Scientific Advancement vs. Encroaching on God

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Scientific Advancement vs. Encroaching on God

Often when I post of certain breakthroughs in science, some theist will warn of the dangers of "playing god". When I posted of Dr. Persinger's succes with the "God Helmet", many theists were quick to tell me that Dr. Persinger wasn't really re creating religious and mystical experiences because a "real" RE would "transcend" what Persinger was creating in his lab. Persinger believes that all RE's are produced WITHIN the brain and nothing external. He believes this because this is what his finding show, no evidence of anything external. Theists seem to get agitated by things like this as it is looked upon as an attempt to "debunk" or least challenge their faith.

But what if medical "miracles" such as those claimed at places like Lourdes, France were linked to a recessant gene found in some people? What if this explained the extremely small number of so called "bonifide miracles"? What if the action could be duplicated and successful treatments for things like cancer or Parkinson's Disease were found this way? I'm sure theists would be divided into two camps, those that saw it as God sharing his widom with science and pouring his miracles out to more people and there would be those who would see it as an encroachment upon God's wisdom, that God "knew what he was doing" with the small number of "miracles" and science was messing around where it shouldn't. Which camp would you be in and why?

There are many things in science that make theists nervous. Cloning, genetic manipulation, weather control and others things. What makes you nervous and why? Christian science fiction and fantasy writer, CS Lewis saw any attempts man might make at interstellar space flight to be blasphemy because of the vast distances God put between stars. How do you feel about this and why? Should science be harnessed in what it's allowed to reveal about the "mysteries" of life? Are some areas of knowledge sacred? Why or why not? Many theists see science as one of God's blessings while others see it as satanic "competetiton" Still others see it as both, where do you stand?     

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Stephen Blue1 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Hi Marty, I’m new

Hi Marty,

I’m new to this site and my hope is that a sincere dialogue can be undertaken between our two “Camps”.

As to your question…I see no need for Religion to “fear” Science. After all, it was God that Created our Natural Laws. How Mankind uses those Laws is a different thing entirely. Morals and Ethics need to come into play. Things such as Cloning a Human begs the question of “Will that Human have a Soul?” – though if you do not believe in a God or a Soul…well then…what’s the “big deal”?

I am not familiar with Dr. Persinger’s Helmut and what it does. What I gather is that it “reproduces” Religious Experiences. I guess we would have to begin with a definition of just what constitutes a “Religious Experience”? I have known some Meals and some Women that could be characterized as a “Religious Experience”. Seriously, Dr. Persinger’s claim that the Religious Experiences are “…produced WITHIN the brain and nothing external.”

Is pretty much spot on…because all of our senses culminate in our brains. What our eyes “see”…is “visualized” in our minds. What are ears “hear” and our fingers “touch” ends up being “actualized” for us in our minds. My point is that just as a Virtual Helmut can make us “see” a Virtual World…so could Dr. Persinger’s Helmut recreate a Religious Experience.

If Dr. Persinger is saying that all Religious Experiences are simply Manifestations created by the individual’s Subconscious or by a lack of oxygen or a chemical imbalance or…whatever – I would like to see the data backing that up. And Yes…this claim would most certainly appear to be an attempt to “debunk” Religious Experiences and I while I am not “agitated” by this…I do see anyone’s point that it might be construed as a challenge.

Marty, I am not sure at what you are getting at with your “recessive Gene”? Are you saying that there might be a Gene that “Cures” people of various illnesses or diseases or aliments? That this gene lies dormant and “pops” up at certain times…perhaps being “triggered” by a secretion of a gland (say the renal gland) when a person is in a “heightened” or “altered” State of Mind (as in a Religious Ecstasy)? Hmmm…that is an interesting proposition. And if it were True and if Mankind were to find this Gene and harness it’s incredible power…could Mankind be accused of “Playing God” and usurping God’s Authority or would that exclude the reality of God altogether?

God and Science are not Exclusive of each other. As a Believer I understand that it was God that Created all of our Physical Laws. I also Believe that God used Supernatural Science in Creating The Universe and in Creating our Natural Laws. The Great Scientists like Newton Believed in God and had no difficulties with God and Science. They actually were more efficient because they did not go down “Rabbit Holes” or “Dead Ends” pursuing “Wild Gooses” (or is it Geeses?) such as Evolution. Scientists as they dig deeper and deeper into the Subatomic World are beginning to sound more and more like Philosophers. I firmly believe that the closer they get to discovering The Higgs Boson…the nearer and nearer they will get to God Himself!

No…I do not Fear Science. Actually I can show passages in The Bible that speak to Scientific Discoveries way before Mankind had “officially” discovered them.

So Marty…I hope that we can have an Open Minded Discussion of our differences.

Peace!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hate that false

I hate that false accusation. If atheists don't believe in a god, then how can a human "play god".

Scientific method is a tool. Just like any tool, it can be misused. A hammer is made to pound nails into wood. But you can also use it to crack a skull and murder someone. That does not make the tool bad.

And if these same idiots are so afraid of science then they shouldn't use it to try to prop up their myth. If anyone misuses the tool of scientific method the most, theists do, when they try to use the hammer to nail their myth into other people's heads.

Pseudo science comes in lots of forms. From theocratic claptrap, to the snake oil of "Enzite". Even Cherieos cerial takes very lose liberties with their cereal claiming it is "heart healthy". But that does not change that the tool of scientific method is lagit. It just means people are bias, the tool itself isn't, and when properly used with honest ethics will lead to solid data.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
How about this theists,

How about this theists, humans are not gods because gods don't exist. Maybe if we had less god belief in the world humans would have less excuse to fight over them.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Stephen Blue1 wrote:God and

Stephen Blue1 wrote:

God and Science are not Exclusive of each other. As a Believer I understand that it was God that Created all of our Physical Laws. I also Believe that God used Supernatural Science in Creating The Universe and in Creating our Natural Laws. The Great Scientists like Newton Believed in God and had no difficulties with God and Science. They actually were more efficient because they did not go down “Rabbit Holes” or “Dead Ends” pursuing “Wild Gooses” (or is it Geeses?) such as Evolution. Scientists as they dig deeper and deeper into the Subatomic World are beginning to sound more and more like Philosophers. I firmly believe that the closer they get to discovering The Higgs Boson…the nearer and nearer they will get to God Himself!

No…I do not Fear Science. Actually I can show passages in The Bible that speak to Scientific Discoveries way before Mankind had “officially” discovered them.

So Marty…I hope that we can have an Open Minded Discussion of our differences.

Peace!

Hello,

Would you mind further explaining what you mean about scientists are starting to sound more like philosophers ?

I don't really see the correlation.

Could you also provide me with the passages of the Bible that allude to scientific discoveries before man ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Stephen Blue1 wrote:Hi

Stephen Blue1 wrote:

Hi Marty,

I’m new to this site and my hope is that a sincere dialogue can be undertaken between our two “Camps”.

As to your question…I see no need for Religion to “fear” Science. After all, it was God that Created our Natural Laws. How Mankind uses those Laws is a different thing entirely. Morals and Ethics need to come into play. Things such as Cloning a Human begs the question of “Will that Human have a Soul?” – though if you do not believe in a God or a Soul…well then…what’s the “big deal”?

I am not familiar with Dr. Persinger’s Helmut and what it does. What I gather is that it “reproduces” Religious Experiences. I guess we would have to begin with a definition of just what constitutes a “Religious Experience”? I have known some Meals and some Women that could be characterized as a “Religious Experience”. Seriously, Dr. Persinger’s claim that the Religious Experiences are “…produced WITHIN the brain and nothing external.”

Is pretty much spot on…because all of our senses culminate in our brains. What our eyes “see”…is “visualized” in our minds. What are ears “hear” and our fingers “touch” ends up being “actualized” for us in our minds. My point is that just as a Virtual Helmut can make us “see” a Virtual World…so could Dr. Persinger’s Helmut recreate a Religious Experience.

If Dr. Persinger is saying that all Religious Experiences are simply Manifestations created by the individual’s Subconscious or by a lack of oxygen or a chemical imbalance or…whatever – I would like to see the data backing that up. And Yes…this claim would most certainly appear to be an attempt to “debunk” Religious Experiences and I while I am not “agitated” by this…I do see anyone’s point that it might be construed as a challenge.

Marty, I am not sure at what you are getting at with your “recessive Gene”? Are you saying that there might be a Gene that “Cures” people of various illnesses or diseases or aliments? That this gene lies dormant and “pops” up at certain times…perhaps being “triggered” by a secretion of a gland (say the renal gland) when a person is in a “heightened” or “altered” State of Mind (as in a Religious Ecstasy)? Hmmm…that is an interesting proposition. And if it were True and if Mankind were to find this Gene and harness it’s incredible power…could Mankind be accused of “Playing God” and usurping God’s Authority or would that exclude the reality of God altogether?

God and Science are not Exclusive of each other. As a Believer I understand that it was God that Created all of our Physical Laws. I also Believe that God used Supernatural Science in Creating The Universe and in Creating our Natural Laws. The Great Scientists like Newton Believed in God and had no difficulties with God and Science. They actually were more efficient because they did not go down “Rabbit Holes” or “Dead Ends” pursuing “Wild Gooses” (or is it Geeses?) such as Evolution. Scientists as they dig deeper and deeper into the Subatomic World are beginning to sound more and more like Philosophers. I firmly believe that the closer they get to discovering The Higgs Boson…the nearer and nearer they will get to God Himself!

No…I do not Fear Science. Actually I can show passages in The Bible that speak to Scientific Discoveries way before Mankind had “officially” discovered them.

So Marty…I hope that we can have an Open Minded Discussion of our differences.

Peace!

First off, please lose the tribalistic language of "two camps". We are all human beings regardless of our opposing positions.

You have brought science into this discussion, and are now claiming that science is leading to a god. FINE.

Please give me one empirically demonstrated, falsified and repeated model, peer reviewed, with control groups that SHOWS that a thought can arise out of a non material process. When you can demonstrate that, then we can have a discussion. Anything less is mental masturbation.

On the other hand, our species has had a notorious history of making up gods and myth to suit their personal desires. It is mere anthropomorphism. If you can accept that lighting isn't caused by Thor, then it isn't too much of a stretch that life and the universe do not need a god to exist either.

Now, go do your homework, but don't expect us to do it for you.

Quote:
God and Science are not Exclusive of each other.

Yes they are. For the reasons stated above. You know damned well that you cannot demonstrate a thought arising from a non material process. So all you are doing is back peddling because science is leaving you behind.

If science can justify a god, in then it can justify me farting a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
You don't see any reason for

You don't see any reason for religion to fear science. But, you reject the theory of evolution because of your religious beliefs, no?

The process of science, as it is defined, is uncompromising in its search for truth or what is real. Religions are systems of fundamental, unquestionable beliefs that the adherents agree on, whether those beliefs are true or false. So, if the religious fear the falsification of their beliefs, then logically, they should fear science. Of course, virtually no one will ever say that they fear science because they reason that their religion is true and science is true, so science will always support their beliefs. But, without science, they have no evidence that their beliefs are true, so there's no guarantee that their beliefs are ACTUALLY true, no matter how confident they are.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:You don't

butterbattle wrote:

You don't see any reason for religion to fear science. But, you reject the theory of evolution because of your religious beliefs, no?

 

To parody the Olivia Newton John song "Magic"

Come on and take my mind

You should know me by now

You can sell me crap

I'll be buying what you spew

 

Building your myth

Has to start now

Despite other roads to take

You'll sell me myth

I'll by the mistake

 

You have to believe

It's all magic

Dont let reason

Stand in your way

 

You have to believe

It's all magic

Poof logic

Is all it takes

 

And therefor

You hopes survive

Delusion

Has arrived

Sell it and it thrives

For me

 

Sky daddies

From day one

Always

Sound fun

Utill the carnage starts

 

You have to believe

It's all magic

Don't let reason

Stand in your way

 

You have to believe

It's all magic

Poof logic

Is all it takes

 

And therefor

Your hopes survive

Delusion

Has arrived

Sell it and it thrives

For me

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Stephen Blue1

Stephen Blue1 wrote:

Supernatural Science

That, sir, is clearly an oxymoron if I ever saw one. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Stephen

butterbattle wrote:

Stephen Blue1 wrote:

Supernatural Science

That, sir, is clearly an oxymoron if I ever saw one. 

 

NO, it is an oxymoron on HGH. It is an oxymoron to the point of making the Terminator look like a pussy.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:You don't

butterbattle wrote:
You don't see any reason for religion to fear science. But, you reject the theory of evolution because of your religious beliefs, no?

Christianity has no reason to fear science. As science continues to advance and more discoveries are made it will give more evidence of desigin and the necessity of a creator. Atheists should fear science not Christians. Christians reject evolution because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it as well as their beliefs. You gotta problem with that? You reject the idea of God because of your beliefs?

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:butterbattle

Lee2216 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
You don't see any reason for religion to fear science. But, you reject the theory of evolution because of your religious beliefs, no?

Christianity has no reason to fear science. As science continues to advance and more discoveries are made it will give more evidence of desigin and the necessity of a creator. Atheists should fear science not Christians. Christians reject evolution because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it as well as their beliefs. You gotta problem with that? You reject the idea of God because of your beliefs?

 

LOL @ "Christians reject evolution because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it..." lmao, that's actually one of the funniest things I have read in a while.  That would make an awesome bumper sticker.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote: Christianity

Lee2216 wrote:

 

Christianity has no reason to fear science. As science continues to advance and more discoveries are made it will give more evidence of desigin and the necessity of a creator. Atheists should fear science not Christians. Christians reject evolution because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it as well as their beliefs. You gotta problem with that? You reject the idea of God because of your beliefs?

 

Please provide me of one instance where evidence has been cited that there could be intelligent design or a possibility of a creator.

Further provide me where science has demonstrated that even if there were a possibility of a creator, why it would have to be the Christian god that you seem to believe it to be.

Atheists should fear science ? Is that why so many scientists are atheists ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is an interesting point

 

Stephen Blue1 wrote:

Scientists as they dig deeper and deeper into the Subatomic World are beginning to sound more and more like Philosophers. I firmly believe that the closer they get to discovering The Higgs Boson…the nearer and nearer they will get to God Himself!

Peace!

 

and one we hear more and more often - that scientific modelling unsupported by proven hypotheses is the same as religious faith. Of course there is a difference between postulating and believing based on religious faith and this is something monotheists refuse to comprehend. As I think some folks have mentioned, the scientific method involves using testable explanations to gather new knowledge or correct existing knowledge. Hypotheses are tested using experimental studies that confirm predictions. All this is conducted in an open forum allowing others to reproduce the results for themselves through a process called peer review. 

When it comes to the Higgs Boson, the LHC was built in part to find it, and hitherto finding no evidence for the Boson (the hunt goes on), the inherent nature of subatomics is to some degree now up in the air. Steve, when your lot build a huge expensive thingy in the ground to find evidence of the supernatural and on finding nothing admit your modelling could not be proven and you might be wrong then you will at last comprehend the nature of empiricism. In the meantime you are posting unsupported assertions. 

 

P.S. Peace to you too, Steve. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:You reject the

Lee2216 wrote:
You reject the idea of God because of your beliefs?

Hmm, I'm not sure I would use the word reject. I do find even a generic god improbable for a lot of reasons, but in the end, it all depends on reason and the available evidence.   

Edit: Okay, how about this? In your opinion, if evolution were true, would that falsify Christianity?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
The idea of 'enroaching on

The idea of 'enroaching on Gods domain' is something that I used to think about a lot. Part of me wonders if it kind of became part of our culture from the scifi movies that frequently came out, mostly 70's onward. As I noticed that most early scifi movies showed scientists as a heroic entity and someone who could figure out how to deal with a problem. But the later ones seemed to have this 'playing god' and 'using forces that they can't control' etc. The Frankenstein thing was popular but I partially wonder if it was also a kind of backlash against the advances science had made in letting us reshape the world and maybe opening more peoples eyes to the glories of 'mere' reality and maybe actually leading people to see the lack of need for a god. But back onto the main topic

 

I think part of the fear of it does come from the idea that the more we know the smaller their god becomes and the harder it is to rationalize such a being with traditional monotheistic concepts. AFter all, the concept of a god has gotten more abstract as we've learned more. Some Christians seem to see the idea of god as a humanoid entity as silly, instead imagining a kind of disembodied energy or superintelligence. I would have to bet that some of it also comes from real scientists starting to point out just how impossible most of what they argue really is. And scientific illiteracy is high but it is telling that a lot of them seem to try to make arguments that at least SOUND scientific.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:The idea of

Joker wrote:

The idea of 'enroaching on Gods domain' is something that I used to think about a lot. Part of me wonders if it kind of became part of our culture from the scifi movies that frequently came out, mostly 70's onward. As I noticed that most early scifi movies showed scientists as a heroic entity and someone who could figure out how to deal with a problem. But the later ones seemed to have this 'playing god' and 'using forces that they can't control' etc. The Frankenstein thing was popular but I partially wonder if it was also a kind of backlash against the advances science had made in letting us reshape the world and maybe opening more peoples eyes to the glories of 'mere' reality and maybe actually leading people to see the lack of need for a god. But back onto the main topic

 

I think part of the fear of it does come from the idea that the more we know the smaller their god becomes and the harder it is to rationalize such a being with traditional monotheistic concepts. AFter all, the concept of a god has gotten more abstract as we've learned more. Some Christians seem to see the idea of god as a humanoid entity as silly, instead imagining a kind of disembodied energy or superintelligence. I would have to bet that some of it also comes from real scientists starting to point out just how impossible most of what they argue really is. And scientific illiteracy is high but it is telling that a lot of them seem to try to make arguments that at least SOUND scientific.

Some of the earliest writings that I can remember about knowledge/man not being meant was in Lovecraft's writings.

Really and truly, the sci-fi films that I would say had the anti-scientific inquiry and discovery were borne out of the paranoid days of the 1950's and early 1960's.

When you compare the scientists and aliens of say : Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers to the scientists and aliens of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, you can see the drastic cultural and imaginary memes of both decades are drastically different.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote: Often

Marty Hamrick wrote:
Often when I post of certain breakthroughs in science, some theist will warn of the dangers of "playing god".

Well, a lot of these people are probably afraid of their own shadows, so, it's par for the course.

Marty Hamrick wrote:
When I posted of Dr. Persinger's succes with the "God Helmet", many theists were quick to tell me that...

They were qualified in Neurophysics and did their own tests that falsified Dr. Persinger's findings?

Or were they just 'armchair' Neurophysicists?

Marty Hamrick wrote:
a "real" RE would "transcend" what Persinger was creating in his lab.

As soon as they provide a sample of a 'real' RE to test, that supports their hypothesis, then they'll actually be being objective.

Until then, they're being like whiny brats that can't do more than talk about their imaginary friends...

Marty Hamrick wrote:
Persinger believes that all RE's are produced WITHIN the brain and nothing external.

His beliefs are completely justified by the E V I D E N C E.

Marty Hamrick wrote:
There are many things in science that make theists nervous.

And it's a good thing they don't run the whole world, or we'd still be in the dark ages...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Please

harleysportster wrote:
Please provide me of one instance where evidence has been cited that there could be intelligent design or a possibility of a creator.

Further provide me where science has demonstrated that even if there were a possibility of a creator, why it would have to be the Christian god that you seem to believe it to be.

The problem is not evidence the problem is basic logic. We have watches,airplanes,computers etc. which need to be designed by an intelligent mind therefore logically that would imply a designer. The human body and the universe is designed and are much more complex than a watch or computer so that necessitates a creator. Secondly, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the universe and the things in it are decaying and dying. Since living things are only created from other living things and they all eventually die then logically there has to be a creator the exists eternally. You don't need evidence you need basic logic. It is the God of the Bible because that's the only God that exists.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:  Edit:

butterbattle wrote:
  Edit: Okay, how about this? In your opinion, if evolution were true, would that falsify Christianity?

Evolution is not true! And that is not my opinion.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:The problem is

Lee2216 wrote:

The problem is not evidence the problem is basic logic. We have watches,airplanes,computers etc. which need to be designed by an intelligent mind therefore logically that would imply a designer. The human body and the universe is designed and are much more complex than a watch or computer so that necessitates a creator. Secondly, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the universe and the things in it are decaying and dying. Since living things are only created from other living things and they all eventually die then logically there has to be a creator the exists eternally. You don't need evidence you need basic logic. It is the God of the Bible because that's the only God that exists. 

With respect to the OP.  I don't want to douche-jack this thread but this is really hard to pass up. 

To Lee, I'm not sure what your definition of basic logic is, if I had to guess from the context you equate basic logic with common sense.  I'm not sure you understand the second law of thermodynamics.  I see this thrown around by creationists all the time, it's funny really. Let's see what the second law of thermodynamics actually says, and I assure you it is nothing about stuff decaying and dying Smiling that's just silly.  I'm going to dumb down the definition as much as possible.  The second law of thermodynamics simply states that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM entropy increases with time.  Let's put that differently... IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, during a process, you won't have as much USEFUL energy at the end of the process as when you have begun. It is the reason why we do not have a bunch of perpetual motion machines running around.  I'm not sure how this ties in with god or anything else, but I'm sure you have a good scientific explanation, or at least a "basic logic" formulation of such, whatever that means.  If anything, your god would be a perpetual motion being, and this law contradicts the very notion of eternal ANYTHING.  So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't disprove evolution, but it goes a long way at disproving god. Eye-wink

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:butterbattle

Lee2216 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
  Edit: Okay, how about this? In your opinion, if evolution were true, would that falsify Christianity?

Evolution is not true! And that is not my opinion.

And neither is gravity, I jumped off the top of the Empire State Building with no aid, and magically floated to the ground with the help of my magical snarfwidget.

EVOLUTION IS TRUE

It is called DNA, adinine, guanine, thymine, cytosine.

Now, what silly superstitious comic book tells you falsely that Evolution isn't true?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:butterbattle

Lee2216 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
  Edit: Okay, how about this? In your opinion, if evolution were true, would that falsify Christianity?

Evolution is not true! And that is not my opinion.

Lol. I rest my case.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:So the second

Ktulu wrote:
So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't disprove evolution, but it goes a long way at disproving god. Eye-wink

Wrong again!!! The 2nd law states that the useful energy dissipates over time. Evolution needs the energy to increase over time. So I assure you, it does have to do with decaying and dying. When then energy slowly runs down that is what we call decaying. When the energy is totally gone that's what we call dead.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Everything needs a creator?

Everything needs a creator? So, why does "what creates something" need to be thinking? Clouds create rain but clouds dont think about dropping the rain or think about how many exact rain drops they "create". Clouds don't have brains, but they still "create".

And if you are going to make this stupid pathetic argument, are you willing for your "creator" to take credit for the nasty universe it "created". 99% of space is empty and the universe is hundreds of billions of light years accross, and the nightime sky with the naked eye is a billionth of a fraction of the stuff we cant see without a tellescope. So all these pretty dots, and even the ones we can see with the naked eye, we cant even get to. How cleaver a "design" to create all that stuff we cant see or get to, even the stuff we can see.

Not to mention the destructive force of a gamma ray, or black hole. And if you were to take a space walk and take your helmet off that would be pretty nasty. How cleaver to create all this dangerous stuff.

Then there is life itself. Millions of sperm per load yet only one egg, and all the other sperm die. Coackroaches were around millions of years before humans, outnumber us. Reproduce in greater numbers than humans. Eagles have better eyesight than humans.

The geraffe has a nerve that starts on one side of the top of his neck, goes all the way down the neck, and then back up to the other side. Hardly a direct route.

Then there is cancer, ecoli. And a river worm whose goal is to crawl in your penis's urithra and stick it's barbs in so you cant pull it out. Nice "design"  from such a cleaver creator.

Then there is another lech type worm whose goal is to burrow into your eyes which ends up blinding you.

 99% of all attempts at life fail. What we see today is only 1 percent of the species that once existed. If this was "created" by a thinking being and it had to explain all the waste of space and material to Donnald Trump in the board room, what do you think Trump would say?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Wrong again!!! The

Quote:
Wrong again!!! The 2nd law states that the useful energy dissipates over time

There is more than one law dippy, the others have to be taken into account as well. That and we've seen this bullshit argument thousands of times before you repeated it here.

Ok. How about this.

"Second law says, so therefor Allah is the one true god" What? Not buing it?

"Second law says, so therefor Yahweh is the one true god"What? Not buing it?

"Second law says, so therefor Vishnu is the one true god" What? Not buing it?

"Second law says, so therefore my snarfwiget is the one true god" What? Not buing it?

Now if you are not willing to consider other gods with the argument you just made with second law, what the fuck makes you think this argument will convince us that your pet god is proven with this either?

If all it takes is plucking out one sentance in a science book to justify anything, then second law also proves that I can fart a full sized Lamborghihni out of my ass.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote: The problem

Lee2216 wrote:

 

The problem is not evidence the problem is basic logic. We have watches,airplanes,computers etc. which need to be designed by an intelligent mind therefore logically that would imply a designer. The human body and the universe is designed and are much more complex than a watch or computer so that necessitates a creator.

 

So you admit that you can not provide any evidence ? Now you resort to arguments from complexity ?

Apparently, you never read Dawkin's, The Blind Watchmaker, where this entire argument is shredded.

BTW, you also did not provide any basis for a creator to be the Christian god, other than an assertion that it is the only one ? How do you know this ? I hope your not going to use the argument from authority, "Because the Bible says so,".

You still have to account for the chaos in the universe, and all the weaknesses of humans to explain how this was designed by something intelligent.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Useful energy in a CLOSED

Useful energy in a CLOSED SYSTEM cannot increase over time. Simple static systems, or systems at the minimal possible energy level, can remain at that level indefinitely.

"Decay" is not a good word. What is 'reducing' over time as a body decays? New life breeds in such an environment - it is an eco-system.

The ecosystem of life on Earth is NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM!! Sunlight is the major source of fresh useful energy, supplemented by geo-thermal energy from hot-springs and vents under the ocean.

So there is no conflict with the Second Law.

Machines designed and built by Man (at least so far0 miss at least one important attribute of life: they cannot reproduce themselves. That is what allows evolution to work and allows life to adapt to its environment.

The evidence for evolution is massive. Initially the fossil record, now even more conclusively the comparison of DNA/RNA sequences from different organisms, allowing more accurate tracing of relationships between different species.

Evolution has been demonstrated directly in colonies of bacteria, the only organisms with a short enough generation time to allow us to observe it in a reasonable period.

Whereas God IS a violation of the 2nd Law. The alternative, natural precursor to the Big Bang, if there was one, would be something like a basic quantum energy field an minimum state, which could exist indefinitely in that state.

Just to cover the other usual objection, Quantum Theory allows for the random generation of particles, which can exist for a time determined by their net energy.

The Big Bang singularity generated a Universe of zero net energy, since the positive energy of mass and related energy is balanced by the negative energy associated with gravity, so it can persist indefinitely. The initial energy state of the singularity has massive 'useful' energy, but since this is not available to the environment from which it was formed, there is no contradiction of the Second Law from that perspective.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The

BobSpence wrote:

The ecosystem of life on Earth is NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM!! Sunlight is the major source of fresh useful energy, supplemented by geo-thermal energy from hot-springs and vents under the ocean.

I heard a stat that (might have been Brian Cox's show) if we could capture all the Sun's energy for 30 seconds it could power the United States for one full year. It is a huge energy source and it just a mid-size star.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote: Evolution is

Lee2216 wrote:

 

Evolution is not true! And that is not my opinion.

Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Ktulu wrote:So

Lee2216 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't disprove evolution, but it goes a long way at disproving god. Eye-wink

Wrong again!!! The 2nd law states that the useful energy dissipates over time. Evolution needs the energy to increase over time. So I assure you, it does have to do with decaying and dying. When then energy slowly runs down that is what we call decaying. When the energy is totally gone that's what we call dead.

I have already correctly defined the second law or thermodynamics.  Useful energy doesn't dissipate over time, it decreases with time.  We are talking about CLOSED SYSTEMS you ignoramus.  nothing DISSIPATES in a closed system.  The overall sum of energy remains the same...  

As Bob has accurately pointed out, decaying is commonly referred to the biological process, decay and the second law of thermodynamics are incommensurable concepts... 

You say wrong again, but fail to show where I was wrong the first time.  Unlike yourself, I would welcome a chance to correct notions that I believe to be correct.  I would consider having them pointed out beneficial.  I don't expect you to understand.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee. If I heat a frozen

Lee. 

If I heat a frozen pizza in the microwave, does the energy in the system of the pizza increase over time?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Some brain box

 

slap me down here but the evolutionary process on planet Earth is driven by hydrogen fusion in our most convenient star. As long as this fusion process continues evolution has plenty of power to get on with. Eventually the sun's fuel will be used up but fusion is efficient enough to ensure a lifespan of 5 billion years or so.  All life is solar powered or parasitic on solar powered creatures. When the sun expands and dies life in this solar system dies, too. Where does god fit into this entirely natural process, Lee? Empirical evidence, please. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Look at the damage you've done, Mr Paley, you arse.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

We have watches,airplanes,computers etc. which need to be designed by an intelligent mind therefore logically that would imply a designer. The human body and the universe is designed and are much more complex than a watch or computer so that necessitates a creator. 

 

why do we bother charging at these cemented-in assertion spandaus.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote: Atheists

Lee2216 wrote:
Atheists should fear science not Christians.

It's because of science there are as many Christians as there are today. Duhhhh...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

 

Evolution is not true! And that is not my opinion.

Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

You ignorant dipwad. It is clearly obvious that Dr Sues, who is above reproach because of "Dr." made up "Thing One(God) and Thing Two(Satan). Come on man he's a fucking doctor! How can someone with a degree believe false things?

You pontificate about adinine, guanine, thymine and cytocine as if those are provable things. GEEEZE! Get your head out of your ass. All those biology classes in high school and college are just liberal conspiracies to turn the world away from Jebus.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The

BobSpence wrote:
The ecosystem of life on Earth is NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM!! Sunlight is the major source of fresh useful energy, supplemented by geo-thermal energy from hot-springs and vents under the ocean.So there is no conflict with the Second Law.

So your trying to use the old added energy fallacy. So your simply saying that while the 2nd LOT applies to the whole system it has a reverse effect on the part? If that's true then life on earth would be increasing in complexity rather than decreasing. Life on earth is not increasing in complexity despite the massive amounts of energy we receive from sunlight. The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added. New machines are not made simply by adding energy to existing machines. Intelligence is needed!

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Again,

harleysportster wrote:
Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

The burden of proof is on you. Funny, your the one claiming evolution is true so shouldn't you be showing me evidence. You guys don't like to play by the same rules do you?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

The burden of proof is on you.

Science has taken up the burden and provided the evidence. Nature has provided the evidence, and it's been tested. The evidence supports the theory.

 

Lee2216 wrote:
You guys don't like to play by the same rules do you?

Science is playing by the rules and providing the evidence.

Do you have any notion of how many billions of dollars, how much infrastructure, instruments and man hours have been invested in the 'evidence'.

What have you done?

I mean, besides argue from ignorance?...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Do you have any

redneF wrote:

Do you have any notion of how many billions of dollars, how much infrastructure, instruments and man hours have been invested in the 'evidence'.

What have you done? 

To be fair, countless millions more have been spent by religions to keep everyone ignorant.  I think they likely have scientific research beat 10 to 1 on that note.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:redneF wrote:Do

Ktulu wrote:

redneF wrote:

Do you have any notion of how many billions of dollars, how much infrastructure, instruments and man hours have been invested in the 'evidence'.

What have you done? 

To be fair, countless millions more have been spent by religions to keep everyone ignorant. 

Where did they get the money?...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Let's make this easier, Lee.

Lee2216 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

The burden of proof is on you. Funny, your the one claiming evolution is true so shouldn't you be showing me evidence. You guys don't like to play by the same rules do you?

 

Evolution is the selection of advantageous characteristics and mutations through the influence of environment on a creature's procreative success. The process is visible in the fossil record, in the selection of traits by human breeders, in the ability of microbes to evolve resistance to antibiotics, in the spread of species across the varied ecosystems of the planet. The presence of once parasitic archeaobacteria within eukaryote cells as mitochondria with their own RNA is a clear indication of the process - as is the fact mitochondria RNA is most closely related to the oldest and most common bacteria in the ocean - which still makes a living by parasitizing other bacteria cells.

We can you direct you to so so many links it would make your head spin (yes, I know, you will not read them, oh lord of confirmation bias), but in the meantime, please explain how creation works. Yes - how it works. What is the basic physical process of creation. Just in one sentence, please. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:The

Atheistextremist wrote:

The process is visible in the fossil record, in the selection of traits by human breeders... 

And somebody forgot to let Ray Ray Comfort in on that, and the fool thought that his personal god made bananas like they are, from day 1.

Think of how many millions of ignorant Christians would never have been enlightened to that fact if it weren't for Ray Ray's efforts to publically argue from ignorance, and if it weren't for the internet.

Thanks to both Ray Ray and the internet, for shining the light on Christian stupidity.

 

Yay Ray!!

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Correction

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

mitochondria RNA is most closely related to the oldest and most common bacteria in the ocean - which still makes a living by parasitizing other bacteria cells.

 

Mitochondria may be related to an ocean living bacteria but it is not the most common group, SAR11, as I thought. Apologies. 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110916114110.htm

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

The burden of proof is on you. Funny, your the one claiming evolution is true so shouldn't you be showing me evidence. You guys don't like to play by the same rules do you?

Ahh yes. Dodging the bullet by trying to twist my words are you ? Sorry, won't work.

I claimed nothing. You made the bold assertion that evolution is NOT true and that it was not just an opinion.

I responded, both times, by simply asking the question, if evolution was not true, where was your evidence ?

Both times, you attempted the bait and switch game.

YOU are the one who said evolution is not factual.

Where is your evidence ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

The burden of proof is on you. Funny, your the one claiming evolution is true so shouldn't you be showing me evidence. You guys don't like to play by the same rules do you?

D N AND FUCKING A DNA! THATS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.

Put down your comic book and pick up a biology textbook.

ADININE, GUANINE, THYMINE AND CYTOSINE

THATS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE!

This is not a debate, this is just you being an ignorant duchebag because your fictional friend cant compete with real science.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:butterbattle

Lee2216 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
You don't see any reason for religion to fear science. But, you reject the theory of evolution because of your religious beliefs, no?

Christianity has no reason to fear science. As science continues to advance and more discoveries are made it will give more evidence of desigin and the necessity of a creator. Atheists should fear science not Christians. Christians reject evolution because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it as well as their beliefs. You gotta problem with that? You reject the idea of God because of your beliefs?

Actually ... not.  On both accounts.

Science only points to an ever more accurate understanding of the rule-set, not to some Intelligent Designer.  The conclusion that G-d created the Universe is part and parcel of belief in G-d in the first place.  From a scientific perspective, it's just as likely that this is the Universe we got because this is the one that had the right rules to start with and we're just along for the ride.

Like it or not, there is no way -- scientifically -- to prove G-d does or doesn't exist.  You either believe, or you don't.  And you either really believe, or you're just faking it to stay out of Hell.  Not that Jews believe in Hell.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

mitochondria RNA is most closely related to the oldest and most common bacteria in the ocean - which still makes a living by parasitizing other bacteria cells.

Mitochondria may be related to an ocean living bacteria but it is not the most common group, SAR11, as I thought. Apologies. 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110916114110.htm

Cool link, thanks.

I think mitochondria originating in the oceans is the only reasonable place for it =to= originate.  The evolutionary chain from "things without mitochondria" to "things with mitochondria" all happened long before reptiles.  And that means ... oceans.  Or at least water.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Lee2216

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
You don't see any reason for religion to fear science. But, you reject the theory of evolution because of your religious beliefs, no?

Christianity has no reason to fear science. As science continues to advance and more discoveries are made it will give more evidence of desigin and the necessity of a creator. Atheists should fear science not Christians. Christians reject evolution because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it as well as their beliefs. You gotta problem with that? You reject the idea of God because of your beliefs?

Actually ... not.  On both accounts.

Science only points to an ever more accurate understanding of the rule-set, not to some Intelligent Designer.  The conclusion that G-d created the Universe is part and parcel of belief in G-d in the first place.  From a scientific perspective, it's just as likely that this is the Universe we got because this is the one that had the right rules to start with and we're just along for the ride.

Like it or not, there is no way -- scientifically -- to prove G-d does or doesn't exist.  You either believe, or you don't.  And you either really believe, or you're just faking it to stay out of Hell.

This has got to be a first.

I actually agree with all the points a theist has made about the cosmos, science and ID.

That must be about as close to a miracle as we can get...aside from existing...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
Again, if evolution is not true, if it is not your opinion and therefore fact. Where is your evidence ?

Please deomonstrate to me how evolution is not true.

The burden of proof is on you. Funny, your the one claiming evolution is true so shouldn't you be showing me evidence. You guys don't like to play by the same rules do you?

 

Which evidence would you prefer? The transitional fossil collections? Or would you like to study the fact that genetics and DNA show common ancestry to be a fact of life. Or is there something else that would be more preferable to you?


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I

harleysportster wrote:

I claimed nothing.

Yeah you did! You believe in evolution don't you? Since you believe in it and I don't you need to show me how all life originated from one cell of unknown origin. Atheists always want theists to give evidence that God exists. You Atheists believe evolution is true so the burden is on you to convince me. Like I said....you all don't like to play by the same rules. I would expect nothing less from an atheist.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20