Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get that, but science can’t explain the origin of life.
Not yet, no.
But at one time, science couldn't explain a lightning strike or a solar eclipse.
Those things were considered magical and supernatural at one time, too.
Science figured it out so now, not even you believe that an eclipse is a dragon-god eating the sun or other such rubbish.
And yet here you are making the same mistake our ancestors have been making for tens of thousands of years. Inserting religious, magical, and fantastical explanations for the things we don't yet know.
Our ancestors had an excuse - they lived during a time of intellectual darkness when science and the scientific method were hundreds if not thousands of years away.
Now we understand not just the science itself, but how science reaches its conclusions; you can look back throughout human history and literally see thousands of different natural occurances that were once blamed on the supernatural, magic, and gods/demons but are now scientific chlld's play - so easy, in fact, that they are taught to 11 and 12 year-olds.
The fact that, despite this, despite knowing how often religion has been wrong in explaining our natural universe, there are people who still think that this time, this time, religion will be right.
Creationism has to be the best (or worst?) example of how religion rots the brain. How anyone can have even a rudimentary knowledge of scientific history and yet still make the claim: "Because science hasn't yet shown how life got started, it was god! And not just some generic superbeing, oh no, but the very specific God of my own personal religion!" ... well, it's more startlingly incomprehensible than the theories involving black hole singularities.
It's like a child who touches the hot stove because the bright red color of the burner looks pretty. After getting a third degree burn on their hand, they're right back at the stove turning it and touching the burner with the other hand ... and no matter that they know it's going to hurt like hell, that they'll cry, that mom and dad will get angry for the child being so, well, stupid as to keep touching hot stoves, they'll keep touching that stove and no amount of pain, parental discipline, or past experience will keep them from continuing to touch it again and again and again.
Science will figure out how life began. It's only a matter of time. To believe that, this time, a magical explanation will prove to be the right one flies in the face of 100,000 years of human history. It's not a safe bet at all that creationism will turn out to be true.
But ... people have to keep shooting for the moon because, instead of accepting the existence of their god through faith, they need science to support it as well. Which tells me that all of this talk about personal relationships with their deities is, in fact, rubbish. Why would one need creationism to be true so desperately if they had such a personal relationship? What happened to faith rather than science?
People often say that science has no business entangling itself in matters of faith - but faith has no problem at all entangling itself in matters of science. Even to the point of trying to convince everyone else that science is wrong (but only about evolution and the Big Bang - very selective incompetence on the part of science, I guess) because believers just have to be right about those things.
Probably because, if evolution and the Big Bang are proven true - and they already have been, in all honestly - it would destroy utterly any literal interpretation of their faith. Evolution itself unravels the entire premise of Christianity because, without Adam and Eve, there is no original sin and hence no reason for Jesus to die on the cross.
Which is why this ridiculous fight with creationists has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the science behind evolution and the Big Bang is sound and valid. It already is. No, the only reason why this silly debate keeps dragging on and on is because believers need creationism to be true for fundamentalism, evangelism, and other extremist religious positions to remain credible. (And I use the term 'credible' extremely loosely.)
no, we don't know a grand reason. no, because we don't know doesn't mean we have to make one up either. well, past just enjoying the time we are here that is.
we do know we are here now. we do know we are in a system of life (the biosphere). we know the universe is more complex than just our biosphere. We do know that the universe created our biosphere.
we do not know the grand reason. Bt we make the next life form is two hundred years or less. And to be more precise , and more valid, the universe is actually is going to evolve using a protein.
that claim is more valid than "deny everything" and "my god only". now we just need the regular folks to step up against the fundy/milli mentals.
Therefore, a mover/creator is the only logical conclusion, at this point.
I can't continue to tolerate the negative energy and some these people have been at it since before I was born.
They are looking for adherents not discussions. Anyway, I'm okay with exploring solo.
yeah, I explore solo too ... oh wait ... my bad, i get ya.
I am only here because of the lurkers. we don't have to sit and let 'deny everything" types tell us what's the most rational stance. there is no god of the bible and religions do cause great suffering every now and again. But we don't have to stop progress because of how we feel about religion.
I believe, blind faithly to be sure, that when you tell people they are wrong, tell them why they are wrong and show them what is actually going on. telling them they are wrong, calling them names, and not teaching them what is going on is just insanity.
we are surrounded by a system of life, the biosphere, that just can't be denied by the rational person. We are directly connected to that system. it doesn't mean a sort-a-god, but is offers a mechanism, explationtion, and makes predictions on what spiritual people think they feel.
the science I use to support my claim produced the cell phones of today. "deny everything" didn't produce one thing. deny everything does not do anything. i don't understand how the regular atheist can buy into stepping aside and letting anti-religious socialist go by and absolutely crush innocent people.
the good news grab, people that believe we are part of a larger more complex system will always outnumber the deny everything types. We will out number them because because 'deny everything" is not scientific. It is not logical. and it counters common sense.
it counters common sense as surely as 'my god only' does.
Life began. Knowing how it began has absolutely nothing to do with living a good, moral life. Why do you keep harping on how life began when nobody has any clear, concrete answers? Does it make your life different?
Seriously? It makes no difference in the way we perceive thngs, if there is/is not a creator?
Therefore, a mover/creator is the only logical conclusion, at this point.
no its not jimmie. "we don't know why we are here' is the logical conclusion.
now the mover part we can talk about.
1) "homeostasis' seems to be the best conclusion for the biosphere, and even the universe. that doesn't imply a sort-a-god, but it does have some implications that I don't have to run away from because I am an atheist.
2) "deny everything", call it "natural". well, as we can see, that doesn't say a thing. its nonsense.
3) "god", as taught many religions. its far less valid than the notion of "homeostasis".
4)non-life. If we classify humans as non life, then we can classify the whole of the universe as non life. But we all see what that would mean.
So, science still can’t tell us how life began. Why you think a creator is “magic”, I do not understand. But, at this point, the only logical conclusion is a creator, of some sort. I don’t need faith to understand that.
If logic requires a creator, then the same logic requires a creator for the creator. The religious of course tend to insist that the creator has existed eternally and requires no creator. Apparently then, logic only requires a creator when it suits religious assumptions.
If logic requires a creator, then the same logic requires a creator for the creator. The religious of course tend to insist that the creator has existed eternally and requires no creator. Apparently then, logic only requires a creator when it suits religious assumptions.
Why? *bolded above
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
