• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The creator did it.

gnostic

The Lost One
So you are an old school skeptic and always suspend judgement? I get that you are a sort of an agnostic, but you still act in the everyday world.
Being a skeptic and being agnostic, aren’t the same thing.

Agnosticism only deal with the philosophical question of the “existence of any deity”, which they seemed to sit in the middle between theism and atheism.

Agnosticism have no more to do with science, just as theism, atheism, deism, and any other “-ism” have nothing to do with science too.

But skepticism isn’t about suspending any judgement at all. Skeptics actively pursue against any ideas, opinions or beliefs that doesn’t agree with their own.

Anyone can be skeptical, and you don’t need science degree to be skeptical about anything.

But normally you will find there are more people who are skeptics towards the supernatural and towards folklore.

For instance, I am skeptical of the whole UFO or alien abductions. To me, it is folklore or works of fiction, and I don’t need a college degree to be skeptic in this area of alien abduction myth.

In essence, atheists are skeptical towards the concept of theism, while theists are just skeptical towards the concept of atheism. Neither have anything to do with science, and neither of required science to be skeptical of each other.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Here was my question, that 'triggered!' the barrage of ad hom & righteous indignation from the common descent Believers:

And, a few of the helpful, scientific based replies:





So which is it?. Fusion, or no? Irate indignation or rational rebuttal?

..and you pretend i am the instigator of your childish hysteria.. :rolleyes:

..but im done with the petty 'he said, she said!' bickering. If you want to talk science, I'll engage in the other thread. If you want to berate me, personally, the member interview thread is good for that. Or, you can keep dogpiling in every thread, all the time, with no let up. I don't really care.. :shrug:

And, i won't always ignore your ad hom grenades.. sometimes i will pull the pins, and throw them back.. ;)
You have no grounds for complaint. You asked a truly stupid question. Now it looks as if you are only trolling.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh my my! I just realized something. @usfan thinks it is an insult to point out that he is an ape!

I am not "triggered", I am rolling in the aisles with laughter. What's next? Will deny that he is a mammal? Or a vertebrate? Only a creationist will misinterpret a statement of fact as an insult.
 

Dan From Smithville

"We are both impressed and daunted." Cargn
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh my my! I just realized something. @usfan thinks it is an insult to point out that he is an ape!

I am not "triggered", I am rolling in the aisles with laughter. What's next? Will deny that he is a mammal? Or a vertebrate? Only a creationist will misinterpret a statement of fact as an insult.
Too apes?

Denial is a funny thing. He cannot come to grips with the facts. Who knew?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Being a skeptic and being agnostic, aren’t the same thing.

Agnosticism only deal with the philosophical question of the “existence of any deity”, which they seemed to sit in the middle between theism and atheism.

Agnosticism have no more to do with science, just as theism, atheism, deism, and any other “-ism” have nothing to do with science too.

But skepticism isn’t about suspending any judgement at all. Skeptics actively pursue against any ideas, opinions or beliefs that doesn’t agree with their own.

Anyone can be skeptical, and you don’t need science degree to be skeptical about anything.

But normally you will find there are more people who are skeptics towards the supernatural and towards folklore.

For instance, I am skeptical of the whole UFO or alien abductions. To me, it is folklore or works of fiction, and I don’t need a college degree to be skeptic in this area of alien abduction myth.

In essence, atheists are skeptical towards the concept of theism, while theists are just skeptical towards the concept of atheism.

You do have a thing with things.
If 2 things aren't the same thing, then how can the idea of them being different meet in your brain and you can then discuss the difference. These 2 things must be somehow be interconnected otherwise you couldn't know this and discuss same and different.
As long as you use the kind of dualism, we will disagree, but if we are truly in the strong sense not the same, how come we can debate?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You do have a thing with things.
If 2 things aren't the same thing, then how can the idea of them being different meet in your brain and you can then discuss the difference. These 2 things must be somehow be interconnected otherwise you couldn't know this and discuss same and different.
As long as you use the kind of dualism, we will disagree, but if we are truly in the strong sense not the same, how come we can debate?
Agnosticism only relate to the religious question about theism and atheism - that knowledge of the existence of any deity to be “unknowable”...nothing more, nothing less.

Agnosticism says nothing about science. It doesn’t say anything about the knowledge of science as being “unknowable”, because agnosticism doesn’t cover science.

“Merriam-Webster Dictionary” said:
AGNOSTICISM noun

the view that any ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown and probably unknowable : a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods

Do you see anything in the above definition relating to science whatsoever?

There is nothing in agnosticism that say it must express doubts or uncertainty about science. Agnosticism doesn’t withhold judgement on science, because science is outside of the agnostic precept.

Agnosticism is very specific of what it is, none of it relates to science.

You are simply twisting the word agnosticism to suit your warped interpretation.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Agnosticism only relate to the religious question about theism and atheism - that knowledge of the existence of any deity to be “unknowable”...nothing more, nothing less.

Agnosticism says nothing about science. It doesn’t say anything about the knowledge of science as being “unknowable”, because agnosticism doesn’t cover science.



Do you see anything in the above definition relating to science whatsoever?

There is nothing in agnosticism that say it must express doubts or uncertainty about science. Agnosticism doesn’t withhold judgement on science, because science is outside of the agnostic precept.

Agnosticism is very specific of what it is, none of it relates to science.

You are simply twisting the word agnosticism to suit your warped interpretation.

The Nature of Scientific Knowledge | Process of Science | Visionlearning

Science is about knowledge and agnosticism is about knowledge.
Here is more:
What is science?
Science is both a body of knowledge and a process.

Yet more,
Skepticism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
  • the limitations of knowledge
  • a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing

Agnosticism, science and skepticism have in common that they are all about knowledge or lack here of.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
In part: Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

BTW you are local skeptic, I am a global skeptic

So yes, all 3 have something in common: They are about knowledge and the limitations of knowledge.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

I agree with the exception that many things were not created by God. We have factories. So, where is the line drawn between what God created and what God did not create?
 

Dan From Smithville

"We are both impressed and daunted." Cargn
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree with the exception that many things were not created by God. We have factories. So, where is the line drawn between what God created and what God did not create?
He is wrong about science demonstrating that life cannot come from nonliving material. What science has demonstrated is that living things are not reproduced fully formed from nonliving material. Creationists have taken the work of Redi and Pasteur and extended it outside of its scope to say things that it does not say.

There is no evidence or reason to think that abiogenesis cannot occur.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The Nature of Scientific Knowledge | Process of Science | Visionlearning

Science is about knowledge and agnosticism is about knowledge.
Here is more:
What is science?
Science is both a body of knowledge and a process.

Yet more,
Skepticism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
  • the limitations of knowledge
  • a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing

Agnosticism, science and skepticism have in common that they are all about knowledge or lack here of.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
In part: Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

You have provided some definitions to science and what science do.

And what you wrote that I had highlighted in the quote above is true, regarding to supernatural.

Supernatural would also include any deity, spirit, mythological beings (eg trolls, orc, fairies, etc), magic, miracles, etc. none of these are falsifiable, so scientists doesn’t bother to try to test them.

Science don’t focus on trying to test God, because God is unfalsifiable and untestable, and because there are no ways to observe, measure or test God.

So religions are one of the areas that natural science or physical science don’t cover. It is one of the limits that science don’t study.

Agnosticism deals with philosophical or religious question of any deity’s existence. Their position is that the existence of god is unknown, and may possibly be unknowable. Nothing more or less.

Agnostics don’t use science (eg scientific method) to test their stance regarding to the existence of god, because, knowledge or no knowledge, agnosticism isn’t science.

Agnosticism and science are not the same things, mikkel. Get that in your head because you are confusing the two.

I have tried to be patient with you, but if you cannot distinguish between science and agnosticism, then I can’t help you, and it would be pointless of me to try.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I agree with the exception that many things were not created by God. We have factories. So, where is the line drawn between what God created and what God did not create?
I don’t think A REAL CHRISTIAN had much education in science, or he was simply not good at science.

You are right in that God didn’t create many things, that people were involved in creating, manufacturing in factories, as your example shown.

But there are no evidences to support any creator deity “creating” anything like the universe, this galaxy, our Solar System or the Earth, and no evidences about any god creating life, including humans.

They only come from stories based on superstitions and ignorance on how the physical world works; they are based on faith in belief, not on science.

Science tried to answer some basic questions, like -
  1. WHAT is this or that?
  2. HOW does it work?
  3. WHAT possible application it may have (if we can answer can successfully answer 1 & 2)?
  4. HOW do we make it work?
There are no WHO in trying to answering these questions, especially in the Creator.

As to Abiogenesis, the hypothesis is still under development stage and with limited testings.

The fact that any experiment can be carried out (eg Miller-Urey experiment, 1952), or that evidences can be discovered (eg the evidences for amino acids can be found naturally in water or in the meteorite like the Murchison Meteorite), make Abiogenesis falsifiable.

Abiogenesis haven’t been able to create “life” in the labs from inorganic materials, but they can make organic matters (amino acid) from inorganic materials (eg again, Miller-Urey Experiment), which is the step in the right direction for Abiogenesis.

There are over 100 different types of amino acids, but only 22 types can be found occurring naturally in proteins.

And proteins are one of the vital biological molecules in life. Without amino acids, there are no proteins, and proteins can be found in almost parts of living bodies.

Other important essential molecules for biological entities, are nucleic acids (eg DNA & RNA) and carbohydrates.

Carbohydrates, or sugar, are found in the polymers of DNA and RNA.

Although these biological molecules are vital for life and they are biological, by themselves they are not living matters, hence not alive.

So A REAL CHRISTIAN is wrong about life are not made out non-living.

The largest molecular composition in the human body is water (H2O), which make up about 65% of our mass. Water is not even biological matters (hence inorganic), let alone alive.

It is the sum of our parts that make any biological entities that make us alive.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I agree with the exception that many things were not created by God. We have factories. So, where is the line drawn between what God created and what God did not create?
Does god create variations in DNA or directly influence changes in the DNA and associated structures?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You have provided some definitions to science and what science do.

And what you wrote that I had highlighted in the quote above is true, regarding to supernatural.

Supernatural would also include any deity, spirit, mythological beings (eg trolls, orc, fairies, etc), magic, miracles, etc. none of these are falsifiable, so scientists doesn’t bother to try to test them.

Science don’t focus on trying to test God, because God is unfalsifiable and untestable, and because there are no ways to observe, measure or test God.

So religions are one of the areas that natural science or physical science don’t cover. It is one of the limits that science don’t study.

Agnosticism deals with philosophical or religious question of any deity’s existence. Their position is that the existence of god is unknown, and may possibly be unknowable. Nothing more or less.

Agnostics don’t use science (eg scientific method) to test their stance regarding to the existence of god, because, knowledge or no knowledge, agnosticism isn’t science.

Agnosticism and science are not the same things, mikkel. Get that in your head because you are confusing the two.

I have tried to be patient with you, but if you cannot distinguish between science and agnosticism, then I can’t help you, and it would be pointless of me to try.

Sorry for the late answer.
Science, skepticism and agnosticism all have knowledge in common, unless for what is not you alone and in effect common to all humans, that there are several forms of knowledge for the same, the world as such. The same being, how we describe the shared world, we are in.
If there are limits to knowledge(skepticism) and science acknowledges it:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And agnosticism is a form of acknowledgement of the limit of knowledge, then all 3 share the same: This is a limit to knowledge.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Sorry for the late answer.
Science, skepticism and agnosticism all have knowledge in common, unless for what is not you alone and in effect common to all humans, that there are several forms of knowledge for the same, the world as such. The same being, how we describe the shared world, we are in.
If there are limits to knowledge(skepticism) and science acknowledges it:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And agnosticism is a form of acknowledgement of the limit of knowledge, then all 3 share the same: This is a limit to knowledge.

So what's your point, really?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
And agnosticism is a form of acknowledgement of the limit of knowledge, then all 3 share the same: This is a limit to knowledge.
You still don’t understand understand that agnosticism isn’t science, and science isn’t agnosticism.

Agnosticism ONLY DEALS WITH QUESTION OF RELIGIOUS STANCES ON “THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY”, AND NOTHING ELSE.

It has nothing to do with any knowledge in science.

Does science has limits? Yes.

Does religion has limits? Yes.

Does philosophy has limits? Yes.

Just because each ones have their own limits in their own respective knowledge, doesn’t mean they are the same knowledge. They are completely different knowledges.

All you are doing, is twisting the words, as if they are same.

It is like you are comparing oranges to door mat. It is moronic.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Most interesting.....
Those published between 1998 - 2004:

  • Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
  • Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
  • Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
  • Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
  • Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
  • Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
  • Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
  • Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
  • Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
  • Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
  • Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)
  • Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts & Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, 1994)
  • Starr & Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 8th Edition (Wadsworth, 1998)
  • Guttman, Biology (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
I’m aware that some authors said they would remove the drawings in later editions. Still, Myers & Gould were right... being persistent in publishing fraudulence, is not supporting genuine science.

After I mentioned that you copy pasted this list from Wells, you replied:

I made the point.

Honestly, I haven't read Wells.
But I've read Axe, "Undeniable ". And "Darwin's Doubt", by Meyer.

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

Weird - I read this by Wells:

Haeckel, Darwin, and Textbooks

and darned if I did not see this:

And the list omits the following textbooks published between 1998 and 2004 that do include Haeckel’s drawings or a re-drawn version of them:

  • Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
  • Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
  • Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
  • Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
  • Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
  • Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
  • Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
  • Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
  • Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
  • Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
  • Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)

Huh... But you did not provide a link in your original post, did you? And then you actually claimed that you had not even read Wells!

What kind of person are you?
 
Top