Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God? (children, according, society)

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Wrong you are conflating abiogenesis (origins) with the ToE. Creationism does not address origins as the concept infers young earth if you take the bible literally and there are oodles of evidence for old earth that even theists agree are irrefutable. Furthermore, much of the biblical stories are borrowed from other myths including your creation story and the fludd that never happened. All of it is a search function away on this forum.

I'm not talking about the creation story as you put it. I'm pointing out how it said we come from the earth, which are the same chemicals as us.

[SeekerSA]

Aah so you are a cherry picker? Got it. See how meaningless dialogue is if reduced to tweets.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

I just figure that if you wish to draw attention to something by means of unnecessary capitalization, you might also wish to make sure that your spelling it correctly. See Nizkor - Fallacy: Straw Man.

But thanks for rushing to his aid.

'Strawman' is a very common and popular usage of (often misunderstood) fallacy. I thank you for your observation, as well as the capitalization point though it evidently went right over your head.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

The "God made everything" idea is very distorted for many atheists compared to some believers. God created the laws of physics for us humans to discover. It's not just magic as some here have said.

The 'God made everything' argument is amazingly frequently used - as you did -look back at your post - as part of an attempt to prove the existence of God, and it is irrelevant, really. As is your post which is simply shifting you argument to something different. And how atheists regard the 'God made everything' idea is irrelevant to the basic question of whether it is valid to assume a god (let alone God) - made everything in the first instance (possibly).

Originally Posted by Vansdad

English 101:

prove (prv)
v. proved, proved or prov·en (prvn), prov·ing, proves
v.tr. 1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

ev·i·dence (v-dns) n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place

We need no instruction from you on the meanings of either proof or evidence, but you evidently do, since you argued that evidence is not proof.

"The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place[" But not Proof according to Vansdad because nobody saw it happen so it could be God put His invisible finger through the window and nicked the jewellery to make the doubters believe that it was a normal burglary rather than an Act of God and that doesn't explain who put the window there in the first place. Evidence? Hah!

Are you getting this? This is the sort of garbage argument you are advancing when you say the shedloads of fossil, DNA and morphological evidence is not proof, and Goddunnit could equally well be the explanation.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

If we come from the earth than how could people writing the bible even know this. And The Theory of Evolution is often been reported to support the idea that we evolved from lesser species. The point is that it does nothing to address where it all comes from. Something creationism does.

What? The people who wrote the bible made it up based on a lot of old myths that were invented by some very imaginative predecessors. This part's been proven (see Sumerian, Greek and other mythology. Covers The Great Fludd and even some of the Jesus myths).

The Theory of Evolution is not "often used", as you claim, to just "support" the idea of our origins. Rather, it is exactly how any species arose from not necessarily "lesser" species, but from any genetically different species in the chance mutation process coupled with trial and error testing to see how it fits into an available niche ( and btw, we know this happens in a random pattern, esp. since we now have DNA genome mapping.)

And for the umpteenth time, you might want to look up the technical Definition of a Theory versus your Grade 5 kiddie's colloquial useage. N'Kay? Well, unless that's exactly what level of general usage you want to be known for in all future discussion? Yes?

As regards DNA genome mapping; that very new scientific process is Indisputable, except by intellectual baboons that is.

Question to you, Vansdad: where do you stand on the unambiguous results of DNA genome mapping within a captive population? Within wild populations?

You also state that Evolution (through chance mutations and other genome-modifying processes) does NOT occur? Go ahead: make that statement Vansdad, just for the official C-D record.

As well, in some cases, the more recent organism is less complex than it's predecessor. It all depends on the available niche. This is so incredibly simple, and so easily demonstrated, that to outright deny it is identical to stubbornly claiming factual knowledge that the sun will indeed rise in the West tomorrow morning.

So... either you understand this incredibly simple concept of selective Evolution, but choose to demo your stubbornness and mandated intransigence, or you really need to go back to about Grade 5 or 6 in middle school, only this time pay attention.

Yep. Hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, carbon. Then, a more complex but nonetheless understandable and now reproducible process provides all the necessary primordial and only slightly more complex elements and then molecules which act predictably, the same today as they did back then.

What preceded this initial ( or potentially... repetitive!) Creation event is anyone's guess, since there was no-one around to document it! But modern logical thinking coupled with some elegant experimentation coupled with some thought-provoking hypotheses that the latest observed evidence supports, is creating a potentially and highly workable idea about how it might well have happened.

But the idea of the Big Sky Daddy (and his son, who, by the way, was scheduled to come back within his own next generation... Why is it that you guys conveniently ignore certain absolute but inconvenient passages of the bible, and yet then happily over-generalize and exaggerate on others? Oh well: that'd be yet another bible myth-killing thread topic, huh?), who has remained shyly anonymous and totally unavailable since His purported Big Magic Show (not to mention: where did He come from before His Big Moment?), "insta-poofing" it into being?

Nope. That's all just massive silliness on it's face, and it becomes even more silly when it's rationally examined.

But then, equally predictably, devout fundy Christians will try, with no success (except amongst themselves! Now there's a Big Logical Win, huh?) to conflate abiogenesis (which is only hypothesized right now, though it's well supported now with scads of new information that fits the model. Only a good or truthful model supports it's predictions, btw!) with the established process of accumulated genetic variation via several mutation and other known processes.

Next, when we study DNA genome changes over generations (as Dr. Richard Lenski did over 22 years and 32,000 generations) we find…… why lookee here! Mutationally-based Evolution into… OMG!

A new species!

And you said it couldn't happen! Oh well, you know better now, right?

Right? I mean, unless....

Nahhhh… surely this is not your thinking model...

http://image.shutterstock.com/displa...g-70962874.jpg

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Great - my apologies.

Parenthetically, and speaking of pedantry, why did you choose to capitalize 'Theist' in your rant if you intent was not to denigrate theists?

Complete non-sequitur here. Capitalization is not in any way linked to the content. I capitalize it often. I also study German quite hard and their penchant for capitalizing nouns quite often makes its way instinctualy into my English writing.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

Just some evidence. You know evidence which atheists base everything on.

Then present some. For once in your forum career.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

According to Stephen Hawking

If your scientific knowledge is limited to one author then so be it. Ours is not, and I am afraid the claim is actually current scientific consensus across the majority of the scientific community and not just one single person as you pretend.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. But not your own facts. So stop making things up. Ta.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

If we come from the earth than how could people writing the bible even know this.

I do not know anything about the writers of the Bible. I was not talking about them. Why ask me about them. I am talking about what WE know today. Through evidence, argument, data and reason.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

And The Theory of Evolution is often been reported to support the idea that we evolved from lesser species. The point is that it does nothing to address where it all comes from. Something creationism does.

No, it CLAIMS one possible hypothesis as to where it all comes from. But it does not substantiate that hypothesis in ANY way. It is just another hypothesis among many and its competitor hypothesis are at least substantiated if not proven.

However the tirade above makes two stark errors which illuminate your lack of knowledge on the subject.

The first: Evolution does not differentiate between "Greater" and "Lesser" in species at all. Human arrogance does of course. So no, despite your claiming it, Evolution does NOT claim we evolved from "lesser" species.

The second: Evolution has nothing to do with where it all "comes from" which is why it does not "address" it. It simply does not come under the purview of evolution. Would you lament that ballistics says nothing about the chemistry of why gun powder explodes? No. Why? Because despite the fact Ballistics requires gun powder to explode in order to work... Ballistics itself has nothing to do with the chemistry of gun powder and so it does not discuss it. Similarly Evolution is just about what happened to life AFTER it arose. The reason it does not address where life came from is it has nothing to do with the subject of Evolution.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

Who cares if it's a belief. It's hypocritical for a group, like atheists to scream for evidence which they cannot supply themselves.

Which claim exactly do you want evidence for? Point to a single claim I have made and ask for the evidence and I will give it. If you do not ask you wont get however.

It seems therefore neither of us feel we are getting evidence from the other. The difference however is you are not getting it because you have not asked for any.... while we are not getting it because despite hundreds of posts asking for it you run, cop out, and refuse to. Likely because you simply do not have any.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

English 101:

prove (prv)

Once again showing your lack of scientific knowledge here. Vernacular dictionaries have nothing to do with science. The meaning of "Evidence" "Theory" "Prove" and so forth are different in Scientific discourse than they are in the vernacular.

For example "Theory" in the vernacular means something similar to "Hypothesis". "Theory" in science however means something that has been shown to be as true as it is ever likely to be possible to show true and has been tested and evidenced at some length.

"Prove" in science really means to "Test". Not "Show to be true". That is where the expression "The exception which proves the rule" comes from. Clearly in the vernacular an exception does not prove a rule. It negates it. Change "Prove" to "Test" however and you see what I am talking about. The exceptions test the rule.

Perhaps it is time you learn some science if you wish to continue to presume to post on threads about it and discuss it because all you are managing to do here is highlight your own lack of knowledge on the subject without furthering or adding to the discussion on any level at all. Not that that stops you going around threads telling others they "Do not understand" when they simply fail to roll over and swallow your unsubstantiated and fantastical nonsense claims.

[SuperSoul]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Gladly accepted. In fact I like the way you are thinking.

Thanks.

I want to get at the truth, and I think sound reason and evidence is the best way to do it. I also think it is not much good keeping it to ones-self. I like to think that is good intentions.

The point of my post here was to emphasize that YHWH -Jehovah is pretty much out of the picture if reason and evidence counts for anything and that is the message I am pushing because that personal Biblegod is the one being rammed down our throats every time there is a plane gets down in one piece or a patient makes an unexpected recovery. I gather that you have your doubts about that one as well.

Some sort of 'god' is still possible and I doubt that science will ever totally disprove it and I don't much mind. I do argue that the case for intelligent design is not compelling even where not poor science. I do argue that it is for the believers in First cause to produce better evidence than 'It's all around us'. I argue that the logic that assumes some sort of cosmic intelligence must have started off the universe is not mandatory. It is the best argument for 'god' I concede but to dismiss alternative possibilities is simply the sort of closed -mind thinking we goddless get accused of.

I accept the possibility of a cosmic mind and that science may never explain it all. Theists do not accept the possibility of no cosmic mind and refuse to accept that science is closing the gaps for god. That is illogical and denying the evidence.

I think you have done better than that and maybe need to think about whether you are rather now 'agnostic' (as it is called) than the theist that i remember.

Dear Arequipa,
I believe the warped story of Jesus is not what Jesus (or whoever wrote about him) intended.
Still, some scriptures you would agree with because they are logical. IE: It makes sense that Jesus (or any Christ/higher minded individual) would realize "the kingdom of God cometh not with observation... the kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." It's common sense that YOU cannot feel anything outside of you. Also, Jesus corrected someone when they referred to him as Good Master - saying that only God is Good - & also to not worship him or anybody else except the eternal/unfailing principle of God/Love/Creation striving to create.

I also see the cognitive distortion of using a scapegoat in the form of human sacrifice.
If you think about it, it's pretty sick, but I can understand why people use it - the same reason why we all tend to believe & focus on what works for us. Sometimes the guilt is too much. Sometimes, people can't get past the cognitive distortion of bi-polar thinking... you're either a saint or a sinner - which is wrong. We are BOTH. Thinking of Jesus as perfect & our savior - gives away our power & incentive of truly atoning for our mistakes - trying to make them better, & of humbly realizing we all are imperfect & will die imperfect - as Creation follows.

One thing I need to correct you on is that I don't label myself anything.
I am not Agnostic, I am not Orthodox Christian, nor Atheist.
Group thought is what is dangerous, not so much imagination. Who doesn't imagine things at times?
I take a little of this & that - what makes sense & seems true to me & leave the rest.
I look for truth "wherever it is found" - even in children's lit, as I read today.

I see God as what we worship - & therefore I do believe in God.
Everyone believes in & pursues some things in their lives more than others... aka prioritizes/worships something - even if they don't call it "god."
Some are hell-bent on sticking with ridiculously illogical literal warped interpretations from centuries ago.
It's more honest & helpful to call it what it is... what do you worship? Is that what you really want to worship/prioritize in your life or not?

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by ciko

tyson is not competent to talk about muslim history

But very qualified to speak about advancements in science and the stunning absence of any muslim contributions to science in the last 800 years or so. His observations are spot on, the facts confirm that. Islam was radicalized and disappeared totally from the forefront of science, unless suicide belts and IED's are considered 'science'.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

However we are made of the same chemicals of the earth.

We are made of star stuff, the heavier elements born in the cauldrons of dying stars billions of years ago. The iron in your blood was created in a star, and was part of the elements that coalesced to form this rock, upon which we evolved from the elements present here a long long time ago.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

This is based on the distorted view atheists have of some peoples' belief in God. They have no idea so they use these kinds of ideas to justify their own non-belief.

I've yet to see you say anything to change that view.

Really dude, your previous about we have the same elements in our body as found on the planet earth Well DUH, of course we do, for there is no other source of elements to make us, it's in the food and water and air we take in.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

According to Stephen Hawking

He is a whooooooooooooooooooooooool lot smarter than you are