeace · Dec 28, 2020

Deeje said:
You seem obsessed with what you call "magic"...where is this "magic"?

Does science know all there is to know about black holes and anti-matter, and an assortment of other things yet to be discovered? Are there things that science will discover in years to come? Considering what has been learned about matters of science in just the last 100 years or so...what is there still to learn? Science is actually still in its infancy compared to what we are still to find out.
What you call "magic" may well be established science in years to come...who knows?

Is there some reason why intelligent life cannot exist outside of this earth?....because, according to the Bible they have existed since before the Universe came into being....before the Earth was prepared for habitation. "Extra terrestrials"......do you believe in them? What do you think angels are? The Bible portrays them as messengers from another realm who are able to materialize at will and shift between the visible realm and the invisible, when required to do so. This is not "magic" but it is supernatural from our limited perspective. How ridiculous to assume that we are the most intelligent life forms, or the most advanced in existence, and that we got here by accident?

They do no tell us a great deal about themselves.....only that we are all in the service of our Creator...the deity we all hold in common. Imagine what knowledge is still to come....? I believe we have barely scratched the surface.

Scientists even speculate on the possibility... to an extent.
Such life might range from simple prokaryotes (or comparable life forms) to intelligent beings and even sapient beings, possibly bringing forth civilizations which might be far more advanced than humanity. The Drake equation speculates about the existence of sapient life elsewhere in the universe.

blü 2 · Dec 28, 2020

nPeace said:
You provided that link because you thought scientist had that covered, and didn't realize they didn't until you went searching to answer my question.

Goodness ─ do you really think I didn't know where studies in abiogenesis are up to? You can't have been paying attention.

nPeace said:
I made no proposal. Nor did I imagine a model.

Yes, you most specifically did. You proposed that the origin of species was due to "intelligent agents mixing together the right amount of chemicals in just the right way".

And I pointed out that your answer was at best insufficient, and asked you questions to clarify your statement.

nPeace said:
This was written as a fact centuries before your mom and dad even had a thought. Genesis. In the beginning God... Remember?

The authors of Genesis may or may not have thought it was a fact. But you and I know how outdated their cosmology is because I've told you before ─ flat earth, immovably fixed at the center of creation, sun moon and stars going round it, sky a hard dome you can walk on, to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth, no concept of gravity, the solar system, deep space, just the understanding of their time and place ─ >here are those quotes again< to refresh your memory.

nPeace said:
There's also evidence to support it... which you would never accept... apparently.

Evidence of magic? I'd be very interested to see that. Surprise me ─ since I think you have none.

nPeace said:
So you asked a question... "how exactly do you explain the origin of species? Without magic, that is."

You got a good - very reasonable - answer.

"intelligent agents mixing together the right amount of chemicals in just the right way" (a) is the answer you gave and (b) is not a reasoned or reasonable answer at all ─ a matter you're well aware of since you haven't addressed any of the questions I raised.

Here they are again ─ what were these "agents", with what techniques and for what reason did they create species ─ and what was the non-magical origin of the "agents"?

See? The goalposts are still exactly where you put them.

blü 2 · Dec 28, 2020

Deeje said:
You seem obsessed with what you call "magic"...where is this "magic"?

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, usually but not always just by wishing.

Or put it this way: when in Genesis God said "Let there be light!", what exactly happened that brought the electromagnetic spectrum into being?

Deeje said:
Does science know all there is to know about black holes and anti-matter, and an assortment of other things yet to be discovered? Are there things that science will discover in years to come? Considering what has been learned about matters of science in just the last 100 years or so...what is there still to learn? Science is actually still in its infancy compared to what we are still to find out.

The road, as Tolkien's song has it, goes ever on and on, as you say. So what?

Deeje said:
What you call "magic" may well be established science in years to come...who knows?

No, there will never be a way to alter reality independently of the rules of reality. It may well be that our knowledge of the rules will change, but that won't affect the definition I have.

Deeje said:
Is there some reason why intelligent life cannot exist outside of this earth?

If we can, they can, I'd guess.

Deeje said:
....because, according to the Bible they have existed since before the Universe came into being....before the Earth was prepared for habitation.

No, the bible expresses no such concepts. It's limited to the knowledge of the places and times it was written, and these didn't include gravity, orbits, satellites, the solar system, deep space, stars, galaxies, as we know them. Instead its authors describe a flat earth, immovably fixed at the center of creation, around which the sun moon and stars go, and the sky a hard dome on which you can walk and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. I set out relevant quotes >here< if you want chapter and verse.

Deeje said:
"Extra terrestrials"......do you believe in them?

It may be there's life in other parts of the universe, and it may be some of that life is intelligent as we understand that word, but as our knowledge presently stands I think it extremely unlikely that we'll ever know of them, let alone communicate with them, and I see zero possibility of their visiting us, Star Trek and warp 10 notwithstanding.

Deeje said:
What do you think angels are?

A class of supernatural beings (thus imaginary).

Deeje said:
The Bible portrays them as messengers from another realm who are able to materialize at will and shift between the visible realm and the invisible, when required to do so. This is not "magic" but it is supernatural from our limited perspective. How ridiculous to assume that we are the most intelligent life forms, or the most advanced in existence, and that we got here by accident?

So you think "God" is not a supernatural being, just a superscientist?

Who wants to worship a superscientist? Instead you should get very busy learning all you can about [his] knowledge and techniques, not least so you can defend the planet if [he] turns nasty.

But I think you'll find God exists only as a concept or thing imagined in individual brains. The evidence very strongly points that way.

sayak83 · Dec 28, 2020

nPeace said:
I can't? Why not speak for yourself. A five year old can explain it.
Can man make a robot?
What does he make it from? POOF?

What is the fist living thing supposed to be made from? Poof?
Chemicals came together under ideal conditions, where chemicals of just the righ amount; the right types; assembled in a practically impossible way with a lot of fairy dust assembling the right and left handed ... is it amino acids, and voilà - life.
Oh, and the RNA DNA collaboration was kept secret by the fairy.
That's magic.

An intelligent being on the other hand, does not depend on magic. Just go into a lab, and see for yourself.
There are intelligent agents mixing together the right amount of chemicals in just the right way, to build things.

What can be so hard to understand how a super intelligent Mathematician can put together the right chemicals, to make bone, and muscle, etc. to form different life forms.
Elementary stuff really. Anyone who knows about baking knows this. A five year old could make that simple connection.
Why can't you?

If you are interested in the scientific studies on the origin of life, please look at the posts I made in the thread below.

Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

I am professionally interested in this topic as I am currently planning to design some experiments to investigation the polymerization of original organic compounds into peptides that are found in today's living organisms.

Deeje · Dec 29, 2020

blü 2 said:
Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, usually but not always just by wishing.

Ah, so you think God was just a big wizard in the sky 'poofing' things into existence with a word? That is not the picture I get from my studies in the scriptures.
What is the 'reality' that you think it can't be altered?

blü 2 said:
Or put it this way: when in Genesis God said "Let there be light!", what exactly happened that brought the electromagnetic spectrum into being?

With the Creator whose power brought matter into existence and thus created the material Universe, you really think he has the limitations you place on him? You act as if he must fit your criteria......I get the impression that it is we who must fit his.....guess we'll all find out sooner or later, huh?

blü 2 said:
The road, as Tolkien's song has it, goes ever on and on, as you say. So what?

So will scientific knowledge increase with time or do you see it stagnating where it is? How do you know what will become "science" in the future? Everything you deny today could become scientific fact in a few decades.

blü 2 said:
No, there will never be a way to alter reality independently of the rules of reality. It may be our knowledge of the rule will change, but that won't affect the definition I have.

There are rules to reality? Really? Who said?
I get the impression that nothing will alter your perceptions...no matter what anyone said.

blü 2 said:
No, the bible expresses no such concepts. It's limited to the knowledge of the places and times it was written, and these didn't include gravity, orbits, satellites, the solar system, deep space, stars, galaxies, as we know them.

Then you have no idea what the Bible teaches or the details it goes into to describe extra-terrestrial life.

blü 2 said:
Instead its authors describe a flat earth, immovably fixed at the center of creation, around which the sun moon and stars go, and the sky a hard dome on which you can walk and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. I set out relevant quotes >here< if you want chapter and verse.

That is the most pathetic interpretation of scripture that I have ever read.... :facepalm:

blü 2 said:
It may be there's life in other parts of the universe, and it may be some of that life is intelligent as we understand that word, but as our knowledge presently stands I think it extremely unlikely that we'll ever know of them, let alone communicate with them, and I see zero possibility of their visiting us, Star Trek and warp 10 notwithstanding.

They have been amongst us for millenniums.....in fact the apostle Paul said

Hebrews 13:1-2...
"Let your brotherly love continue. 2 Do not forget hospitality, for through it some unknowingly entertained angels."

You would never know one if you saw one. They can materialize to look completely human. The Bible has quite a few accounts.They don't need you to believe in them.

blü 2 said:
A class of supernatural beings (thus imaginary).

If you think so...that is up to you.

blü 2 said:
So you think "God" is not a supernatural being, just a superscientist?

Who wants to worship a superscientist?

I am in awe of the Creator and the science behind creation. (just from the little I know) So, no one is going to tell me that this planet and all the life that teems here is just a fluke created by an endless series of fortunate but unplanned events. How far can you go without running out of the statistics of probability?

blü 2 said:
Instead you should get very busy learning all you can about [his] knowledge and techniques, not least so you can defend the planet if [he] turns nasty.

Well, that was an intelligent response....

If he turns "nasty", it isn't me who needs to worry.

blü 2 said:
But I think you'll find God exists only as a concept or thing imagined in individual brains. The evidence very strongly points that way.

It is very apparent that you have never met this God you keep denying. He is very real to me and an important part of my life, guiding me through many terrible experiences. I know why the world is the way it is, and I know what's coming and I am prepared for it......I don't think you have the slightest clue, personally...and I'm sad about that. You couldn't say what you do if you really knew him....He is standing right in front of you, but you have no eyes to see him.

oldbadger · Dec 29, 2020

nPeace said:
Why are they so curious to spend billions of dollars, on Mars, and someone can plant a bomb - not in a relatively secluded area, but in the parking lot of scores of schools, and detonate it precisely when they want it to... and go unnoticed?
I'm curious.

What would you like the World to do?
For instance, the next time there is a terrorist attack somewhere, anywhere.. should we close down scientific research across the World to focus just on community security?
Would you like us to do that?

Heyo · Dec 29, 2020

nPeace said:
Well in that case Heyo, you might as well believe Goddidit, since your knowledge really has not increase, because you don't know what you assume. You merely accept a guess as correct.
Examining the composition of two bodies does not confirm a guess.
You can still mine for minerals without assuming that one body came from another.
The only knowledge you gained was the composition of the object you examined.
The other is an unconfirmed speculation. Not true?

Why do you call God magical? I don't understand that. Is energy magical? Is matter magical? Can you explain please.

I understand, it is claimed that scientists simulated how the moon formed.

From these simulations, it seems the earth is the only object in the solar system. What did they use to simulate gravity? Were they not other bodies with their own gravity?

I believe without knowing you, that you are an educated person, and you would agree that using your power of reason... some refer to it as common sense, is important in life.
Consider the story in detail.

Here the earth is, orbiting the giant star, along with all the other bodies.
Then BLAM! Struck violently by an object - some object... Mars size, whether it's an astroid, or a smaller planet. It's large enough to escape earth's gravity, and not linger around like the moon did.
Debris flies in all directions, and some of it is so gravity defying, that it does not fall to earth, but stays in orbit collecting with other pieces of debris... defying the earth's gravity, for how many years? A hundred years? Forget I said that @Heyo. I forgot the earth's gravity in not that strong.
This debris is collected together... ... ... by gravity... ? to form our moon, which stops the wobbly earth at just the right tilt. Lady luck?

I consider all these speculations just-so-stories Heyo.
Here is why we are asked to believe.
Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.

I like this article, and here is why.

How the Earth got its moon is a long debated question. The giant impact theory [there is that word used loosely again. ] – which states that the Moon formed from the a collision between the early Earth and a rocky body called Theia – has become the front runner among the explanations. But the details around how this happened are blurry and there are many observations that scientists are still struggling to explain.

Now a new study, published in Nature Geoscience, has shed light on what actually happened by solving one of the biggest mysteries surrounding the crash [the crash. It did happen. It's not a supposed crash. ]– why the Moon ended up being nearly identical to Earth, rather than Theia, assuming she existed.

The article says that the new study resolves the question of why the moon is suspiciously similar to Earth by showing that the Earth and the Moon aren’t as similar as previously thought.

Isn't that one of the evidences that gives us reason to believe. Now it is wrong?
Do you see what I an trying to say Heyo?
Why make all these guesses and speculations which can never be verified... unless... wait. I think I saw a video recording somewhere.
Here it is.

Or maybe you prefer these suggestions, but notice one thing, that is admitted. The mass of the earth, and its position, is a vital necessarily to earth's existence... or perhaps I should say, inhabitability.

This OP started as a (not very well formulated) question about (scientific) curiosity.
Now it is all over the place, with a big school of red herrings.
That is the difference between your curiosity and scientific curiosity:
scientists stay on topic. They investigate a topic in depth because they really want an answer. You, so it seems to me, do not want an answer. (Or something like ADHS prevents you from keeping focus - just one possible explanation, not a diagnosis.)
Can we get back from the accretion of the moon to the topic?

danieldemol · Dec 29, 2020

nPeace said:
Doesn't matter. The population crisis is not due to religion. That's the point. It's not an honest observation.

Actually you are calling it dishonest without demonstrating how it is dishonest. Essentially you are making an ad-hominem attack.

So let's review the facts.
1 we already have enough people in the world.
2 overproduction of humans will add to the number of people in the world
3 religious people are overproducing humans.

Conclusion: religion is a large driver of the population crisis.

No dishonesty needed

danieldemol · Dec 29, 2020

The concept of God as a superscientist that hangs around mixing chemicals without magic is an interesting one, essentially likening God to an aspect of its alleged "creation".

But chemicals mix in nature all the time, so Occam's razor suggests that a superscientist is not necessary for the chemicals to mix.

Besides, if any super scientist where mixing chemicals for life to form they would easily have filled the universe with life if it were within their power to do so.

The emptiness of our solar system alone suggests to me that probability rather than a super mass producer is responsible for the chemicals mixing.

Besides none of God's lab equipment has ever been found and it would have to be a pretty big lab to have produced all the species of animals.

Plus not even the Bible says that God mixed chemicals to make man, so it's not just a non scientific speculation, its a non biblical speculation as well.

Curiosity?

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

Resident Sourpuss

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member