It says nothing about whether the stories in the bible are or are not the literal truth. For the bible to be literally true, we would need a universe in which all contradictory occurrences could occur, similar to (but not necessarily the same as) the multiverse of the many worlds interpretation of QM.
No. There were many incorrect branches of scientific thought, such as the classical elements, phlogiston theory, and alchemy (alchemy cannot be said to be completely off base, as it contributed somewhat to modern scientific procedures), etc.
There are many branches of current scientific thought that will also be discarded and mentioned as equally incorrect in the future, such as some of the competing interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (some of which have already fallen to the wayside, even if not entirely defeated).
The point I am getting to is this:
Regarding all current and future religious thought as incorrect (because of past missteps) is logically similar to regarding all current and future scientific thought as incorrect (because of past missteps).
Well, I suppose you could say your claim is true but there’s always the possibility of someone asking you very politely to create some life again, and then you would be in serious trouble!
What I was saying is that science has no clue of how life begun. Science ASSUMES there has to be a scientifc explanation and is trying to find one but up until now life seems to have appeared suddenly. If you choose to believe it happened by pure lack, then why can’t we create it in a laboratory?
Now if someone believes in what science can verifies and disregards the fact that not all questions are addressed to science (Not the important ones at least) then it’s up to him.
Why is someone willing to believe in a higher power a moron?
Having said that I recognise the existance of God cannot be scientifically proven and as I mentioned in an earlier post I am not saying that Creationism is a science but something people believe in, such as (in this case) accidental appearance of life.
Yes science constantly changes under the light of new evidences and sometimes is bold enough to declare ‘We cannot explain what happened here’ and drop the matter in hand.
People on the other hand despite the fact that their explanation of how evolution works is being proved wrong over and over again they seem to cling to that idea.
I am really wondering, what kind of scientific proof do we have that evolution actually took place? Or is it that evolution happened because there is no other explanation of how life in all its complexities exist?
I am not saying that evolution never happened, I am just wondering what kind of hard proof facts we have on our hands that it actually did.
In what sense are you saying that religion is consistenly wrong? can you provide any examples? Religion deals with the metaphysical aspects of humanity so unless you have a personal experience of who or what God is how can you make such a statement?
What empty assertions that came wrong do you have in mind? I assume you are referring to Christianity and not to other religions.
Religion is not trying to describe HOW life was created but WHO created life. If you do not want to believe fine, nobody is twisting your arm!
And for what is worth I back you up 100% when you say that life cannot just appear. But isn’t that what evolutionists are suggesting? Accidental formation of life? Now to me, this sounds as silly as believing in a supreme being.
There are indeed reasons why not. Such as the baselessness of religious claims on that and every other matter. Such as the lack of evidence that there is a God, or that there even can be. Such as the fact that science has a great deal of evidence for its claims about the world, and a history of success; the opposite of religion. Such as the fact that religion isn’t ever right when it makes claims of fact ( unless it got the fact in question from something else ). Such as the fact that religion is simply incoherent self indulgent nonsense and shouldn’t be taken seriously in the first place; the bottom of humanity’s intellectual barrel.
No. Science progresses towards truth; it modifies its claims according to the evidence. It has a history of becoming ever more accurate and useful. Religion is the opposite; it denies reality, denies logic. It ignores facts, and only improves when non-religious forces make it. And religion is useless except for controlling people and excusing stupid or evil behavior. And always wrong unless it steals from something else, like science. The two couldn’t be farther apart.
Because labs are small, and experiments don’t last for millions of years. You might as well ask why they don’t build a star in a lab. And science does not claim that life originated by “pure luck”; that’s a mischaracterization by the creationists, not the truth. And science has plenty of “clues” as to how life started.
Life is an example of self organization; it takes advantage of the natural tendency of some types of matter to form itself into predictable patterns. It’s no more accidental than the tendency of moving air to form itself into vortexes is, or the tendency of small bits of water to form into rounded droplets instead of, say, cubes.
Because it’s a baseless belief that is nothing but ego gratification and intellectual laziness. Because it belongs to a class of belief that isn’t ever true. Although I’d use the word “lunatic”, “ignorant” or “fool” instead of, or along with “moron”.
Mountains of proof. Cancer cells evolve, fossils show evolution; diseases evolve resistance to drugs; insects evolve resistance to pesticide; and on, and on. We can see it happening in faster evolving species, and there’s massive amounts of evidence for the historical evolution of slower evolving species as well. Evolution is a settled fact; right up there with gravity. Scientists “cling to the idea” because to do otherwise is to deny reality. And because given the way life works, evolution is a natural consequence; something would have to intervene to stop it from happening for it to not happen.
Religion “deals with metaphysical aspects of humanity” because it has relentlessly been proven wrong on any claims that can actually be tested. So it has mostly retreated to claims that can’t be tested, otherwise big bad science would come along and take its lunch money again. In other words, it lost. Society has progressed, and beaten back ( or down ) religion in the process because religion is the enemy of any attempt to discover truth.
As for what claims? Evolution is the obvious example. And the claim that sunspots don’t exist, that the Sun orbits earth, that lightning is God’s wrath, all the various claims of miracles and healings that turn out to be lies when closely examined, the Flood, the Garden of Eden, the claim that disease doen’t evolve, the claim that prayer can heal AIDS, that one can choose your sexuality, that women are inferior to men, and so on.
Of course people are trying to “twist my arm”; the believers are always trying to force their lies down the collective throat of humanity. Even if it kills people; ignoring biological fact handicaps medicine; diseases and cancer cells evolve even if the believers insist they don’t.
Again, scientists don’t claim that life appeared accidentally; that’s just a false claim by the creationists.
What kind of evidence are you looking for to verify the existance of God? Are you trying to find God through science? Or do you believe only in things you can measure and weigh? What about intangible stuff such as love and kindness.
How much do they weigh? Can you scientifically proove your mother loves you? Is her love any less because it cannot be perceived by intsruments or measured by experiment? Have you never felt attracted to a person? How do you calibrate attraction? The list could go on and on.
Science has limits and there are only so much things you can ask proof of before you get out of line.
Now you seem to have certain issues with religion and that is fine but could you please state where have you seen or who has taught you that religion states that sunspots don’t exist and denies that disease can’t evolve and that the sun orbits Earth!!
Well, I do not know what constitutes religion in your neck of the woods but I have been a Christian since childhood and I have never heard such a load of rubbish as the ones you mention.
What kind of claims of fact has religion ever made? When did religion claimed that lightning is the wrath of God for heaven’s sake (Pune not intended)
But to give you some credit, I do not know from which Christian denomination you aquired your information (If you are not repeating something a friend’s friend claimed at the pub one night). In any case I radically disagree with people who teach or believe any of the above and in my opinion they shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Not all Christians fall into that category though…
Why can you get around the fact that Bible is NOT a scientific book. Bible was written to convey the general message ‘God Love and care about you’ more or less. Bible should not be taken literally to explain natural phenomena and should be treated ONLY as a religious book. God, why is this so hard to understand?
Now as far as evolution is concerned, I have to apologise for not making myself clear on the subject. When I said evolution I was not reffering to evolution within a species which we have a plethora of evidence it is true but evolution from one species to another such as an ant becoming a rhinocerous. This is the kind of hard evidence I was looking for.
About creating life in a lab, why do you need a huge lab or aeons of waiting?
Unless I am mistaken current theory of how life begun is a lightning hitting the ‘primal soup’ creating some chemical reactions and thus formning aminoacids which are considered the base of life. Now how hard is to achieve that in a lab?
I think science has absolutely no clue of how life begun but people have problem accepting that certain questions cannot be answered by science or logic for that matter.
And you should understand that religion deals with the metaphysical aspects of humanity because this is the bloody definition of religion if you excuse my French. Religion deals with how people should behave towards God and not of how spinach makes popey super strong!
God cannot be proven to exist in the same sense you cannot prove love exists. If you have never been in love, then no matter how hard someone tries to explain, you can never really get the point.
Do not make false accusations or hold to what someone claimed about religion to be true about all Christians.
As far as Creation of life is concerned I think science has very little to offer than speculation and I don’t understand why one of the speculations can not be in the lines off ‘Life could have been created by something science does not have the knowledge or capability of explaining’
Now If you still think you are so much better than I am for being an atheist, perhaps you should add ‘racist’ in your attributes as well.
I am not trying to make anybody accept God but it seems atheists/agnostics will feel much better if believers went to Hell.
There’s no reason to think there is a God to find. God’s just a primitive myth, no more real than Zeus or Sauron.
Those are all just functions of the brain, and are no more intangible than a rock is. And yes they can be “perceived by instruments”; brainscans can detect the patterns of activity involved with various emotions.
I haven’t personally met any of those; and the first and last were historical positions, long before my time. Haven’t you heard of Galileo and Copernicus? Or are you one of those people wholly “educated” in some religious school that doesn’t believe in contaminating its students brains with facts?
The various religious sects that opposed the use of lightning rods when they were invented.
I understand perfectly; the Bible is just an incoherent collection of barbarian myths, and generally rather disgusting ones. Yes it should be treated as a religious book; which means it should be treated as toxic waste. Worthless and dangerous.
Ants didn’t evolve into rhinos; some very ancient creature evolved into both. And there’s no difference between evolution with a species and between species except time. There are even “ring species” of birds in the far north and south that continuously vary from one species to the next east-to-west all along the latitude at which they live. And there’s plenty of fossil evidence and genetic evidence for species evolving one to the other. There is NO serious* scientific debate on the matter, it’s a long settled question.
There are of course a few religious loons, but they automatically disqualfy themselves as competent in the matter by being so far in denial of the evidence
That was achieved decades ago.
Science has plenty of clues ( unlike religion, which has nothing ).
Religion is a collection of faith based lies and delusions, and nothing more.
But they could be shown the relevant brain activity. And love is an emotion; a subjective experience that most people can have, and love doesn’t violate the laws of physics. God is a claim about something objective, and does violate physical laws.
But science isn’t remotely as stumped by the origin of life as you think it is. And even if it was, that wouldn’t make religious claims true. For one thing, which religion? And as I’ve said before; religion isn’t ever right. A basic rule to live by is to dismiss any religiously based claims, because you can pretty much guarantee they’ll be wrong. Religion is all about being wrong, while being in denial about it. If a belief is right, it doesn’t get the religious label; lies and delusions do.
Since hell doesn’t exist either that would be difficult.
It’s only your own problem if you think that religionists never had a problem with the sun being anything other than perfect.
They also believed that the earth does not move. They believed this so very hard partly for the same reason that they did not like the idea of sunspots, or imperfections on the moon’s surface.
This was because they fell in love with Aristotle and his teachings. Aristotle was a philosopher in Ancient Greece, but the Church liked a lot of what he said. Once they decided that he was an authority, it was the height of impudence to question that authority.
But, in the particular case of the stationary earth, there was an even stronger, more basic reason to cling to a stationary earth.
They believed that the earth does not move, because the Bible says that the earth does not move! It’s in the Book of Psalms!
Maybe you should use a concordance to find “lightning” in the Bible. I’m seeing it several times in Exodus, Job, and Psalms.
It’s not for nothing that our “Battle hymn of the Republic” say that he “hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword.”
Everyone who uses the Bible in a dogmatic, polemical way is stuck with this regrettable heritage. The Bible was used to oppose lightning rods, anesthesia for women in labor, and, let’s not forget, the abolition of slavery.
If you doubt this, maybe you should read some history of the persecution of science and scientists by religion.
Although, of course, the third example is not one of religionists insisting on the bad science of the Bible. It was a case of clinging to the sickening BAD "MORALITY" of the Bible.
Oh, I dunno’. Maybe because what you have said is not the historical truth?
The “primordial soup” would have come after the formation of amino acids. Amino acids HAVE been produced in an apparatus by scientists. Maybe you’d like to try again. Most creationists would at least go straight to asking how they linked up to form DNA, RNA, and proteins.
And, if indeed this happened on earth separately (as opposed to having spores land here) and without intervention, * ***WHY WOULD IT NOT ***require a huge space and tremendous length of time to demonstrate that it could have happened???
(* If it happened with intelligent intervention, that could just as well have been through an already existing intelligent alien or aliens. Or by some other Imaginary Friend than yours. For example, by the Allah of the Muslims.)
Huh?
That is a statement that defies any rational analysis, and “proves” more than anything that you don’t understand the point of SDMB.
It exists to combat ignorance, not to serve as a soapbox for one particular brand of it.
Okay, this is the kind of bull-spit that makes Creationists so irritating to deal with. Evolution does NOT claim that one animal can randomly morph into a completely different animal – chordates and arthropods descended from a common ancestor more than 550 million years ago. If you’re seriously interested in debating evolution, you should at least have the decency to study what modern evolutionary theory actually SAYS before revealing your ignorance.
If you’re so obsessed with replicating the science of abiogenesis in a laboratory then why not apply the same standard of proof to God? Why can’t God be replicated in a lab? Why can’t God be explained or measured with any degree of accuracy? And while we’re at it, why is God so bloody different from one church to another, from culture to culture? Don’t you think if God really wanted people to believe in his existence, he would achieve some degree of consistency between the monotheists, pantheists, animists and wiccans?
And if God does exist, how do you know he’s on your side? How do you know that God isn’t merely deceiving you, in order to destroy your soul?
Not hard to understand at all. Unfortunately not everyone seems happy with the “not be taken literally” disclaimer; many people (more common it seems in the US than in my neck of the woods) think that is should be taken exactly literally. (Have a look at the Wiki article of the Niagara Bible Conferences and the origins of Christian fundamentalism in the US).
“Within a species” is an odd (and might I say, “creationist”) turn of phrase. Trying for a family tree that’s a little shorter than one that covers ants and rhinos for the moment, the evolution of the hominids (us and our four great ape cousins) has and still is being analyzed in excruciating detail. And while we certainly learn new refinements over time there seems no mainstream pressure to chuck the whole thing. for example, the family tree has shifted a little since I studied Anthro in the mid 80s – new DNA evidence has shown the humans very likely branched off from chimp ancestors after the gorillas diverged, rather than before as we thought 25 years ago.
You’re talking about the Miller–Urey experiment? Which uses early earth conditions plus an energy source in a lab and generates amino acids; the building blocks of proteins and thus life.
I thought scientists had a number of hypotheses on abiogenesis; just because we don’t know yet doesn’t mean we won’t or can’t find evidence and clues.
There are certainly things science cannot answer, and then there are those science cannot answer yet. Der Trihs mentioned religion’s retreat from trying to answer factual questions - the God of the gaps problem.
And honestly if more (all?) believers felt this way I’m sure the vast majority of us would be happy to pursue a live and let live attitude.
I’m sure that is not true – and certainly not true of this agnostic.
I am very happy to entertain as a philosophic idea (completely untestable and unprovable) that something (which we can call God) may have set the constants and conditions of this universe in place, which inevitably lead to galaxy, star, and planet formation, which lead to atmosphere, chemistry, self-replicating nucleic acids, mutation, natural selection, and eventually to you and me.
But I expect that we can view and analyze this universe to determine the processes that these things followed.
And, and this is a biggy… I have a heck of a job reconciling that God with one who cares what I eat, who I sleep with, or what II make my clothes from. Fortunately I live somewhere with a strong secular bent, but I can understand the irritation of Der Trihs and others when believers make their lives difficult because of untestable and unprovable philosophy.
Somewhat in regard to Luther and very much in the case of Aquinas, your web site does not answer Megas P.'s question in the affirmative when tied to your claims of those theologians.
Both of them noted that evil spirits had the power to influence wind and lightning; neither of them claimed that only evil spirits were responsible for those acts.
Certainly, there were religious people who continued a superstitious belief regarding lightning rods to an absurd point, but it is simply false to conclude that Aquinas or Luther would have done so in the face of actual evidence.
Can you suggest some criteria by which TA and ML would distinguish between those lightning strikes that were caused by demons, or the will of YHWH, and those that “just happened”?
If you don’t believe there is a God, fine. No problem. I was merely stating that trying to find God through science is like asking what purple smells like. Two dinstictively different things. You cannot find any answers by asking all the wrong questions.
Now your claim that love is as tangible as a rock has confused me! Please enlighten me more regarding this subject.
Also explain (if you are married or in a relationship) how do you verify your partner loves you. Do you stick lots of wires to his head and ask questions?
And what exactly do you mean by saying that love does not violate any physical laws? What kind of physical laws define love?
Is there any scientific way to know if a person actually loves you or not?
As far as the various religious sects you mention, although I have not heard about them, undoubtly they have missed the whole point of religion and (much like an atheist or agnostic) are trying to view God ttrough science which again by definition is impossible.
By all means disagree with these people but please do not use the generic term ‘Believers’ as in ignorant, imbiciles for all the people who accept the existence of God.
In my understanding those sects were walking along the same line atheist do. If this is the kind of stuff you were taught then I don’t blame you for having so song feelings against religion.
I was born and raised in country that almost 85% of the population are Christians belonging to a certain denomination and to answer your question no I have never attended a religious school as they do not exist here (Thank God for that!).
I was never taught that lighting rods wer evil!
I was aware of the fact that Western Christianity was using science as a tool to Proove God existence but I was not aware their stupidity reached that far!
But once again, not all believers accept those rediculous claims and not all believers are illeteral gullible creatures with no clue of the natural world. Believing in God is a personal choice and nothing more, although I get the feeling that you consider youself a level higher just because you decided you were an atheist!
I do not claim to be an evolutionary expert, thus I am bound to make a few mistakes in my arguments which I am glad to be corrected. Frankly I am willing to accept evolution if given some specific evidence and not the usual ‘There’s tons of evidence’. Evolution is not the only subject here, rather the creation of life is.
As for the rest you are clearly against religion and I don’t think it is possible to realise that in a way, you are behaving in the same manner as those religious sects you are so against. You completely disregard certain notions because you lack the ability to understand them.
As a parting thought keep in mind that even if a few wackos are bubbling incoherent thoughts about religion, does not necessarily mean all believers are like them.
On the other hand, until such time as evidence is provided that they actually believed that all weather phenomena were the direct actions of God or demons, (as opposed to one set of phenomena in which spiritual beings might act), then making the claim that they would have attributed all natural phenomena to spiritual entities is simply a straw man argument that I have no need to demolish.
Religionists? what is this a new species? Do you actually think that all believers behave in a similar manner and accept the same stuff? I think it is you who needs to get a glimpse outside your world and realise certain truths.
I call myself a Christian but I have nothing in common with those people you cite up.
Your explanation of Aristotle might have been true for the Catholics but certainly not about the Eastern Church.
I don’t remember how many times I stated that Bible is not a physics manual and should not be treated like one. If someone did he was mistaken. I don’t care who he was, that was plain WRONG. Hopefully we will not have to return to the subject again. God…
Yes, I am aware of Copernicus and Gallilei but the time they were leaving was not called DARK ages for nothing!
Now your suggestion of life being crated due to spores or aliens simply transfers the question of how life was created in the alien’s planet.
Having said that I realise that you can use the same argument for God. Who created God? So if you want to believe life was brought here by ET and his friends go right ahead. Is your notion though so much different than the presence of God.
God, Allah it doesn’t really matter. What matters is, why you consider yourself brightest than a creationist, considering none is based in science to make his assumptions of how life was created.
Thank you for the primordal soup correction. I have already addresed that I am not an evolution expert just asking questions and willing to learn despite me being a gallible believer. By the way, how did the aminoacids linked up to form DNA, RNA, and proteins?!
I have never claimed that an animal can randomly morph to another although I don’t see what’s the fuss about it. Evolution states that we are all descendants of monocellular organisms such as the amoeba. if you belive the amoeba gradually evolved to a lizard then why not the ant to a rhino?!
God cannot be perceived through science. By definition. You either believe or reject God. Nobody can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that god exists. Is this clear now? Because I have only mentioned it about a million times in this thread…
If he exists then I am not the only one who should be worried whiose side He’s on…
Finally someone who can actually understands my point! People you cite need to get their facts straight! Religion and science are two different things. It is true I haven’t realise how crazy religion is in the US…
As for distinguishing evolution within a species and between I think it is quite different at least in the way I see it.
Evolution within a species such as say dogs, mean that dogs can become larger or smaller, with more hair or less but still they are dogs. They haven’t been turned to elephants.(Now there’s a need trick)
I totally agree with you that just because we don’t know now how life was created does not mean we will not know in the future. Absolutely right. Nad perhaps what we will learn is ‘Science cannot answer that’. Or then again perhaps not.
I do not go along with the God of the gap theory, in the case of science. If God created the cosmos, then I think he was wise enough to set all things in motion and not coming back every five minutes to jumpstart a phenomenon.
As for the nature and habits of God I think this is a huge subject which should not be brought here, although your views are very interesting.
If believers in the states are acting and thinking like they can approach or explain God through science well, its their problem.
That’s just handwaving away the problem. Science can’t find God because there is no rational reason to think one exists.
I meant that love is just a pattern of brain activity; a physical thing. It’s not something mystic. I doubt that brain scans are good enough yet to specifically tell if someone “loves Bob over there”, at most I’d expect them to be able to identify the pattern that means love but nothing more specific. As for how you tell? You guess.
It’s not “by definition impossible”, and in fact used to be quite popular; it’s just that the believers have largely given up because science always ends up demonstrating that they are wrong. Science is a tool for understanding reality, and religion is the enemy of the real.
Why not? Believing in God is foolish.
Atheism bashing combined with patronization.
Didn’t you check those links? You’d probably have to be 200+ years old to have personally been taught that.
I understand them just fine; it’s just that they are foolish.
Yes, they are; buying into religion requires poor judgement. And distorts what good judgement you may have.
The Wikipedia links were mostly a matter of convenience. All Wiki articles should be taken with a grain of salt… but they very often given a decent general grounding that you can flesh out with better information elsewhere. One place that you might like to look for evolutionary information is the TalkOrigins archive.
I’d like to say that most mainstream Christian churches agree with you – and the Catholic Church, for example, sees no contradiction between religion and evolution provided space is left for God to initiate the whole she-bang.
My own father-in-law is a retired Methodist minister and a theistic evolutionist (i.e. he accepts fully the scientific explanations of the *how *and when, and puts God into the role of prime mover, providing the why).
But there is a significant minority, in the US particularly, that don’t feel that way. Something close to 1/2 of all Americans believe that humans were created in pretty much their current form in the last 10,000 years or so. Now, intricacies of evolution aside for a moment, there is a ton of scientific dating data that contradicts this “young-earth” figure, which pretty much then brings science and religion into a head-on crash.
I think if I might suggest (very politely) you need to read up some more on current evolutionary theory and evidence.
No, absolutely. But there are quite a few who do think this – or think that science is the enemy of their religion – and understanding that situation helps with understanding the point of view of Der Trihs and others here.
Der Trihs mentioned religion’s retreat from trying to answer factual questions - the