1. 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!

Featured Why Darwinism is a saner attitude...

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Estro Felino, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:38 AM.

  1. columbus

    columbus Conservative Catholic from Hell

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    19,638
    Ratings:
    +12,227
    Religion:
    None
  2. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,324
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    nature
    From nature of course. Nature is all there is and all there needs to be.
     
  3. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,324
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    nature
    The devil is an imaginary creature. It is better to believe in unicorns.
     
  4. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,324
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    nature
  5. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    Yes.
     
  6. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,324
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    nature
    So are you on a mission to show evidence that science is incorrect? All science or just the science you do not like?
     
  7. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    No. For an update, see this post.

    And this one.
     
  8. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,324
    Ratings:
    +841
    Religion:
    nature
    Read the post but I still do not understand. What does that post have to do with being a science denier. The essence of science is that it can be accepted by anyone of any religious belief because it is not religious. It is based on what is observable and subject to changes in ideas as evidence increases. It is not set on a stone tablet or written long ago with words that cannot be challenged. In fact it thrives with challenge. An no one is here to bully someone else - only to state their views. Certainly there are plenty of people who disagree with my posts but I do not feel bullied. So why are you and enemy of science?
     
  9. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    I’m an enemy of what people are calling “science,” when they use it as a reason for calling some beliefs “unscientific,” and calling some people “science deniers.” I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “science.” Just like I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “what God says.”
     
  10. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,352
    Ratings:
    +3,948
    But you do realize that science is actually quantifiable, right? There is an actual way to SHOW a particular claim is based on science or is scientifically sound.

    For example:
    1) "Force equals mass times acceleration" is a scientifically sound statement.
    2) "Force equals pixies times magical dragons" is not a scientifically sound statement.

    Are you saying that we cannot claim that 1) is scientific and 2) is not?
     
  11. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    No. You can define “scientific” however you want to and go around pinning the labels “scientific” and “unscientific” on everything in sight. I won’t try to stop you. Have a merry time, and don’t forget to buy a T-shirt. I’m just saying that if you do that in forum debating, you won’t be contributing to anyone’s understanding, and you’ll be promoting scorn and contempt for all science, including the most beneficial kinds. If that’s what you want to do, help yourself, knock yourself out.
     
  12. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,352
    Ratings:
    +3,948
    But that's not what is being done. The labels aren't arbitrary - there's an actual criteria to something being scientific or scientifically sound. That is, it needs to be testable and quantifiable. A claim which has been tested and quantified is scientific, a claim which has not been tested or quantified isn't. Force equals mass times acceleration is scientific, dragons kidnapped my imaginary niece is not scientific.

    But this is a debate about science. Therefore, dismissing a claim which is claimed to be scientific, or claims to contradict science, but actually isn't or doesn't is perfectly relevant.

    I don't see how acknowledging the fact that not all claims can be classed as scientific is going to harm science. If anything, that's protecting actual science from institutions and organizations who wish to make non-scientific claims (like creationism) appear as legitimate as actual scientific claims. In this debate especially, the qualifier of what is or is not science is absolutely vital.
     
  13. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,121
    Ratings:
    +1,390
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So.. asteroids, planets, moons, comets, stars, black holes, quasars,... ?

    Or.... it's as if you are adding stuff between the lines of the text, in an attempt to make it not sound completely ridiculous?

    It's still odd today.
    "commanding" matter to do things.... that Harry Potter style magic.

    Turns out neither of us is really correct.
    Looked it up and read through a few abstracts and scanned some articles.
    There seems to be much discussion about it. Land based mud pots near volcanic vents is just one of many hypothesis.

    Nevertheless, it is clear that complex life first thrived in the sea and only then on land.
    The sea was crawling with multi-cellular life before the land got populated with them.

    You could also say that gravity is regulated by undetectable pink graviton pixies, but what good would that do?

    Well, you have completely failed to show that.
    What I observe here, is you taking text and retro-actively try to "reïnterpret" what it says to try and match scientific findings.
     
  14. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,609
    Ratings:
    +208
    Religion:
    None
    You have to think outside the box.
    God created the heaven... and the earth.
    and the earth was dark, wet and sterile.

    WE AREN'T GIVEN EVERY STEP IN THE SEQUENCE.
    We are given a point in time
    What point?
    A point you can comprehend.

    No hyper dimensional muti-universes. These people
    thought a "planet" was a wandering star, and the horizon
    was the end of the earth.

    And the bible is a theological book. It didn't set out to
    disrupt people's cultural notions. As Galileo said, the
    bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens
    go.

    So, dark, wet and sterile. No ground beneath you. You
    can't see the sun. AND THAT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    24,767
    Ratings:
    +13,693
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Your understanding is off. In the very early history of the Earth, it would not have been "dark set and serile". Wet came later.
     
  16. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    531
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Darwin's theory of evolution only deals with the progression of life, after self replicating life appears on the earth. It does not deal with the original formation of this first life, from scratch. This is the subject of a separate area of science, called abiogenesis, which has the word genesis in it. Genesis of the Bible is the original theory of abiogenesis.

    Evolution in the bible is dealt with under Noah's Arc. In the story of Noah's Ark there is a selection process, where two of each animal, male and female, are selected. These will become the source of furthering evolution of species. This is very similar to Darwin, or should I say, Darwin says a similar thing, but in a slightly different way to suit those times.

    In terms of the science of abiogenesis, this area of science has never made life in the lab. It is only a theory and not a proven fact. The fact that life does exist on the earth shows us something happened, but the mechanism or theory is not entirely proven or clear.

    The main difference between the two theories, is the theory in Genesis uses a God that has a plan. While abiogenesis theory uses a God of chance and gambling to created whatever conditions you think you will need. The first God uses the logic within the principles of physical creation to form life; laws of science extrapolated in a logical way. The second God buys lottery tickets hoping to for life to appear. He has no plan, but depends on luck. He is the little brother of the first God; Fredo.

    In terms of humans, created in the image of God, the atheist attempt to mimic a God of gambling, while the religious people attempt to mimic a God of planning and reason. It makes no sense that the Atheist, who claim to be rational, ignore the God of planning and reason, and prefer a gambling God approach. They worship the God Fredo.

    The bible gives us a hint about the approach of God, the elder, for the formation of life.

    2Peter 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

    Water is the most abundant solid material of the universe; ice, and therefore is the main gravity source for the formation of new stars. Water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe behind only H2; hydrogen gas. Hydrogen and Oxygen are the two most abundant atoms in the universe. Water is the wild card molecule of the universe with over 70 anomalous properties.

    Water is the logical and planning foundation needed to create life. Fred science assumers any solvent can work, even though nobody has ever proven, life in the lab, with or without water. This pseudo science assumes Fredo is all powerful, and he can do this, if we he has enough time and enough dice. The US Government needs to stop funding all Fredo science, due to separation of church and state.
     
  17. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,121
    Ratings:
    +1,390
    Religion:
    Atheist
    If you agree with that quote, then what are you doing throwing bible quotes at science?

    What's a scientific fact, now?
    I'm sorry but you're statement is making very little sense to me.
     
  18. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    531
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Fredo science allows one to perform magic tricks that fool the Atheists. Statistical math is useful because it places the active variables in a black box and only looks at the input and output to make predictions. This approach is useful because sometimes the variables are too many, and the interconnected logic is too complex. The black box approach allows one to avenge all this complexity to make predictions, spite of this logical limitations.

    Where the Fredo Magic tricks appear, is although statistics uses a black box, scientists will try to add theory, to explain a statical result and pretend this logic is why the results appear. However, in reality, statistics works by mathematical rules that are independent of the theory. This is what the black box does.

    As an example, if I was to say an affect is due to aliens, other dimensions, spirits and demons, etc., and then run a statistical analysis, the result will be the same for all these theories, since the statistics is independent of the theory; black box. The scam works by mixing logic with statistical results and pretending one means the other.
     
  19. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,609
    Ratings:
    +208
    Religion:
    None
    "Wet came later"
    The bible doesn't give you every point in the creation - for all we know
    it could be an infinite number of points.
    Are you referring to a lava earth?
    Well, sorry, accumulated debris came before that
    sorry... accretion disk came before that
    sorry...heavy metal and hydrogen gas clouds before that
    sorry... first stars before that which created metals
    sorry.....
    etc
    etc

    and let's not forget the Snowball earth
    and the various inter-glacial periods

    We could be here forever. And that's not what the
    bible is about. It's a theological book and it cared
    little for issues of earth and time.
     
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    2,121
    Ratings:
    +1,390
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Wow, talk about a stretch to make an analogy...


    Let's get something straight first.... in this context (science), calling genesis a "theory" is ridiculous. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis...

    There is not really a theory of abiogenesis. They are only a couple of scientific hypothesis that are being explored, some more promising then others. Secondly, none of the hypothesis includes any type of "god".

    So it's a complete misnomer and absurd to say it uses a "god of chance and gambling".


    This is no law of science that accomodates for supernatural being engaging in magic.
    So none of that is "logical" or scientific. It's just magic. The first (and only) God uses magic.


    No. The second non-god is just chemistry doing what it does.
    There's no lottery tickets and there is no predetermined intention to make anything in particular happen.

    Just like 2 H atoms and an O atom will bond into a watermolecule if they happen to be in eachothers proximity under certain specific conditions. Life is an extreme expression of complex chemistry, sure. But it's chemistry nonetheless, following the same rules and laws as the chemistry that results in simple molecules.

    Complex chemistry doesn't require any more of a "special" explanation then simple chemistry does.


    "luck" is again a word that assumes there is predetermined intention. This is an inappropriate word.
    In chemistry, for certain molecules to pop-up, sure, there is a probabilistic factor.
    Certain molecules require vulcanic vents to form, so they only form around vulcanic vents. Sure. Do vulcanic vents therefor require a "special" explanation as well? No....

    But if YOU were one of those molecules and were wondering how you came to be, you'ld be also attributing such vents to your god and be calling it "logical". That's essentially the equivalent of what you are doing here.


    Your "god of gambling" makes zero sense. Therefor your argument is really worthless.

    Demonstrate to me that your "god of planning and reason" exists or is even only required, then I'll consider it.

    Meanwhile, can you acknowledge that any event that can happen with a certain probability, WILL inevitably happen given enough trials?


    Again... your argument with your "god of gambling" is ridiculous and exposes a vast ignorance on how science is done. And how probability works, for that matter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...