email468
Well-Known Member
It is a matter of faith to believe in what you believe as there is no evidence (other than you really want divine judgement and vengeance).
A Challenge ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
It is a matter of faith to believe in what you believe as there is no evidence (other than you really want divine judgement and vengeance).
ViRedd
New Member
Question, email ...
Originally Posted by email468
Here's a good place to start...
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
Those Hominids ... where did they come from?
Vi
email468
Well-Known Member
Question, email ...
Originally Posted by email468
Here's a good place to start...
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
Those Hominids ... where did they come from?
Vi
I think the answer you're expecting is - descended from one of the many great apes.
ViRedd
New Member
~lol~ ... No, I was honestly looking for your opinion and hoping you'd have the answer to my question. See ... this is were Ben Stein always ended up in his interviews with Darwinists. When they would get down to the nitty gritty, like down to that one-celled creature, they couldn't answer the question I posed to you. They talked about mud puddles, lightning strikes, Big Bangs and such like that.
I always admire your intellect AND your posts, email. You're consistently honest, rational and non-combative. I like that.
Vi
email468
Well-Known Member
~lol~ ... No, I was honestly looking for your opinion and hoping you'd have the answer to my question. See ... this is were Ben Stein always ended up in his interviews with Darwinists. When they would get down to the nitty gritty, like down to that one-celled creature, they couldn't answer the question I posed to you. They talked about mud puddles, lightning strikes, Big Bangs and such like that.
I always admire your intellect AND your posts, email. You're consistently honest, rational and non-combative. I like that.
Vi
Oh right i gotcha. You are asking where the spark of life comes from - what caused the first cell division or whatever right?
The answer is we don't yet know so it could very well be God, god or aliens, etc...
It is a similar question as to what was before the big bang - though that question is even more complicated and mysterious.
my prediction is after enough folks accept evolution and it is no longer controversial enough amongst lay-folk to generate the anti-science shenanigans you see around you now regarding biology.. the next great attack will be on astronomy/cosmology and the big bang/string theory etc... in fact if i were an ID'er i'd start now as there is a lot of unanswered questions there and fertile grounds for all kinds of misunderstandings and faulty theories.
ViRedd
New Member
"The answer is we don't yet know so it could very well be God, god or aliens, etc...
It is a similar question as to what was before the big bang - though that question is even more complicated and mysterious."
Yes! And that is really the premise of Stein's movie. The Darwinists, like the Intelligent Designers, don't have the final answer. Ultimately, when you get right down to the basics of the basics, both camps are basing their beliefs on faith. Here's the problem as I see it: Academia is insisting that only one side can enter the debate. They are so adamant about that, that they are firing professors and denying tenure for the mere mention of Intelligent Design. And, dare I say it, email ... even you have made the comment that, that type of exclusion is a good thing when it comes to this subject. If both sides don't have the ultimate answer, shouldn't both sides be invited to the debate?
Vi
It is a similar question as to what was before the big bang - though that question is even more complicated and mysterious."
Yes! And that is really the premise of Stein's movie. The Darwinists, like the Intelligent Designers, don't have the final answer. Ultimately, when you get right down to the basics of the basics, both camps are basing their beliefs on faith. Here's the problem as I see it: Academia is insisting that only one side can enter the debate. They are so adamant about that, that they are firing professors and denying tenure for the mere mention of Intelligent Design. And, dare I say it, email ... even you have made the comment that, that type of exclusion is a good thing when it comes to this subject. If both sides don't have the ultimate answer, shouldn't both sides be invited to the debate?
Vi
Last edited:
email468
Well-Known Member
"The answer is we don't yet know so it could very well be God, god or aliens, etc...
It is a similar question as to what was before the big bang - though that question is even more complicated and mysterious."
Yes! And that is really the premise of Stein's movie. The Darwinists, like the Intelligent Designers, don't have the final answer. Ultimately, when you get right down to the basics of the basics, both camps are basing their beliefs on faith. Here's the problem as I see it: Academia is insisting that only one side can enter the debate. They are so adamant about that, that they are firing professors and denying tenure for the mere mention of Intelligent Design. And, dare I say it, email ... even you have made the comment that, that type of exclusion is a good thing when it comes to this subject. If both sides don't have the ultimate answer, shouldn't both sides be invited to the debate?
Vi
Evolution through Natural Selection does not claim to know the answer for how life originated - it never did. It does however offer conclusive evidence of what happened after the first cells started to divide.
If ID is only concerned with how life got started it should have no problem at all with evolution as they are two different things. ID does not stop there though as everything I've read regarding ID is compatible with a biblical version of creation (6000 year old earth, global flood, evolution is true in that animals adapt but they DO NOT evolve from and into other species). If i am incorrect about the premise of ID, please let me know.
But regardless, even if ID restricted itself to exclusively saying the divine was what touched off the spark of evolution and evolution is correct that would still not qualify ID to be a science or belong in a science classroom. How the heck are you going to come up with an experiment that includes divine intervention as a control group or treatment!?!
And while I don't think mentioning divine intervention as a possibility for the creation of life should be completely banned - it should be presented as just another possibility - no more or less likely than aliens planting the seeds of life. It would also require explaining that it is not a scientific theory it is just guesswork. I would even grant the word hypothesis to it. At least until science can discover the natural explanations leading to life.
And what happens when science does "create" life in the laboratory? I would surmise it is only a matter of time. A lot more experimentation has been done since the original "amino acid" creation experiments of the 1950s and 1960s. We have a very good handle on how species came into being and the explanation for the diversity of life, it is just a matter of time until we understand the origin of life as well.
And forgive me for saying but to me it is a lot more amazing that a bunch of monkeys figured all this out on their own over some cruel yet just overlord pulling universal strings.
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Proteins (nucleic acids, protease bases, etcetera) were the first form of "self-reproduction" that existed. These proteins have been reproduced and observed in the lab for many years, and they are known to have existed on early earth. I fail to understand why and how, after all this, one would still insist that faith has any place in scientific teaching and understanding. Come on, the information (and I'm talking about HARD information here, not FAITH, nor requiring faith in anything except the scientific process) is out there! Maybe it's more an issue of knowing where to look than anything, but to not be able to find something yourself and extrapolate that to nothing exists to prove these ideas is flat wrong.
Welcome to the Supramolecular Chemistry Group
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergence of Life - Cambridge University Press
Again, science is repeatable, by anyone, faith is not. Hell, V.S. Ramachandran has already demonstrated that epiphanatic (i.e. religious) episodes can be stimulated in the human brain by a variety of things, among those being certain types of epileptic seizures, strong magnetic pulses, and electrical stimulation. It was reported somewhat erroneously in the press as the brain's "religious center". And guess what! That is also repeatable. Now take that and tell us that it is more likely than not that there is a God rather than it is our brains' functioning abnormally (as compared to other species/animals) and that is what should be being taught.
I disagree with the assertion that professors of science should not lose their tenure or teaching positions for teaching something that is entirely faith-based as science, as I believe they should. Faith is so malleable that no one can agree on whether or not there are many gods/goddesses versus one "true" god. And of those who agree that there is a single god can't fucking agree on how to worship it. How on EARTH can this mindset be included in something that is so cut and dried as hard science? They should lose their positions as scientists, for faith is not science. They should lose their tenure, and if they wish to teach faith then start a church, don't take other peoples' money to ostensibly teach something like science and mix in faith. Nuh uh, not for me.
Welcome to the Supramolecular Chemistry Group
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergence of Life - Cambridge University Press
Again, science is repeatable, by anyone, faith is not. Hell, V.S. Ramachandran has already demonstrated that epiphanatic (i.e. religious) episodes can be stimulated in the human brain by a variety of things, among those being certain types of epileptic seizures, strong magnetic pulses, and electrical stimulation. It was reported somewhat erroneously in the press as the brain's "religious center". And guess what! That is also repeatable.
Now take that and tell us that it is more likely than not that there is a God rather than it is our brains' functioning abnormally (as compared to other species/animals) and that is what should be being taught. I disagree with the assertion that professors of science should not lose their tenure or teaching positions for teaching something that is entirely faith-based as science, as I believe they should. Faith is so malleable that no one can agree on whether or not there are many gods/goddesses versus one "true" god. And of those who agree that there is a single god can't fucking agree on how to worship it. How on EARTH can this mindset be included in something that is so cut and dried as hard science? They should lose their positions as scientists, for faith is not science. They should lose their tenure, and if they wish to teach faith then start a church, don't take other peoples' money to ostensibly teach something like science and mix in faith. Nuh uh, not for me.
email468
Well-Known Member
Proteins (nucleic acids, protease bases, etcetera) were the first form of "self-reproduction" that existed. These proteins have been reproduced and observed in the lab for many years, and they are known to have existed on early earth. I fail to understand why and how, after all this, one would still insist that faith has any place in scientific teaching and understanding. Come on, the information (and I'm talking about HARD information here, not FAITH, nor requiring faith in anything except the scientific process) is out there! Maybe it's more an issue of knowing where to look than anything, but to not be able to find something yourself and extrapolate that to nothing exists to prove these ideas is flat wrong.
Welcome to the Supramolecular Chemistry Group
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergence of Life - Cambridge University Press
Again, science is repeatable, by anyone, faith is not. Hell, V.S. Ramachandran has already demonstrated that epiphanatic (i.e. religious) episodes can be stimulated in the human brain by a variety of things, among those being certain types of epileptic seizures, strong magnetic pulses, and electrical stimulation. It was reported somewhat erroneously in the press as the brain's "religious center". And guess what! That is also repeatable.
I disagree with the assertion that professors of science should not lose their tenure or teaching positions for teaching something that is entirely faith-based as science, as I believe they should. Faith is so malleable that no one can agree on whether or not there are many gods/goddesses versus one "true" god. And of those who agree that there is a single god can't fucking agree on how to worship it. How on EARTH can this mindset be included in something that is so cut and dried as hard science? They should lose their positions as scientists, for faith is not science. They should lose their tenure, and if they wish to teach faith then start a church, don't take other peoples' money to ostensibly teach something like science and mix in faith. Nuh uh, not for me.
Since there isn't a comprehensive theory on origin of life as solid as natural selection (enlighten me if i'm mistaken) i thought i'd through them a bone.
It's not like i actually get to enforce the rules or anything
And i don't want to spread rep around first -- i want to rep you again!
medicineman
New Member
Who said anything about vengance? "Vengance is mine saith the lord"
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
Proteins (nucleic acids, protease bases, etcetera) were the first form of "self-reproduction" that existed. These proteins have been reproduced and observed in the lab for many years, and they are known to have existed on early earth. I fail to understand why and how, after all this, one would still insist that faith has any place in scientific teaching and understanding. Come on, the information (and I'm talking about HARD information here, not FAITH, nor requiring faith in anything except the scientific process) is out there! Maybe it's more an issue of knowing where to look than anything, but to not be able to find something yourself and extrapolate that to nothing exists to prove these ideas is flat wrong.
Welcome to the Supramolecular Chemistry Group
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergence of Life - Cambridge University Press
Again, science is repeatable, by anyone, faith is not. Hell, V.S. Ramachandran has already demonstrated that epiphanatic (i.e. religious) episodes can be stimulated in the human brain by a variety of things, among those being certain types of epileptic seizures, strong magnetic pulses, and electrical stimulation. It was reported somewhat erroneously in the press as the brain's "religious center". And guess what! That is also repeatable.
I disagree with the assertion that professors of science should not lose their tenure or teaching positions for teaching something that is entirely faith-based as science, as I believe they should. Faith is so malleable that no one can agree on whether or not there are many gods/goddesses versus one "true" god. And of those who agree that there is a single god can't fucking agree on how to worship it. How on EARTH can this mindset be included in something that is so cut and dried as hard science? They should lose their positions as scientists, for faith is not science. They should lose their tenure, and if they wish to teach faith then start a church, don't take other peoples' money to ostensibly teach something like science and mix in faith. Nuh uh, not for me.
The problem I have with science trying to prove the origin of life is because I do not believe that there is any way that this Earth (which couldn't be at a more perfect distance from the Sun) with its seasons, moon, and animals was just random. I do not believe that that the universe is constantly expanding and expanding and will eventually collapse upon itself and we are all here just cause. I do not believe in evolution, I do not believe we came from monkeys. Aliens putting us here is a more logical explanation than damn monkeys, thats pretty sad.
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
That's fine, Zen, you're allowed to hold to your belief (or, disbelief, as the matter may prove). The thing that I'm addressing is the idea that faith should be allowed to be taught alongside hard science. There is simply no room for it.
That is NOT to say that there is no room for faith in this world, either, I think there most certainly is. I just make a very sharp delineation between the two.
That is NOT to say that there is no room for faith in this world, either, I think there most certainly is. I just make a very sharp delineation between the two.
email468
Well-Known Member
I understand that your beliefs are evidence enough for you. Others, myself included, need evidence before forming an opinion on such topics.
I fail to see how it is more logical that aliens (who we do not know exist) put us here. At least we know monkeys exist, right? so that alone makes the monkey idea more plausible.
So what is more logical to you may not be more logical to me (or more logical to everyone else).
Luckily it doesn't matter what we believe or find logical cause real scientists are actually working hard figuring out what the facts is.... i choose to believe them whereas you do not.
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
Well, logically, it is inconceivable that there is no other life forms beyond our planet in the whole universe. So I believe in aliens, the only question arises is how they managed to make it way out here, but that is neither here nor there.
The only reason why the theory of evolution exists is because monkeys are bipedal and we form the assumption that we came from them hence we share a few traits. Thats not good enough. I have said this before, and I shall say it again, we do not know anything, that is you, me, scientists. For hundreds of years we thought the planet was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe. No, I am not going to put any faith behind man.
And contrary to what you might be assuming, I do not use the "God excuse" as a guise for man's ignorance on natural law. It is true that it has been done, mostly in all forms of polytheism, however I think that this is all crafted by a divine architect who wrote the laws of physics, who wrote science. Science and God go hand in hand in my view, its just another aspect of his genius.
Colossians, 1. 16
-For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.
medicineman
New Member
What fucking math are you talking about? Prove that it is not possible. Most scientist disagree with you. It may just be possible.Actually, when one does the math, it is perfectly conceivable that we have not been visited by anyone outside our solar system. Timing is EVERYTHING.
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
I'm with Med here.
We don't even have an idea of what kind of technology exists beyond our own. For all we know they could teleport, use the event horizon bending of the time and space thing, or some other way that we cannot even fathom. Nothing is impossible.
medicineman
New Member
No, I'm not joking. Most scientist now agree that extraterrestial life is not only possible but highly probable. With the trillions of galaxies and the trillions of stars in each galaxy, the odds are just too great that another civilization exists outside our solar system. Do the Math as you say. what are the odds that this planet was one in a trillion trillion.You're joking, right?"Most" scientists disagree with me?
I didn't say it was impossible, either.
