Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
Ossat
Member (Idle past 2482 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 136 of 262 (695442)
04-05-2013 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Pressie
04-05-2013 9:07 AM


Nope, it doesn't. Had any education?
You wanna believe I didn't have any education? Go on, believe it, I don't mind....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2013 9:07 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Pressie, posted 04-07-2013 12:56 PM Ossat has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 137 of 262 (695444)
04-05-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Ossat
04-05-2013 8:29 AM


better living through chemistry
Ossat writes:
How could the information in the DNA make itself? how could the chains of amino acids that form the proteins appear by accident and get it just right?
How does a Salt crystal "know" how to form a cube and get it just right?

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 8:29 AM Ossat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Ossat, posted 04-07-2013 7:58 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 2482 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 138 of 262 (695445)
04-05-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Percy
04-05-2013 9:09 AM


Hi Ossat,
So let's consider as falsified (for the sake of discussion) the scientific explanations for the origin of life (that it was due to natural processes is about the only consensus right now) and for the diversity of species (evolution through a process of descent with modification and natural selection). How would this support the premise of this thread, that belief in God is scientific?
--Percy
Hi Percy,
I don't agree with the idea that something can be considered scientific just because the majority believes in it. But Intelligent design and creation can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough to recognize that the universe, the nature and life are far too complex to be an accident. It's for me evident that all of this must have been created, there is not other possibility. Let's say you are a forensic anthropologist examining with scientific rigor the place where somebody died. You have all the knowledge to be able to determine if the victim died of an accident or if someone killed him. Is the same with the universe, is clear for me that somebody did it. Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 04-05-2013 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Taq, posted 04-05-2013 11:20 AM Ossat has not replied
 Message 144 by Rahvin, posted 04-05-2013 11:36 AM Ossat has not replied
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 04-05-2013 2:20 PM Ossat has not replied
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 04-06-2013 4:26 AM Ossat has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 139 of 262 (695447)
04-05-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Ossat
04-05-2013 5:21 AM


I mean unplanned changes.
Okay, what would evidence of unplanned changes look like?
In my opinion, a change could be considered unplanned if it happen spontaneously (note that doesn't mean "instantly").
Would you agree?
Would it sound more like evolutionist language if I refer to it as "random mutations". Isn't that the way evolution is suppose to happen?
That's only half of it... the other half is the selection process.
Let me use the dice example. Here's a dice rolling mechanism:
1. Re-roll all the dice that you have not set aside.
2. Set aside all rolled dice that have the number 6
3. If there are any dice that have not been set aside, go to step 1.
Okay, now imagine I've just handed you 100 dice and you're going to follow the steps. You roll them all, set the 6's aside, and keep rolling the rest. Eventually, all of the dice will be sitting there rolled as 6's.
Now I walk in and proclaim that because it was impossible for that to happen by chance (100 rolls of 6's), then you must have intentionally place all those dices with the 6 facing up.
Realize that all of the dice were rolled and randomly ended up on their 6's by chance. It was the selective process, not the random rolling, that produced the effect that looked like it was planned.
So no, evolution is not supposed to happen by random mutation, it is that plus the selective process that makes evolution happen. Because the fittest survive, in hindsight it can look like it was planned so that they would, but really those fitnesses did arise through random chance, its just that they were selected for.
Because just a small part of your genetic information (genotype) is expressed physically in your body (Phenotype). You look slightly different respective to your parents but still the genetic information is the same. I know there are mutations in the process and they contribute to the variation but that doesn't really mean there is "evolution" in process
So how do you get the variety?
Let's break that down regardless...
I don't have the same genotype as my parents, I got some of my genes from each of them. And the process that replicates DNA is imperfect, so the copies that are made are not going to be exact, so my DNA couldn't be the same anyway. The phenotypic variety that we see comes from changes to the genotypes. The changes to the genotype that come from replication errors are spontaneous. And that means they are unplanned.
So some of the variety we see is certainly not planned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 5:21 AM Ossat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Ossat, posted 04-12-2013 5:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 247 by Ossat, posted 04-12-2013 5:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 140 of 262 (695449)
04-05-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Ossat
04-05-2013 10:42 AM


Re: Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution
Ossat writes:
Thanks for your correction but for the evolution theory to be true the abiogenesis needs to be true as well, because the first is based on the second. I wont't deal with the flaws of evolution at this point. I just wanted to point that not even origen of life is proven by science. abiogenesis is just an attempt to try to explain how life appeared, like panspermia, it's just hard core mental gymnastics to come up with explanations on how life could have appeared by itself
It sometimes takes a while for new people here to realise that they have to be quite careful about what they say, because we're an argumentative bunch and will pick at things that aren't accurate.
It's annoying but necessary to get your arguments organised because at the moment you're saying a number of things that will make umpteen people want to jump on you for an easy kill.
The way simple organisms developed into more complex ones is called evolution. The way the simple organisms got here in the first place is a totally different issue. [That is an inexact statement which would ordinarily get me criticised but it'll do for now.]
The reason is that evolution happens regardless of how first life started. You can accept evolution and deny abiogenesis (the idea that life started here from chemical beginnings.) God could have planted life here, then buggered off to do something else. It could have come here from another planet by meteor or have been left here by aliens.
The two processes need to be separated in your mind - and your arguments.
The other thing to be wary of is that many things that "are hard to get your head around" are also true. Like my wife and quantum mechanics.
Edited by Tangle, : spellin'

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 10:42 AM Ossat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Ossat, posted 04-12-2013 5:43 AM Tangle has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 141 of 262 (695452)
04-05-2013 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Ossat
04-05-2013 5:52 AM


Any living thing no matter how small and simple looks, is far too complex, has got far too much parts interacting together to be the result of unplanned events
Evidence please.
Would you say you don't need any faith to accept the theory of evolution?
Nope. We have evidence which negates the need for faith.
you can read this website or any other, or any book. That alone is not evidence at all, you are just believing in what other people is writing, you are basically having faith in them
I am talking about the real world where real people have sequenced real genomes and compared them. I am talking about real fossils from the real world. These are not empty claims with no evidence behind them. These are facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 5:52 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 142 of 262 (695453)
04-05-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Ossat
04-05-2013 6:08 AM


Re: faith is not needed
I have the experience of living and observing the world around me,
When was the last time you compared the anatomy of fossils to one another? When was the last time you sequenced DNA, or did an alignment of DNA? When was the last time you used shared and derived features to construct a phylogeny?
I have a feeling that you have no experience in biology.
And I am honest to recognize that God did it all,
Since when are empty claims considered honesty?
You are just assuming that evolution is a fact, but nevertheless.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
quote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
I guess we can add the scientific method to the things you don't undernstand and have no experience with.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 6:08 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 143 of 262 (695454)
04-05-2013 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Ossat
04-05-2013 11:02 AM


But Intelligent design and creation can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough to recognize that the universe, the nature and life are far too complex to be an accident.
"Opening your mind" is not the scientific method. That is not science.
It's for me evident that all of this must have been created, there is not other possibility.
So you tell us to open our minds while yours is closed shut. Interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 11:02 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 144 of 262 (695458)
04-05-2013 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Ossat
04-05-2013 11:02 AM


But Intelligent design and creation can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough to recognize that the universe, the nature and life are far too complex to be an accident.
This is a simple and obvious argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 11:02 AM Ossat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 145 of 262 (695464)
04-05-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Ossat
04-05-2013 5:52 AM


Ossat writes:
Any living thing no matter how small and simple looks, is far too complex, has got far too much parts interacting together to be the result of unplanned events
A mountain is arguably more complex than any living thing. For a start, it has more parts. Yet nobody suggests that mountains aren't the result of unplanned events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 5:52 AM Ossat has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 146 of 262 (695472)
04-05-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Ossat
04-05-2013 11:02 AM


I don't agree with the idea that something can be considered scientific just because the majority believes in it.
Then shouldn't you be addressing the topic on page 1 instead of arguing against evolution? This topic is not about evolution, the origin of life NOR is evolution even about, let alone require, the origin of life.
Why has no one moderated this thread? We all know that if it were an "evolutionist" going about sullying up a religious thread, the banhammer would strike so furious that it would make the Great and Mighty Thor jealous. I could somewhat understand Mike the Wiz coming in because he was sorta helping OP (in his trollish own little way), but this member is just spouting gibberish that isn't even remotely in the same universe as the OP (not that the topic originator did a good job of that either, but I digress....). Are creationists so rare a commodity that they can literally just come in and say whatever creationist mumbo jumbo in whatever topic they choose? There are at least 3 other topics (when sorting by "all topics") that he could enter/participate in and actually be on topic.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 11:02 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 147 of 262 (695502)
04-06-2013 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Ossat
04-05-2013 11:02 AM


Ossat writes:
But Intelligent design and creation can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough...
Astrology can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough.
Demolition can be accepted as construction if we open our minds enough.
Loan sharking can be accepted as banking if we open our minds enough.
Gambling can be accepted as investing if we open our minds enough.
Perhaps creation science and its intelligent design offspring might consider attempting to satisfy the criteria of science instead of begging people to "open their minds."
...to recognize that the universe, the nature and life are far too complex to be an accident.
Can I assume there's a scientific footing for this conclusion? That' there's been research establishing a complexity threshold beyond which natural processes cannot be responsible? That we've measured the complexity of nature and life and discovered it lies beyond that threshold?
Ya know, in case you hadn't noticed, the word "scientific" lies right in the title of this thread, and that word *does* have a definition. A valid argument is not, "Let's just be open-minded about what constitutes science and call belief in God scientific. There, we're done."
It's for me evident that all of this must have been created, there is not other possibility.
So it's incumbent upon us to be open-minded, but you, not so much.
Do you have an argument that doesn't require changing the definition of science?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 11:02 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 148 of 262 (695503)
04-06-2013 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Ossat
04-05-2013 10:42 AM


Re: Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution
Not at all true.
If a god magicked the world and life into a starting state it could then evolve.
So evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. This is an entry level concept.
To reiterate: evolution can work from naturalistic abiogenesis or from divine abiogenesis.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 10:42 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 2482 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 149 of 262 (695548)
04-07-2013 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by 1.61803
04-05-2013 10:57 AM


Re: better living through chemistry
How does a Salt crystal "know" how to form a cube and get it just right?
...It's gotta be God!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by 1.61803, posted 04-05-2013 10:57 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 04-07-2013 10:02 AM Ossat has not replied
 Message 152 by jar, posted 04-07-2013 1:12 PM Ossat has not replied
 Message 170 by 1.61803, posted 04-08-2013 11:01 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 150 of 262 (695550)
04-07-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Ossat
04-07-2013 7:58 AM


Re: better living through chemistry
Ossat writes:
How does a Salt crystal "know" how to form a cube and get it just right?
...It's gotta be God!!
This is your only response so far to all the replies you attracted, and it's impossible to know if more will be forthcoming, so I'll respond to the latter portion of your last response to me that I didn't originally address:
Ossat in Message 138 writes:
Let's say you are a forensic anthropologist examining with scientific rigor the place where somebody died. You have all the knowledge to be able to determine if the victim died of an accident or if someone killed him. Is the same with the universe, is clear for me that somebody did it.
Given the evidence you've presented, you're akin to a forensic anthropologist who concludes, "We have a body, therefore it was murder."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Ossat, posted 04-07-2013 7:58 AM Ossat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2013 2:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024