Evolution versus Creationism

[warpus]

To raise a child in your christian faith and then have them go off to college and come home a Buddhist or atheist is a scary thing for many people.

It shouldn't be - our society would be much better for it.

I don't think such behaviour should be encouraged - or excused.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Cosmology and astrophysics involves a lot of inference. Personally, i think it's a bit wrong to call them theories, but I have an empirical bent too. Short of time-travel and creation of a 'pocket universe', there's no way to verify the truth. Scientists can just try to improve the model so it's in accordance with all known facts. I think if you're gonna do thought experiments on the big bang, realize that scientists do make unmeasured assumptions (because of the lack of time travel / records) about the universe; Inferences based on the natural record still have some implied assumptions. Suffice to say that even the 'big bang' is still challenged by scientists to this day (http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html).
Bottom line is still, if you want to challenge an established scientific theory, in a scientific way, you need facts, not theologies. And if you want to introduce a theological belief as a physical force to propose an alternative scientific theory, then you have to supply facts of such for it to be validated as science.

that bolded statement seems to say "most things in science in this field are just a guess that as we "learn" more, we'll change our guess so that it fits well with our other guesses.
And I'm not proposing an alternative theory. I still fail to see how it is ALTERNATIVE. I believe what you believe (for the most part). The only difference is, I believe there is more to it that you aren't seeing, that religion explains.

Taras, no answer?

you made an absurd claim that IF it were true, my entire belief would be made null. How can I argue with simple DENAIL of my claim?

Why should a test be based on faith?

"I have faith that the answer to this question is 42".
"Well, you're wrong. If you did your work, you would have realized that it was 52"
"Doh"

But that isn't faith. Faith isn't simply saying "I THINK this is the answer... so I'll go ahead and guess that." as you said. Faith is an assurance of the truthfulness of something that you cannot see. This assurance forms a "base" that you can make choices from. "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:17. It isn't enough simply stating "I believe" and expect God to give you your answer. God rewards those who try. When you give God your best, his best comes back to you.

This is your response to me talking about "falsifiability"? Do you even know what the term means? It means that you should be able to think up an experiment that might prove your theory WRONG. A scientific theory is only a scientific theory if it is falsifiable.

My point was that it isn't enough to say "we can't prove it wrong, it must be right." You need to add the other part with "there is evidence supporting the theory, and since it can't be proved wrong, its right." I was asking how you can believe in something that you simply say "we haven't proved it wrong, it must be right." (i.e.-Big Bang Theory)

Why fill in gaps in our understanding with things that may or may not be right?
Why not just wait until we have figurered them out?

Scientifically speaking, if you know MORE than what someone else knows, should you simply STOP learning stuff, and forget the excess because someone else doesn't know as much as you? No. You use what you know to learn MORE and EXPLAIN it.

So did physicists fill in the gaps in string theory with Buddhist dogma? or Hindu? Or Muslim?
Nope, they worked on the problem more and came up with some answers.

you're not getting my analogy. When designing String Theory, each aspect was right. Although they didn't seem to go together, they really did, which is the point I'm trying to make.

Religion and Science, when glanced at, seem to contradict each other (and I'll admit, some religions DO contradict science), but I believe the religion and science go hand-in-hand

So how does God teach us? What does good teach us? How does God test us? What the "grades" and why do they matter?

God teaches us when we do things such as praying, reading the scriptures, attending seminary (a church run program for high school-aged students), when we give talks in church, when we ATTEND church (such as the different classes we attend there).
God teaches us how to make the right decisions and things that we need to know. Life lessons, for the most part.
God tests us when we go through trials. Everytime we face something that seems impossible to overcome, this is a trial. It is how we make it through those trials (the actions we take) that is important.
Our "grades" are judgements. The judgements after this life will have eternal consequences. It will determine our reward after this life.

Not asking for science, just reason.

I believe in religion because of personal experiences I've had. (e.g.-praying for something and recieving it in a unorthodox way) Things that I know in my heart, despite not having strong evidence for it. I believe in science because its logical.
Based on logic, if I KNOW both of those things are true, they CAN'T contradict each other, one reason why I believe they don't.

Well Big Bang is believed because of the observed expansion of galaxies (Hubble's law), the morphologies of ancient galaxies, CMBR (Cosmic microwave background radiation, echoes of the bang) and a smattering of other facts.
People generally aren't trying to get more confirmatory evidence of the Big Bang itself, rather details, especially in the earliest moments, of which we know little.
Well, mass is energy, so it could be that it wasn't mass. There's a lot of quantum effects that make this seem plausible.
The bottom line is we don't know what happened then, we simply do not know what occurs at such fantastic energies.

That is where religion comes in. It fills a lot of it in. Scientists just don't like it because it doesn't explain it, or use scientific theories. Simply stating who do it and what happened isn't enough for scientists.

Science has had holes before. Religious people attmpted to fill them with religion. Then science tfills in the holes, conflict ensues. Why do you presume that science wouldn't fill in these holes without religion?

I'm not saying science CANNOT fill the holes it has, I'm simply stating that just because lots of people THINK science and religion conflict, doesn't make that true.
I'm not saying that religions who've conflicted with sciences are WRONG, (I believe most religions contain some aspect of truth, of course I believe mine has the whole truth) but implying that that COULD be a way to determine which religions are right. That eventually, religion will be proven by science (if given ENOUGH time)

Has such a thing ever occurred before with religion and science in you view? If so when and how?

Yes, it has.
Take the Big Bang theory that we've been talking about.
Religion says "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." Pretty much saying that God did it, he created it, not gunna' say how.
Science says "This is how the Universe was created... created by the Big Bang, along with other theories, etc..." Pretty much saying that this is HOW it happened, we don't know how it all started or began.

I believe when you put them together it reads something like "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth... this is how HE created the universe.... by the Big Bang, along with other theories, etc..." Of course, you can look at the traditional views, and say, religion and science conflict, but when you put the real facts in plain sight, you see that they fit together.

 

[El_Machinae]

Leaving aside that the Earth wasn't created in the beginning, but in the 'middle', everything after that statement (in the Bible) is obviously wrong. From the creation of the Sun after the Earth on down.

Now, if the goal was to communicate that God did it, why include descriptions which are false?

Why should I think they fit together? Making them fit seems to be exercising cognitive dissonance.

 

[Simple Simon]

you made an absurd claim that IF it were true, my entire belief would be made null. How can I argue with simple DENAIL of my claim?

well, for one thing, you could try to show that my claim is false. Or you could try to show that the conclusion I draw is false.

Your failure to even attempt to do that is rather telling.

 

[warpus]

But that isn't faith. Faith isn't simply saying "I THINK this is the answer... so I'll go ahead and guess that." as you said. Faith is an assurance of the truthfulness of something that you cannot see. This assurance forms a "base" that you can make choices from.

I never said that faith was guesswork - I just said that faith is.. well.. what you said - you have faith that something is true even though you can't see it/don't really know for sure what it is/is something you're unclear about.

My example works.

My point was that it isn't enough to say "we can't prove it wrong, it must be right."

It's more like.. "based on the fact that the theory hasn't been proven wrong yet, and the fact that there aren't any competing scientific theories out there, it is the likeliest explanation for what's going on, as far as we know".

That's how science works.

You need to add the other part with "there is evidence supporting the theory, and since it can't be proved wrong, its right."

If it can't be proved wrong, then it isn't a scientific theory. That's my whole point. You need to be able to prove a theory wrong. If you can't - it's not a scientific theory.

I was asking how you can believe in something that you simply say "we haven't proved it wrong, it must be right." (i.e.-Big Bang Theory)

I don't believe that the Big Bang Theory is entirely correct - and not too many people who know what they're talking about believe such a thing either. We don't have a full picture of what exactly happened, but some form of Cosmic inflation seems like a pretty safe bet.

You're presenting a strawman. "We haven't proved it wrong, it must be right", is not how science works. It might be your impression of how science works, I'm not sure.

It works (in a way) as an oversimplification, but not in the context of this discussion.

Scientifically speaking, if you know MORE than what someone else knows, should you simply STOP learning stuff, and forget the excess because someone else doesn't know as much as you? No. You use what you know to learn MORE and EXPLAIN it.

Scientifically speaking, if you think you know more than what the scientifically accepted theory regarding something says, then you should

1.) Write up a scientific hypothesis
2.) Perform a bunch of experiments
3.) Verify that your hypothesis predicts reality correctly
4.) Present your scientific theory in a scientific journal
5.) Become famous

and not

1.) Fill in gaps in our understanding with stuff that might or might not be true
2.) Repeat

you're not getting my analogy. When designing String Theory, each aspect was right. Although they didn't seem to go together, they really did, which is the point I'm trying to make.

Religion and Science, when glanced at, seem to contradict each other (and I'll admit, some religions DO contradict science), but I believe the religion and science go hand-in-hand

That's not what we were talking about at all, though. You're talking about filling in gaps in science with religion..

and I'm saying that that's a really bad idea - because religious theories are not scientific theories - they are not falsifiable.

Science and Religion are compatible, though, just in a different way!

Science - explains how things in the universe work.
Religion - provides an arena for spiritual self-satisfaction.

See! The two don't have to conflict with eachother at all!

People do try to mix them up, though, mostly by using religion to attempt to explain how the universe works, which is when you start running into problems. If people used Science for the explaining, and Religion for the self-satisfying, there would be no conflicts at all.

 

[peter grimes]

... I find it interesting that the claims being made for 'religious' explanations of the creation of the universe have a decidedly semitic feel to them. Nothing here about Thor, Vishnu, Pele, Elohim, et alia

Perhaps it's a cultural bias

 

[Taras Bulba]

Leaving aside that the Earth wasn't created in the beginning, but in the 'middle', everything after that statement (in the Bible) is obviously wrong. From the creation of the Sun after the Earth on down.
Now, if the goal was to communicate that God did it, why include descriptions which are false?
Why should I think they fit together? Making them fit seems to be exercising cognitive dissonance.

One, the Bible NEVER says the Earth was created first. Two, as I believe I've said before in this thread (if I haven't, I'll say it now), the concept of Time is different for God and Man. God isn't limited to the dimension of time we live in. The purpose of stating "in the beginning" rather than "a long long time ago, the heavens got started, but somewhere in the middle of this time I made the Earth, then later I made some other things... etc..." is kinda' obvious... I mean, if he did, he might as well explained himself entirely.

well, for one thing, you could try to show that my claim is false. Or you could try to show that the conclusion I draw is false.
Your failure to even attempt to do that is rather telling.

I fail to find when YOU attempted to show my claim was false. Why should I be held to this standard, and not you?

I never said that faith was guesswork - I just said that faith is.. well.. what you said - you have faith that something is true even though you can't see it/don't really know for sure what it is/is something you're unclear about.

My example works.

One, if the answer is tangible, such as the question you proposed, there is no reason to have faith in it. You can SEE it. You can solve it. Doing what YOU said is simply guessing. Your example DOESN'T work because there is no NEED for faith if the answer is literally in front of you, on that paper, and all you need to do is solve it.

It's more like.. "based on the fact that the theory hasn't been proven wrong yet, and the fact that there aren't any competing scientific theories out there, it is the likeliest explanation for what's going on, as far as we know".
That's how science works.
If it can't be proved wrong, then it isn't a scientific theory. That's my whole point. You need to be able to prove a theory wrong. If you can't - it's not a scientific theory.

but wouldn't, logically, if you can't prove it WRONG, that means is right? How can something be not wrong, but actually BE wrong at the same time?

I don't believe that the Big Bang Theory is entirely correct - and not too many people who know what they're talking about believe such a thing either. We don't have a full picture of what exactly happened, but some form of Cosmic inflation seems like a pretty safe bet.
You're presenting a strawman. "We haven't proved it wrong, it must be right", is not how science works. It might be your impression of how science works, I'm not sure.
It works (in a way) as an oversimplification, but not in the context of this discussion.

What I was getting at, was you said science is based on falsifiability. Meaning, it needs to be CAPABLE of proving it wrong. Therefore, you have two ways of going at it.
Direction 1 - you prove it wrong... that makes it wrong
Direction 2 - you can't prove it wrong... that makes it, right?

that's why I said you can't just leave it at that. You need to add the other part that I previously said. I only used the Big Bang because to my knowledge, it had to strong opposing theory. I'll have to look into Cosmic Inflation, as I know only what the first 3 sentences of the wiki article you send said.

Scientifically speaking, if you think you know more than what the scientifically accepted theory regarding something says, then you should
1.) Write up a scientific hypothesis
2.) Perform a bunch of experiments
3.) Verify that your hypothesis predicts reality correctly
4.) Present your scientific theory in a scientific journal
5.) Become famous
and not
1.) Fill in gaps in our understanding with stuff that might or might not be true
2.) Repeat

I can think of one time where this was done, and it didn't go very far. At my age, I'm not sure there is much I can do until I'm older. Right now, I can only use logic, fitting the puzzle pieces together as best as I can, and I can say I haven't gotten all of them.
Perhaps one day I'll be able to use one of these pieces that are close, and use it to prove my theory, or maybe I won't have to. But for now, I do the best I can.

That's not what we were talking about at all, though. You're talking about filling in gaps in science with religion..
and I'm saying that that's a really bad idea - because religious theories are not scientific theories - they are not falsifiable.
Science and Religion are compatible, though, just in a different way!
Science - explains how things in the universe work.
Religion - provides an arena for spiritual self-satisfaction.
See! The two don't have to conflict with eachother at all!
People do try to mix them up, though, mostly by using religion to attempt to explain how the universe works, which is when you start running into problems. If people used Science for the explaining, and Religion for the self-satisfying, there would be no conflicts at all.

you seem to agree with me, somewhat. Well, maybe not personally agree, but get where I'm coming from. I can't remember saying that religion explains how the universe works. Perhaps that the universe has a rule of justice, but that goes in accordance to Newtons Third Law. Every action taken has an equal and opposite reaction, or concequence.
Perhaps religion and science might conflict if religion stated "this is how the world was created..." or "this is how mankind came about..." but they don't. It simply says that God was the one who did it. It doesn't say how he did it, which is where I believe science comes in with religion. They work together, not against each other.

 

[Simple Simon]

I fail to find when YOU attempted to show my claim was false. Why should I be held to this standard, and not you?

Wait - you make an outlandish claim here in the first place! Two, to be exact.

I never said religion and science where one in the same, I stated that they do not contradict each other and that they go hand in hand, not that they work the same way.

bolding mine

The religion possible under this premises is limited to a deistic and far-removed God. Christianity certainly is not such a religion - none of the many sects out there. In fact, no Near-Asian mystery cult is.

You have not brought any evidence that
- science and religion do not contradict each other
- science and religion go hand in hand.

Throughout the thread, you make that claim. But so far, there has only been a lot of hand-waving.

So before you demand I back up my claim that
- Christianity is not a deistic religion

you should start to bring evidence for you claim. Alternatively, I am happy if you just let things stand with regards to your claims, and try to argue against mine. You could also simply ask me to bring evidence (which would constitute throwing most of the NT, Aquinus and lots and lots of ex cathedra stuff at you, along with a good dose of Luther). Not doing any of the three, however, I can only take as your admission that you are wrong.




btw, you also totally ignored this post by me:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7857879&postcount=104

do you wish to escape debate about your misrepresentation of the theory of evolution?

 

[Taras Bulba]

Wait - you make an outlandish claim here in the first place! Two, to be exact.

You have not brought any evidence that
- science and religion do not contradict each other
- science and religion go hand in hand.

First of all, that is one claim. That religion and science go hand-in-hand. The fact they don't contradict each other is simply an extension of that claim. If something goes hand-in-hand with something else, I fail to see how it can contradict the other...

In addition, by proving that science and religion go hand-in-hand, I prove that they don't contradict each other.

Also, I have NO reason to explain myself in this situation, as I simply made a statement, and others tried to claim it as wrong. Logically, if you wished to prove it wrong, the counter needs to have the first claim of proof against the theory.
Not only that, but I have stated evidence (when someone asked for it) about my connection of the Big Bang Theory and God creating the world.

But for you, I'll give you another. In 1833, revelation for the Word of Wisdom was given. This Word of Wisdom was, in a sense, a health code. It spoke out against the use of alcohol and tobacco and other drugs, explaining that meat should be used sparingly, and that grain should be the staple of the diet. It also explained how caffeine isn't good for the body, and is the reason for not drinking drinks like coffee (sometimes certain soda). Quite a few of these practices were common at the time, and caused quite a controversy.
Later it was found that alcohol and tobacco can cause death. Grains were established to be the staple of the diet. Caffeine, although not as openly spoken about, has been proved to be a harmful drug, and coffee has proven to be almost counter-intuitive. That the use of coffee leads to the dependance on caffiene, and that without it, your body has no natural stimulus to "wake up."

btw, you also totally ignored this post by me:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...&postcount=104

do you wish to escape debate about your misrepresentation of the theory of evolution?

I'm sorry I'm not always on the internet to respond. I missed quite a few days then, and I made a statement specifically about that... but I guess you missed it

(if there is anything that I missed you'd REALLY like me to respond to, please ask me again and I'll try my best to answer).

In that, you said Abiogenesis wasn't random. Your implying that somehow, that atom thought it better to be in a molecule than in its own state. Somehow, those atoms willed themselves to join into a compound. Then, that compound somehow willed itself to recreate itself that it could do it all over again? Tell me... how does that work? Are atoms conscious?

 

[uppi]

In that, you said Abiogenesis wasn't random. Your implying that somehow, that atom thought it better to be in a molecule than in its own state. Somehow, those atoms willed themselves to join into a compound. Then, that compound somehow willed itself to recreate itself that it could do it all over again? Tell me... how does that work? Are atoms conscious?

Yes. Beware of the sneaky little atoms! I especially hate the Oxygen and Iron ones. Instead of staying where they belong in their own rightful state (the oxygen in the air and the iron on my bike), they don't know their place and get all rebellious and want to make compunds with each other instead and then my bike falls apart

These atoms should all go to prison! Unfortunately, sneaky as they are, they tend to break out in seconds. That's why there is a lot of research going on in building atom traps.

 

[El_Machinae]

In that, you said Abiogenesis wasn't random. Your implying that somehow, that atom thought it better to be in a molecule than in its own state. Somehow, those atoms willed themselves to join into a compound. Then, that compound somehow willed itself to recreate itself that it could do it all over again? Tell me... how does that work? Are atoms conscious?

Well, there's random and there's random. These atoms combining in thermodynamically stable conformations is no more surprising (or consciousness-requiring) than water droplets collecting into a puddle. They don't 'decide' to go there, there are just natural forces which make them likely to be there. But even in a puddle, there's quite a bit of randomness amongst the water molecules.

 

[warpus]

One, if the answer is tangible, such as the question you proposed, there is no reason to have faith in it. You can SEE it. You can solve it. Doing what YOU said is simply guessing. Your example DOESN'T work because there is no NEED for faith if the answer is literally in front of you, on that paper, and all you need to do is solve it.

and a lot of the problems that people rely on faith for can be solved too. such as the problem of the diversity of life on this planet. which has been solved.. but hey, look, there's a bunch of people who have faith that everyone's wrong. kinda like the guy in my example, who thinks that the answer to the math problem is 42.. because he has faith that it is.

but wouldn't, logically, if you can't prove it WRONG, that means is right? How can something be not wrong, but actually BE wrong at the same time?

i think we're stuck on an issue of semantics here. i'm saying that you have to be able to prove something wrong in order for it to be a scientific theory - which is why "God created it all" isn't one.

just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't make it right, either.

that's why I said you can't just leave it at that. You need to add the other part that I previously said.

which part is that? i seriously don't know what you're trying to get at here.

I can think of one time where this was done, and it didn't go very far.

the bible code? ... that's a joke, right?

At my age, I'm not sure there is much I can do until I'm older. Right now, I can only use logic, fitting the puzzle pieces together as best as I can, and I can say I haven't gotten all of them.
Perhaps one day I'll be able to use one of these pieces that are close, and use it to prove my theory, or maybe I won't have to. But for now, I do the best I can.

well, first of all.. you don't even have a scientific theory on your hands.

second of all. what exactly are you trying to figure out? on your own? using pen and paper? all by yourself?

rely on the experts to figure out how the world works. surely you don't expect to reach any amazing breakthroughs by yourself, do you?

 

[Birdjaguar]

In that, you said Abiogenesis wasn't random. Your implying that somehow, that atom thought it better to be in a molecule than in its own state. Somehow, those atoms willed themselves to join into a compound. Then, that compound somehow willed itself to recreate itself that it could do it all over again? Tell me... how does that work? Are atoms conscious?

Unlike most of the posters here, I would say yes, but they are conscious in a way that is different than we are. If you go here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7504946&postcount=28
you can see a nice discussion about consciousness.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Yes. Beware of the sneaky little atoms! I especially hate the Oxygen and Iron ones. Instead of staying where they belong in their own rightful state (the oxygen in the air and the iron on my bike), they don't know their place and get all rebellious and want to make compunds with each other instead and then my bike falls apart
These atoms should all go to prison! Unfortunately, sneaky as they are, they tend to break out in seconds. That's why there is a lot of research going on in building atom traps.

its one thing for a simple compound such as rust to form, than it is for complex macromolecules to form

Well, there's random and there's random. These atoms combining in thermodynamically stable conformations is no more surprising (or consciousness-requiring) than water droplets collecting into a puddle. They don't 'decide' to go there, there are just natural forces which make them likely to be there. But even in a puddle, there's quite a bit of randomness amongst the water molecules.

like I said before. (remember, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you guys) I'm not saying that simple molecules won't form. I just find it hard to believe that entire RNA sequences form at random. To say they don't form at random, WHAT causes them to join together?

and a lot of the problems that people rely on faith for can be solved too. such as the problem of the diversity of life on this planet. which has been solved.. but hey, look, there's a bunch of people who have faith that everyone's wrong. kinda like the guy in my example, who thinks that the answer to the math problem is 42.. because he has faith that it is.

That would be like me saying that spontaneous generation is a reason to prove science is wrong. Your taking an incorrect fact, and using it to refute something else.
there is no reason to have faith in something you can prove, though. Take this example.

Lets suppose, that hypothetically speaking, science one day proves God exists. Lets just say, for this example, science proves that religion is right. Now that you know everything you need to know, because you proved it, is there a reason to have faith in it? You know its true, so why do you need to believe it?
Its why religion will never be proved ENTIRELY (I think I may have implied that, I retract that statement). However, I don't believe God will just leave you high and dry. I believe there will be room enough that they fit together, some things are proven but could be considered coincidence (eg-the Word of Wisdom I referenced) despite all odds. It won't be proved entirely because you NEED faith.

i think we're stuck on an issue of semantics here. i'm saying that you have to be able to prove something wrong in order for it to be a scientific theory - which is why "God created it all" isn't one.
just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't make it right, either.

on the second part we agree, but wouldn't in science, if you can prove something is right, wouldn't that make it right?

which part is that? i seriously don't know what you're trying to get at here.

your previous statement mitigated the need. 'twas a matter of semantics
I was saying that you can't just say "its not wrong" that you need to add the part of "it looks like its right" to it. But you decided (and I agree) it was a matter of semantics

the bible code? ... that's a joke, right?

My point exactly. I'm just saying look at the reaction THAT got. Do you seriously think any attempt any other time would be any different?
PS-I don't really believe the Bible Code, fyi

well, first of all.. you don't even have a scientific theory on your hands.
second of all. what exactly are you trying to figure out? on your own? using pen and paper? all by yourself?
rely on the experts to figure out how the world works. surely you don't expect to reach any amazing breakthroughs by yourself, do you?

one, I never said I could do that or that I was trying to test some theory on my own (or even if I was, that I COULD do it). You just emphasized my point of "how can you tell me go through the scientific process, if even YOU don't think I can do it?!?"
I was only stating that it makes logical sense with what I know.

Unlike most of the posters here, I would say yes, but they are conscious in a way that is different than we are. If you go here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7504946&postcount=28
you can see a nice discussion about consciousness.

I suppose so... but that just seems like circular logic wrapped up in a philosophical thought to me

 

[Simple Simon]

First of all, that is one claim. That religion and science go hand-in-hand. The fact they don't contradict each other is simply an extension of that claim. If something goes hand-in-hand with something else, I fail to see how it can contradict the other...

Not necessarily - they may go hand in hand in one respect, but contradict in another. E.g. h-in-h socially (social sciences and church activities), but contradicting scientifically.

In addition, by proving that science and religion go hand-in-hand, I prove that they don't contradict each other.

Non sequitur, see above. Also, you do not prove this.

Also, I have NO reason to explain myself in this situation, as I simply made a statement, and others tried to claim it as wrong. Logically, if you wished to prove it wrong, the counter needs to have the first claim of proof against the theory.

There is a giant invisible massless teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth.


What, you can't prove me wrong?

So there is a teapot.....

See where you go wrong?

Not only that, but I have stated evidence (when someone asked for it) about my connection of the Big Bang Theory and God creating the world.

No, that is nothing but speculation.

But for you, I'll give you another. In 1833, revelation for the Word of Wisdom was given. This Word of Wisdom was, in a sense, a health code. It spoke out against the use of alcohol and tobacco and other drugs, explaining that meat should be used sparingly, and that grain should be the staple of the diet. It also explained how caffeine isn't good for the body, and is the reason for not drinking drinks like coffee (sometimes certain soda). Quite a few of these practices were common at the time, and caused quite a controversy.
Later it was found that alcohol and tobacco can cause death. Grains were established to be the staple of the diet. Caffeine, although not as openly spoken about, has been proved to be a harmful drug, and coffee has proven to be almost counter-intuitive. That the use of coffee leads to the dependance on caffiene, and that without it, your body has no natural stimulus to "wake up."

Hu?

what is that supposed to be?
Sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of this! You bring anecdotal evidence for something that certainly isn't common knowledge (Word of Wisdom), which AFAI can tell has nothing to do with either religion or science. Then, you proceed to make a series of generalized claims that are (mostly) false.

EXAMPLES:

Later it was found that alcohol and tobacco can cause death

No, that was known long before.

Grains were established to be the staple of the diet.

No, grains have been the staple of normal human diet roughly since the neolithic revolution. Roughly 12,000 years ago.

I'm sorry I'm not always on the internet to respond. I missed quite a few days then, and I made a statement specifically about that... but I guess you missed it

You replied to other posts. I was not, as you pretend, commenting on the temporal delay at all.

In that, you said Abiogenesis wasn't random. Your implying that somehow, that atom thought it better to be in a molecule than in its own state.

Total misrepresentation. Atoms do not think, nor do molecules.

Somehow, those atoms willed themselves to join into a compound.

Will you stop reading thigs into my posts that I never said?

atoms have no will. PERIOD. Go re-read my post, please.

Then, that compound somehow willed itself to recreate itself that it could do it all over again? Tell me... how does that work? Are atoms conscious?

Finally you get it - but why do you read things into my posts that aren't there?



Here it is again, for those who have trouble with complex sentence structure:

PROCESS 1:

1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms

so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms

so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

6) complex molecules catalyze other reactions
7) this generates more complex molecules
8) possibly, molecules are generated that cause reactions that create copies of themselves.

We achieved self-replication.
so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consciousness. You follow?


PROCESS 2:

1) 1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms

so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms
6) this lead to lipids (fatty molecules) forming a layer on top of watery fluids

so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

7) wave action can lead to droplets spraying about, folding lipid layer onto itself.
8) wave action can flip doubled lipid layer and film of water adhering to it into a tiny bubble.

We have now a double-lipid cell membrane
so far, basic chemistry. No consciousness.



Now have PROCESS 2 happen on water in which PROCESS 1 has been running. Presto, first basic cell......


As for your claim that complex molecules are different from 'simple' molecules such as rust: formic acid, e.g., is constantly being created in interstellar gas.

 

[suiraclaw]

Scientifically speaking, if you think you know more than what the scientifically accepted theory regarding something says, then you should

1.) Write up a scientific hypothesis
2.) Perform a bunch of experiments
3.) Verify that your hypothesis predicts reality correctly
4.) Present your scientific theory in a scientific journal
5.) Become famous

and not

1.) Fill in gaps in our understanding with stuff that might or might not be true
2.) Repeat

(...)

Science and Religion are compatible, though, just in a different way!

Science - explains how things in the universe work.
Religion - provides an arena for spiritual self-satisfaction.

Quoted for truth. This concludes the science vs religion debate pretty well.

There is simply no evidence in the bible (or any other religious text) of any unknown process whatsoever and thus it's just as valuable to science (to the search of knowlegde about the worlds around us) as Russell's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster.

Even if the making of RNA requires atom conciousness (which isn't the case anyway), using any religious theory to explain that would be stupid. And ignorant, as there are thousands of incompatible religious theories that could explain that.

 

[uppi]

its one thing for a simple compound such as rust to form, than it is for complex macromolecules to form

So what do you think, how many atoms does a macromolecule need to contain, so that it cannot be created by nature by a simple process (like heating the constituent atoms enough), without any need for the atoms to be conscious?

 

[Cutlass]

But isn't it a sign that their faith is stronger if they maintain it despite apparent contradictions? After all, it's easy to believe stuff when it's the norm. Isn't a prevailing theme in a lot of religions that a great deal of crap that happens in the world is god testing someone's faith? If you've dismissed a source as unreliable, then why be afraid it will undermine your faith, or that of your children?

If it is a reliable source, if it's evidence I can see myself, then I'd expect it wouldn't throw up anything that completely contradicts my faith. If it does, then maybe my original interpretation was wrong. I don't see why that should be such a big deal, I'm not infallible, I've been wrong about all sorts of stuff, why should it be a problem if I decided some aspects of my faith were wrong?

I would say no. It is a sign that their faith is weak, and that they lack confidence in it. A strong faith can accept that there are things beyond human understanding. And from that you get that human understanding has grown through the ages. A weak faith has to grasp with both hands in a death grip and never let go. A weak faith has to abandon all reason and cling to what is easy to understand.

 

[warpus]

Lets suppose, that hypothetically speaking, science one day proves God exists. Lets just say, for this example, science proves that religion is right. Now that you know everything you need to know, because you proved it, is there a reason to have faith in it? You know its true, so why do you need to believe it?

If it was proved that God exists (which I think would be impossible, but let's assume that it happened), I would believe that he exists, yes.

My point exactly. I'm just saying look at the reaction THAT got. Do you seriously think any attempt any other time would be any different?
PS-I don't really believe the Bible Code, fyi

I was talking about using the scientific method to prove a hypothesis and form a scientific theory - not pulling numbers out of your ass (which is what the bible code people do)

one, I never said I could do that or that I was trying to test some theory on my own (or even if I was, that I COULD do it). You just emphasized my point of "how can you tell me go through the scientific process, if even YOU don't think I can do it?!?"

i not only think you can't do it - i don't think anyone could do it. you don't have a scientific hypothesis or theory on your hands, so.. you can't use the scientific process to figure out if you're wrong or not.

 

[peter grimes]

Here it is again, for those who have trouble with complex sentence structure:

PROCESS 1:

1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms

so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms

so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

6) complex molecules catalyze other reactions
7) this generates more complex molecules
8) possibly, molecules are generated that cause reactions that create copies of themselves.

We achieved self-replication.
so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consciousness. You follow?


PROCESS 2:

1) 1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms

so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms
6) this lead to lipids (fatty molecules) forming a layer on top of watery fluids

so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?

7) wave action can lead to droplets spraying about, folding lipid layer onto itself.
8) wave action can flip doubled lipid layer and film of water adhering to it into a tiny bubble.

We have now a double-lipid cell membrane
so far, basic chemistry. No consciousness.



Now have PROCESS 2 happen on water in which PROCESS 1 has been running. Presto, first basic cell......

Bravo! For once, I'm able to follow Perf's argument from start to finish

j/k

Honestly, this is one of the most concise explanations of how life arose through mundane chemical processes that I've read.

However, I find the mica hypothesis more likely... but not in isolation, of course