Fallacies in Christianity

[RDK]

When did i cherry pick? The word image means likeness. YOU presumptuously assume it means physical likeness, when common sense(i know what your thinking "common sense and the bible?") obviously dictates that its not a physical likeness. Men act and think like God does, just on an imperfect scale. A chip off the old block is the expression.

The bible is like Animal Farm, you can read it and enjoy it fairly well, taking everything literally, or you can dig deeper and find the symbolisms, metaphors and parallels, the greater meaning and fully understand the book. All good books contain figurative speech, so does the bible, thats not call cherry picking thats called discernment.

So who gets to decide what's literal and what's figurative? You?

What makes that verse any less ridiculous than the resurrection of Jesus, the creation account, Noah's ark, or any of the other laughable things in the Bible that no half-baked grown man would actually take as truth?

 

[Mewter]

When did i say they were immortal? Stop putting words in my mouth, seriously. In fact immortal means they're not subject to death so even if they ate the fruit they wouldn't have died, because an immortal being CANNOT die. Immortal beings have no kryptonite, no weakness.

Huh? What? Immortality means that you are subject to invincibility? No, it just means that you have the ability to live forever. I think you're confusing the word "immortal" with "invulnerable". And no, they weren't invulnerable. If death started when sin started.... that implies that Adam and Eve and everything else were immortal(there's that word, again) to begin with, refuting your argument of stuffing words in your mouth, because you said "immortal" to begin with.

 

[Aesir]

Adam and Eve were created perfectly, they were without sin and were endowed with Eternal Life. Which means immortality. Immortality is the state where physical death is impossible.

Just thought there needed to be clarification.

 

[Mewter]

By Dictionary.com
–adjective
1. not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls.
2. remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln.
3. not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting.
4. perpetual; lasting; constant: an immortal enemy.
5. of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality.
6. (of a laboratory-cultured cell line) capable of dividing indefinitely.

All of these indicate perpetual life, and not invulnerability, which is perfect immunity. The thing that Peeze said about immortal beings having no weakness is false. Immortality in itself is a silly concept. Coupled with random, magical, law-defying miracles happening, I don't see why not immortal people can't just change from a state of immortality to mortality, and then die. Also, adding to the quote I responded to a couple posts up, substituting "living forever" with "immortality" isn't putting words in your mouth. It's the same exact thing. We took what you implied, and gave it to you with a name: immortality.

The bible is like Animal Farm, you can read it and enjoy it fairly well, taking everything literally, or you can dig deeper and find the symbolisms, metaphors and parallels, the greater meaning and fully understand the book. All good books contain figurative speech, so does the bible, thats not call cherry picking thats called discernment.

It's also called taking it out of context. RDK put it bluntly:"So who gets to decide what's literal and what's figurative? You?"

 

[Peeze]

Lol at the gang bang again., and to lazy 2 multiquote soooo...

@arrowhead my bible doesn't teach blind faith.
@all the people arguing immortality:
1. they couldn't have been immortal because threatening them with death would be laughable, since as Mewter ever so generously quoted Dictionary.com,
immortal ones are:
not liable or subject to death. YOU CANT KILL AN IMMORTAL PERSON obviously they weren't immortal. and if they were immortal they would have no need for God. My theory(yes a theory, just like evolution you scientific *******s) is that God sustained there life, which is why they needed him to live. Once they sinned and the protection/sustenance was gone, they died.
I like how Mewter quoted dictionary.com that said immortal people are "not liable to perish or decay" and then said "The thing that Peeze said about immortal beings having no weakness is false."

@the ""So who gets to decide what's literal and what's figurative? You?" people

I answer that question with "who gets to decide whats literal and whats figurative in animal farm?" And i would like an answer to that please.

Without me this thread would be nowhere, and you *******s know you enjoy it. Your welcome.

 

[Mewter]

Lol at the gang bang again., and to lazy 2 multiquote soooo...

Oops, laziness already.

@arrowhead my bible doesn't teach blind faith.

Your interpretation, or the thing itself? Both require blind faith.

@all the people arguing immortality:
1. they couldn't have been immortal because threatening them with death would be laughable, since as Mewter ever so generously quoted Dictionary.com,
immortal ones are:

People who can not die.

not liable or subject to death. YOU CANT KILL AN IMMORTAL PERSON obviously they weren't immortal. and if they were immortal they would have no need for God. My theory(yes a theory, just like evolution you scientific *******s) is that God sustained there life, which is why they needed him to live. Once they sinned and the protection/sustenance was gone, they died.

I like how Mewter quoted dictionary.com that said immortal people are "not liable to perish or decay" and then said "The thing that Peeze said about immortal beings having no weakness is false."

Having no weakness is drastically different from being immune to death. Plus, I think I stated that a change from immortality to mortality can explain why death become possible the instant they sinned. If death is not possible before sinning, then they are, by definition, immortal. That does not make them invulnerable, though, as when you claimed immortal beings have no "kryptonite". I just showed that immortality does not require invulnerability.
I just wanted to point out the confusion in your words.

@the ""So who gets to decide what's literal and what's figurative? You?" people

I answer that question with "who gets to decide whats literal and whats figurative in animal farm?" And i would like an answer to that please.

Without me this thread would be nowhere, and you *******s know you enjoy it. Your welcome.

Pointless. What do you mean by animal farm?

 

[RDK]

Without me this thread would be nowhere, and you *******s know you enjoy it. Your welcome.

Kind of like if there was no disease then we wouldn't need doctors.

 

[Reaver197]

Woah there, calm down man. Don't let your anger and ego do the talking, as that only makes things worse.

First off, you're the one that stated that Adam and Eve would "have never died" if "they didn't eat [the] fruit", which clearly indicates the idea that they were immortal or exempt from death prior to eating the fruit. If you didn't mean for that idea to be deduced from your post, you might've avoided that by writing out what you meant more plainly, clearly, and/or more in depth.

Also, you clearly don't understand what a scientific theory implies. They are not the kind of theory that, like the example you provided, people simply posit as a possible explanation, which is actually more of a hypothesis.

Here's a definition for what scientific theory is.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

Also, I'd like to point out something that was wrong with your hypothesis. Adam and Eve did not instantly die from eating the fruit. In fact, it seemed they lived quite some time afterwards, being able to raise a family and all. Plus, once again, doesn't that technically mean that animals should never die? They never "sinned" against god.

As for Animal Farm, we have, you know, George Orwell himself and his notes. Besides, nothing in Animal Farm is taking as literal fact. If you really ever thought at some point pigs took over a farm, you've got some critical thinking issues. However, with the bible, you (or, at least, some religious people) expect us to take the genesis story and Jesus' life (resurrection included) story as "literal fact", yet at the bits that aren't so nice and dandy, they aren't.

I'll admit, this thread would be shorter a few posts without you, but thinking that somehow you're the main reason this thread "got" anywhere is just delusional and ego-appeasing, wishful thinking.

 

[arrowhead]

peeze to accept any part of the bible is BLIND FAITH. NOBODY has ANY idea which parts of it are true or not. the whole thing used to be true. and as our knowledge gained through science advanced, the bible became less literal. see a trend?

i really don't see how you can cling to your religion like this. you haven't given a satisfactory answer to any critical points

 

[Deleted member]

Peeze your posts are like the armpits of the debate hall

 

[Aesir]

@all the people arguing immortality:
1. they couldn't have been immortal because threatening them with death would be laughable, since as Mewter ever so generously quoted Dictionary.com,
immortal ones are:
not liable or subject to death. YOU CANT KILL AN IMMORTAL PERSON obviously they weren't immortal. and if they were immortal they would have no need for God. My theory(yes a theory, just like evolution you scientific *******s) is that God sustained there life, which is why they needed him to live. Once they sinned and the protection/sustenance was gone, they died.
I like how Mewter quoted dictionary.com that said immortal people are "not liable to perish or decay" and then said "The thing that Peeze said about immortal beings having no weakness is false."

You're forgetting the Christian god is omnipotent, there's nothing he cannot do. It wouldn't beyond his power to kill an immortal person. However it's common conclusion that when Adam and Eve committed the original sin, they were striped of their immortal stature. Thus they slowly began to die from that day forward.

 

[marthanoob]

peeze to accept any part of the bible is BLIND FAITH. NOBODY has ANY idea which parts of it are true or not. the whole thing used to be true. and as our knowledge gained through science advanced, the bible became less literal. see a trend?

i really don't see how you can cling to your religion like this. you haven't given a satisfactory answer to any critical points

Some parts of it do correlate with artifacts and records, not all of it is made up.
And you are using slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Some parts of it do correlate with artifacts and records, not all of it is made up.
And you are using slippery slope fallacy.

Some, not all. Grasping for straws much?

Smooth Criminal

 

[marthanoob]

Some, not all. Grasping for straws much?

Smooth Criminal

You could look at it like that. In my perspective, I was correcting an exaggeration.

 

[RDK]

You could look at it like that. In my perspective, I was correcting an exaggeration.

Some parts of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code correlate with true facts and records. Should we take any of it as fact?

 

[marthanoob]

Some parts of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code correlate with true facts and records. Should we take any of it as fact?

Yes, we should. Would you doubt the existence of the Louvre Museum?

 

[RDK]

Yes, we should. Would you doubt the existence of the Louvre Museum?

Not in conjunction with the events described in The Da Vinci Code.

 

[marthanoob]

Not in conjunction with the events described in The Da Vinci Code.

I don't know what you are getting at.
I was responding to the statement "NOBODY has ANY idea what parts of it [the Bible] are true or not".
That was referring to "the parts of it" which, in context, is anything in the Bible.
Now you are changing the reference to "the events" in an analogy.

 

[RDK]

I don't know what you are getting at.
I was responding to the statement "NOBODY has ANY idea what parts of it [the Bible] are true or not".
That was referring to "the parts of it" which, in context, is anything in the Bible.
Now you are changing the reference to "the events" in an analogy.

I'm pretty sure some physical landmarks, cities, and civilizations in the Bible are factual, but that doesn't mean any of the events are. I was using realistic fiction as an example.

 

[marthanoob]

I'm pretty sure some physical landmarks, cities, and civilizations in the Bible are factual, but that doesn't mean any of the events are. I was using realistic fiction as an example.

Ok, you could have stated that earlier. I agree.

 

[Peeze]

Oops, laziness already.

fine i'll multiquote. but im not capitalizing any of my proper nouns.

Pointless. What do you mean by animal farm?

the book.

Kind of like if there was no disease then we wouldn't need doctors.

take that as a thank you.

peeze to accept any part of the bible is BLIND FAITH. NOBODY has ANY idea which parts of it are true or not. the whole thing used to be true. and as our knowledge gained through science advanced, the bible became less literal. see a trend?

i really don't see how you can cling to your religion like this. you haven't given a satisfactory answer to any critical points

As marthawhosits said this is a big exxageration. There are parts of the bible which require faith yes, i've never seen a dead person resurrected, but have you ever seen any explosion of energy create life?
I thought i was doing a pretty good job holding my own.

Peeze your posts are like the armpits of the debate hall

And yours are like the appendix, useless and should be removed.

You're forgetting the Christian god is omnipotent, there's nothing he cannot do. It wouldn't beyond his power to kill an immortal person. However it's common conclusion that when Adam and Eve committed the original sin, they were striped of their immortal stature. Thus they slowly began to die from that day forward.

Thats exactly what i'm saying in my "theory" "hypothesis" "idea whatever".
I'm just wary of attributing immorality to adam and eve, because they still wouldnt need a god if they were immortal.

Oh and for rdk a few events from the bible confirmed to be factual(this is completely off the top of my head at 1:25 in the morning, might be a little shady i'll confirm in the morning)

Destruction of Judah by babylon, and restoration by Darius the mede.
Registration of the israelites ordered by Caesar(the reason jesus was even born in bethelehem and not Nazareth.)
Destruction of Babylon by the medo-persian army.
Its ignorant to discredit the whole bible.

 

[Mewter]

fine i'll multiquote. but im not capitalizing any of my proper nouns.

Ok.

the book.

Alright. Thanks for clarifying.

As marthawhosits said this is a big exxageration. There are parts of the bible which require faith yes, i've never seen a dead person resurrected, but have you ever seen any explosion of energy create life?
I thought i was doing a pretty good job holding my own.

Explain. Are you talking about the big bang when you say "big explosion?"

Thats exactly what i'm saying in my "theory" "hypothesis" "idea whatever".
I'm just wary of attributing immorality to adam and eve, because they still wouldnt need a god if they were immortal.

They would have been immortal, though, if death were not a natural possibility for them in the first place.

 

[Reaver197]

Registration of the israelites ordered by Caesar(the reason jesus was even born in bethelehem and not Nazareth.)

I don't know about the rest of the ones you stated, but I do know for certain that this tidbit is false.

There was a census mandated that was mandated for the Israelites, however, is was a locally mandated one by Governor Quirinius, and it also happened at 6 A.D., which was long after King Herod died, so it actually occurred too late for Jesus' supposed birth. More ever, the supposed reason that Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem since Joseph was of the "lineage of David" is a pretty weak reason, since, if David did live, he had lived about a thousand years before Joseph and Mary. Not only would it be nearly impossible and have any accurate way of telling whether Joseph actually was a descendant of David, why would he have to go to a town that a possible ancestor (of all possible ancestors) lived in a thousand years ago?

Also, on top of that, this is only Luke's version of the birth of Jesus. John's version states that Jesus was actually not born in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth, whereas Matthew says that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem all along, and only fled to Nazareth after Jesus was born to escape King Herod.

So, not only is the bible historically inaccurate about Jesus' birth place (and time), but it even blatantly contradicts itself from the several versions that are given for it.

 

[Peeze]

Explain. Are you talking about the big bang when you say "big explosion?"
They would have been immortal, though, if death were not a natural possibility for them in the first place.

Yes, a little. I know more is involved in the BB theory than that, but believing that(this is my rough knowledge of the BB so PLEASE correct me) massive amounts of energy(unexplained in origin) could bring about life as complex as we know it by chance. Dude the sun is the exact mileage away to perfectly sustain life. The human brain is a freaking marvel. You dont have to be spiritual or religious at all, but don't you find some kind of awe in that? Thats a big leap of faith(to me) to me to leave the perfect balance we see up to chance.
What does piss me off about religion is that alot of whats taught is lies and is hypocrital, and i get bunched in with those people. Im starting to rant...
To be completely technical, if there was no death there would be no such thing as mortal or immortal, since death wouldnt exist and no one would be subject to it. So i guess we could say they put on mortality after they sinned.

 

[arrowhead]

As marthawhosits said this is a big exxageration. There are parts of the bible which require faith yes, i've never seen a dead person resurrected, but have you ever seen any explosion of energy create life?
I thought i was doing a pretty good job holding my own.

another cop-out argument... very clever. ALL of the bible takes faith. any semi-intelligent person can see that

 

[Peeze]

I don't know about the rest of the ones you stated, but I do know for certain that this tidbit is false.

There was a census mandated that was mandated for the Israelites, however, is was a locally mandated one by Governor Quirinius, and it also happened at 6 A.D., which was long after King Herod died, so it actually occurred too late for Jesus' supposed birth. More ever, the supposed reason that Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem since Joseph was of the "lineage of David" is a pretty weak reason, since, if David did live, he had lived about a thousand years before Joseph and Mary. Not only would it be nearly impossible and have any accurate way of telling whether Joseph actually was a descendant of David, why would he have to go to a town that a possible ancestor (of all possible ancestors) lived in a thousand years ago?

Also, on top of that, this is only Luke's version of the birth of Jesus. John's version states that Jesus was actually not born in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth, whereas Matthew says that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem all along, and only fled to Nazareth after Jesus was born to escape King Herod.

So, not only is the bible historically inaccurate about Jesus' birth place (and time), but it even blatantly contradicts itself from the several versions that are given for it.

And that was rife with falsehoods.
Matthew 2:1 says Jesus was born in bethelehem, but never says they lived there, nor does it say that they fled to nazareth, they fled to egypt.
And the books of mark and john doesn't speak of Jesus's birth at all!
I need to double check the registration in the morning though.
Your usually accurate, but not that time Reaver.


@arrowhead That wasn't a cop out, how can you say religion requires blind faith when nothing of the big bang theory has been seen or recreated either?

 

[arrowhead]

how can you actually believe that because what we found through science isn't satisfactory for you, that christianity's god must exist. tell me exactly how those two are related.

also, the big bang theory isn't incorrect because it's a THEORY. there is nothing about it that says "this is the truth," unlike the even more unsound bible. also, we do not need to observe a big bang to be confident that it happened. trace back the trajectories of the galaxies and you'll see that they meet up at one point

 

[Reaver197]

And that was rife with falsehoods.
Matthew 2:1 says Jesus was born in bethelehem, but never says they lived there, nor does it say that they fled to nazareth, they fled to egypt.
And the books of mark and john doesn't speak of Jesus's birth at all!
I need to double check the registration in the morning though.
Your usually accurate, but not that time Reaver.

While it is true that John never explicitly states or talks about the birth of Jesus, there is one particular reference he makes that indicates that John seems to believe Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. Starting from John 7:40

7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
7:43 So there was a division among the people because of him.

As for Matthew, that's correct that it's said that they did flee to Egypt, not Nazareth, and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. I incorrectly shortened it, so that is my bad. However, from what Matthew says, it seems to indicate that, indeed, Joseph and Mary had a house in Bethlehem, and then moved to Nazareth after their escape to Egypt.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/before_birth.html

As for the big bang theory, it is only one of many possible theories for how the universe got "started" (which may be a useless term, if newer theories and postulations are correct).

 

[Zero Beat]

Yes, a little. I know more is involved in the BB theory than that, but believing that(this is my rough knowledge of the BB so PLEASE correct me) massive amounts of energy(unexplained in origin) could bring about life as complex as we know it by chance. Dude the sun is the exact mileage away to perfectly sustain life. The human brain is a freaking marvel. You dont have to be spiritual or religious at all, but don't you find some kind of awe in that? Thats a big leap of faith(to me) to me to leave the perfect balance we see up to chance.

A little knowledge of chemistry and the addition of billions of years of chemicals interacting with each other(because we are made of elements, if you forgot about that) are bound to combine into many different stages(not "states" like plasma, solid, liquid, ect) of matter. However, it is impossible unless magic is real, for us to be made into this most complex stage of matter(since we haven't observed anything more complex than us[brain]) in 6000 years only.

Anyway, think of the elements hydrogen and oxygen. They're just that by themselves, but when mixed, they form water! Think of the alphabet. 26 letters that form around 560K English words and counting.

Also, the Sun isn't "perfectly stationed" for Earth to harbor life. We happen to be at an average distance from roughly 90 to 95 million miles away from it(1 Astronomical Unit). It's not that we are "at the right/orderly distance," we are simply WITHIN the habitable zone. A habitable zone is the distance from a planet to its star in which water is able to form.

The human brain is a result of evolution. Thinking is not a miracle, it is energy in motion. The brain is made of matter, which can be broken down to fundamental elements. Things just simply seem impressive when you do not understand their intermediate steps, I can't stress this enough.

 

[Reaver197]

Plus, the Earth won't seem so "perfectly stationed" when the Sun swells up to its red giant phase, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant#The_Sun_as_a_red_giant

 

[Mewter]

Yes, a little. I know more is involved in the BB theory than that, but believing that(this is my rough knowledge of the BB so PLEASE correct me) massive amounts of energy(unexplained in origin) could bring about life as complex as we know it by chance.

Isn't it funny how things seem to organize and stabilize over time and how little things can accumulate to form larger structures?

Dude the sun is the exact mileage away to perfectly sustain life.

There is no "exact" mileage. There is a zone which allows for life, and it is larger than you think it is. If our Earth were up to 30% farther from our sun, we would still be in the habitable zone, where liquid water is still possible. We are not "exactly" anywhere! We're a dot on a larger strip, the habitable zone. Where'd you get the idea that we were at a perfect distance for life? We are only inside the habitable zone!

The human brain is a freaking marvel. You dont have to be spiritual or religious at all, but don't you find some kind of awe in that? Thats a big leap of faith(to me) to me to leave the perfect balance we see up to chance.

Again, isn't it funny how things stabilize over time? The compounds of molecules would form after a time going through stages, and things would organize to how they were now. It's only perfect to you because it was the only thing you've ever known. It's favorable, to use a better term.
When you study the actual progression of things, you start to understand how simple it really is. Step by step, our brains became more and more complicated.

What does piss me off about religion is that alot of whats taught is lies and is hypocrital, and i get bunched in with those people. Im starting to rant...

Yeah, that can get annoying. Unfortunately, your arguments are almost the same.

To be completely technical, if there was no death there would be no such thing as mortal or immortal, since death wouldnt exist and no one would be subject to it. So i guess we could say they put on mortality after they sinned.

I see your point, but they would still be, by definition, immortal, since there was no death. Just as we can say that someone who doesn't need to eat is "not-needing-to-eat"able(made-up word) by definition if they can survive without eating, because eating does not exist. These are the exact conditions where immortality would be possible.

Oh. Heh. Reaver and Zero Beat beat me to it. lol.

 

[mc4]

Isn't it funny how things seem to organize and stabilize over time and how little things can accumulate to form larger structures?

There is no "exact" mileage. There is a zone which allows for life, and it is larger than you think it is. If our Earth were up to 30% farther from our sun, we would still be in the habitable zone, where liquid water is still possible. We are not "exactly" anywhere! We're a dot on a larger strip, the habitable zone. Where'd you get the idea that we were at a perfect distance for life? We are only inside the habitable zone!

Again, isn't it funny how things stabilize over time? The compounds of molecules would form after a time going through stages, and things would organize to how they were now. It's only perfect to you because it was the only thing you've ever known. It's favorable, to use a better term.
When you study the actual progression of things, you start to understand how simple it really is. Step by step, our brains became more and more complicated.

Yeah, that can get annoying. Unfortunately, your arguments are almost the same.

I see your point, but they would still be, by definition, immortal, since there was no death. Just as we can say that someone who doesn't need to eat is "not-needing-to-eat"able(made-up word) by definition if they can survive without eating, because eating does not exist. These are the exact conditions where immortality would be possible.

Oh. Heh. Reaver and Zero Beat beat me to it. lol.

We are inside an inhabitable zone but it has a much smaller room for error than you said. 30% difference in distance isn't true. In a book called "our universe accident or design" the margin for error is calculated to be up to 5 percent. If the earth were 5 percent closer the earth would have over heated millions of years ago. if it were merely 1 percent further away from the sun huge sheets of ice would cover the entire earth.

Also life coming from something nonliving has never been proven in any laboratory. Even trying to make the jump from amino acids to protein or rna hasn't been done. I once read a theory called rna world or something like that that says that rna alone developed into a cell. It was based off the theory that rna could replicate on its own which has never been proven. It said that rna could first turn into a cell wall, then gradually become mitochondria (powerhouse) ribosomes (where proteins are made) chromosomes (containing dna) and everything else essential for a cells survival. however what his failed to explain even if the above were magically possible, and yes it would be magically, it doesn't explain where the rna came from, and how it had the energy necessary to produce a cell. I've never heard of any experimental proof of nonliving prgressing to living. These things haven't been even been proven in controlled environments but yet are still argued to have happened in uncontrolled environments. Yes a person could claim that these things came from outerspace, but that isn't an explanation of how amino acids came into existence or other things essential for life, it's just relocating the problem.

And i've found scientific experiments to try to prove life from nonliving matter and the progression of simplistic to complex interesting. Think about it for just a second. The theory of evolution is about things adapting and progression, however on their own with no assistance intelligent assistance. When a scientist sets up an experiment to try to replicate what may have happened he is controlling the environment to create an outcome. Key word "control" meaning he is assisting the circumstances. So then in an experiment who does the scientist represent?

As marthawhosits said this is a big exxageration. There are parts of the bible which require faith yes, i've never seen a dead person resurrected, but have you ever seen any explosion of energy create life?
I thought i was doing a pretty good job holding my own.

very good point by the way. i talked about how faith can be both scientific and religious a ways back in this thread and proved it with one of the definitions of faith. the big bang doesn't actually in itself as a teaching argue against the existence of God. It's only when you say that it came about on its own or was always in existence. There are different variations to it obviously. God may have actually created the big bang to develop the universe (assuming you were referring to the big bangt). It's currently the common belief because that's how the universe appears, as if it came from a singularity. Hawkings himself stated that God could have created the big bang or that he could have created the universe to appear like it had that type of beginning. (I only use him as an example to give credibility to the above statement). But your idea was a good one which was basically that, yes there are parts of the bible that require faith because they haven't been observed by anyone today, but it's the same with science. You need faith in alot of teachings because they haven't been proven.

 

[arrowhead]

We are inside an inhabitable zone but it has a much smaller room for error than you said. 30% difference in distance isn't true. In a book called "our universe accident or design" the margin for error is calculated to be up to 5 percent. If the earth were 5 percent closer the earth would have over heated millions of years ago. if it were merely 1 percent further away from the sun huge sheets of ice would cover the entire earth.

sure, what's your point?

Spoiler

anthropic principal

blah blah

(y)our ignorance is not evidence for a god

The theory of evolution is about things adapting and progression, however on their own with no assistance intelligent assistance. When a scientist sets up an experiment to try to replicate what may have happened he is controlling the environment to create an outcome. Key word "control" meaning he is assisting the circumstances. So then in an experiment who does the scientist represent?

evolution isn't a theory, natural selection is.

and no, scientists generally do not control the environment to maximize their success. their experiments and results would not be acknowledged if they did that. the scientist is not part of the experiment, he merely sets it up

very good point by the way.

no, that was a horrible point. and a strawman.

i talked about how faith can be both scientific and religious a ways back in this thread and proved it with one of the definitions of faith.

no you haven't. science has NO ROOM for faith

the big bang doesn't actually in itself as a teaching argue against the existence of God. It's only when you say that it came about on its own or was always in existence. There are different variations to it obviously. God may have actually created the big bang to develop the universe (assuming you were referring to the big bangt). It's currently the common belief because that's how the universe appears, as if it came from a singularity. Hawkings himself stated that God could have created the big bang or that he could have created the universe to appear like it had that type of beginning. (I only use him as an example to give credibility to the above statement). But your idea was a good one which was basically that, yes there are parts of the bible that require faith because they haven't been observed by anyone today, but it's the same with science. You need faith in alot of teachings because they haven't been proven.

quoting hawkings does not give the statement any more credibility. not like there's anything wrong with the statement anyways. it's a neutral statement and does nothing to support what you believe in

also, science does not require faith because its conclusions are always subject to evidence. there is nothing we found through science that we call undeniable fact.

scientific explanation for existence before the big bang:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216131106.htm

 

[mc4]

sure, what's your point?

Spoiler

anthropic principal

(y)our ignorance is not evidence for a god


evolution isn't a theory, natural selection is.

and no, scientists generally do not control the environment to maximize their success. their experiments and results would not be acknowledged if they did that. the scientist is not part of the experiment, he merely sets it up


no, that was a horrible point. and a strawman.


no you haven't. science has NO ROOM for faith


quoting hawkings does not give the statement any more credibility. not like there's anything wrong with the statement anyways. it's a neutral statement and does nothing to support what you believe in

also, science does not require faith because its conclusions are always subject to evidence. there is nothing we found through science that we call undeniable fact.

scientific explanation for existence before the big bang:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216131106.htm

(my) our (that was too creative what you did up there by the way, really, far too creative) ignorance isn't evidence against God either. " The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" Hell yeah i quoted a cartoon lol. Yep that statement works on both sides of the arguments i realize.

I don't understand why people say that evolution isn't a theory. When has it been proven beyond a doubt? It's a common scientific teaching, but it isn't proven. Many things were taught throughout our history as fact, and were later proven wrong. No matter how much evolution may be taught as a fact it isn't proven.

When i say scientists control the enviornment i mean they set up the circumstances for the experiment, not that they might necessarily interfere in the actual experiment. Evolution says that things came about on there own with out the circumstances being "setup". Scientists have to set up circumstances for an experiment. If you are trying to prove the big bang by particle accelerator you have to create the circumstances for it to work.

It's a neutral statement in how God may have created the universe. I was actually defending the possibility of a big bang. Just not the possibility of it coming about on it's own if it is actually how the universe came into existence

My point was that the guy who said the margin for error was 30% wasn't right. By expanding the margin that much is suggesting more possibility for life on earth being more likely as chance and not finetuned.

Yes science does have room for faith. If something isn't proven then you have to have faith in it. "proven science" doesn't require faith because there is physical evidence whether it is seen, or the effects of it are seen. "theory" on the other hand does require faith because it isn't proven. It's really simple. Not all science is proven. Are theories not a part of science?

I read most of the article you linked and i've already heard about that theory. I just don't see how it proves things came about on there own. It's just an explanation of a possibility of learning what came before the big bang. It doesn't say anything about what came before the big bang developing on its own or having always been in existence.

 

[arrowhead]

(my) our (that was too creative what you did up there by the way, really, far too creative) ignorance isn't evidence against God either. " The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" Hell yeah i quoted a cartoon lol. Yep that statement works on both sides of the arguments i realize.

it does nothing to support either side.

I don't understand why people say that evolution isn't a theory. When has it been proven beyond a doubt? It's a common scientific teaching, but it isn't proven. Many things were taught throughout our history as fact, and were later proven wrong. No matter how much evolution may be taught as a fact it isn't proven.

it stopped being a theory once we started observing it. it's proven as much as it possibly can be, and saying it isn't a fact is like saying your existence isn't a fact. both can be untrue, but for all practical purposes, they're true.

When i say scientists control the enviornment i mean they set up the circumstances for the experiment, not that they might necessarily interfere in the actual experiment. Evolution says that things came about on there own with out the circumstances being "setup". Scientists have to set up circumstances for an experiment. If you are trying to prove the big bang by particle accelerator you have to create the circumstances for it to work.

no, that's not what evolution says. evolution states that species will change over time to adapt to its environment. to observe evolution in the lab, we MUST set up the circumstances. if we do not give the bacteria a foreign environment, of course it won't evolve. this goes for EVERY experiment. if you don't make it possible for something to happen, it won't happen.

i don't know much about the particle accelerator, but i don't think its purpose is to replicate the big bang.

My point was that the guy who said the margin for error was 30% wasn't right. By expanding the margin that much is suggesting more possibility for life on earth being more likely as chance and not finetuned.

look up anthropic principal

Yes science does have room for faith. If something isn't proven then you have to have faith in it. "proven science" doesn't require faith because there is physical evidence whether it is seen, or the effects of it are seen. "theory" on the other hand does require faith because it isn't proven. It's really simple. Not all science is proven. Are theories not a part of science?

i've stated this about 50 times already: SCIENTISTS DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE. THEORIES ARE NOT PROVEN. you cannot be wrong if you believe "__ is possible." science does not require faith, not does it include it.

I read most of the article you linked and i've already heard about that theory. I just don't see how it proves things came about on there own. It's just an explanation of a possibility of learning what came before the big bang. It doesn't say anything about what came before the big bang developing on its own or having always been in existence.

it doesn't prove anything. but it gives a possible natural explanation for the "creation of matter"

 

[BFDD]

With an almost infinite number of stars in the universe the chances of producing a planet capable of sustaining life is actually quite high. However, the probability of a god existing is incredibly low, much lower than the probability of any other scientific explanation for the creation of the universe/life.

Science never requires faith. NEVER. If science comes up with an idea nobody ever says this is the answer don't question it. A scientist will design an experiment, collect data, then state a conclusion based on that data. For science to accept the results of the experiment other scientists must be able to repeat the experiment and end up with the same result. Anyone that disagrees with the experiment is encouraged to come up with an opposing idea and test it. This idea of repeating experiments and questioning results removes faith from science. Science encourages questions and doubt.

Experiments are designed to remove human influence on the results. When testing evolution the scientist can set up an experiment based on the conditions on earth without human influence. They aren't just coming up with a random set of circumstances to get the results they want, they test circumstances that can be naturally occurring.

In a way lack of evidence for god actually is evidence that he doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove his existence. Though it isn't really evidence, but it means from a scientific stand point god does not exist.

 

[mc4]

it does nothing to support either side.


it stopped being a theory once we started observing it. it's proven as much as it possibly can be, and saying it isn't a fact is like saying your existence isn't a fact. both can be untrue, but for all practical purposes, they're true.


no, that's not what evolution says. evolution states that species will change over time to adapt to its environment. to observe evolution in the lab, we MUST set up the circumstances. if we do not give the bacteria a foreign environment, of course it won't evolve. this goes for EVERY experiment. if you don't make it possible for something to happen, it won't happen.

i don't know much about the particle accelerator, but i don't think its purpose is to replicate the big bang.


look up anthropic principal


i've stated this about 50 times already: SCIENTISTS DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE. THEORIES ARE NOT PROVEN. you cannot be wrong if you believe "__ is possible." science does not require faith, not does it include it.


it doesn't prove anything. but it gives a possible natural explanation for the "creation of matter"

if it is proven as much as possible that doesn't say much for it as a theory. Part of evolution (the progression of the universe and life in the universe) suggests nonliving to simplistic living to more complex living, and so on. Sorry but thats never been physically proven. No experiment has turned nonliving into living blah blah blah, i'm pretty sure i said that in detail a few posts ago.

And i was talking about experiments that attempt to replicate the spark of life and the process of the progression of simple matter like amino acids into rna or protein which are necessary for life. You can talk about how small changes equal big changes all you want but you can't prove that nonliving matter, or things like amino acids or rna adapted and became more complex things that are necessary for life. That isn't proven which is why it makes no sense to me that evolution is taught as fact.

sorry if i didn't explain specifically the particle accelerator, its supposed to show the outcome of the big bang within the first few seconds after it exploded.

I looked up the anthropic principle. The only thing i saw was that the idea of finetuning lacks reason because you can't physically prove intelligent design because you can't physically prove God. I see a bit of a loop whole in that principle because the idea of finetuning itself can be to a person "physical proof" of God. I wouldn't dare use the example of gravity not being seen to prove God now would I lol.

My point was that theories aren't proven. So if you believe in a theory then you need faith. Unless you think all science is theory, then that would make this discussion pretty much impossible and no point. I don't know where you get this idea that scientists don't claim to know anything for sure from. Was there some sort of earth wide survey or something where every scientist agreed that they don't believe anything can be proven for sure. I mean its proven that different types of atoms make up different types of elements, It's proven that humans are a very large percent water, I really don't get why you keep saying that. Yes there are things currently taught as fact that don't always hold under certain circumstance. Someone somewhere in this thread says that relativity doesn't work on a quantum level or something like that. I'm pretty sure that it is actually true that relativity and quantum mechanics don't unify, but that doesn't speak for science as a whole, that's just one instance.

You contradicted yourself when you said it gives a "natural explanation of the creation of matter." By natural you mean unassisted since you don't believe in God. Yet the term "creation" refers to God or intelligent design. What I think you meant to say is it gives a "natural explanation of how matter came into existence", and no it doesn't.

With an almost infinite number of stars in the universe the chances of producing a planet capable of sustaining life is actually quite high. However, the probability of a god existing is incredibly low, much lower than the probability of any other scientific explanation for the creation of the universe/life.

Science never requires faith. NEVER. If science comes up with an idea nobody ever says this is the answer don't question it. A scientist will design an experiment, collect data, then state a conclusion based on that data. For science to accept the results of the experiment other scientists must be able to repeat the experiment and end up with the same result. Anyone that disagrees with the experiment is encouraged to come up with an opposing idea and test it. This idea of repeating experiments and questioning results removes faith from science. Science encourages questions and doubt.

Experiments are designed to remove human influence on the results. When testing evolution the scientist can set up an experiment based on the conditions on earth without human influence. They aren't just coming up with a random set of circumstances to get the results they want, they test circumstances that can be naturally occurring.

In a way lack of evidence for god actually is evidence that he doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove his existence. Though it isn't really evidence, but it means from a scientific stand point god does not exist.

How are there an almost infinite amount of stars in a limited universe? I see your point, yes there are alot of stars. But in our observable universe, yet is there to be found another planet that can sustain life. So what does that say about your idea about the odds of the possibility of life given the large amount of stars?

The probability of God existing being much lower than life coming about on its own is your opinion. That for sure isn't a proven fact. especially since how life came about on its own (from before the big bang, to the nonliving becoming living) isn't actually proven. there are just theories on it, never any replication in an experiment.

Repeating experiments and proving them doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It simply proves the theory behind that experiment as sound and consistently proven, or in other words no longer a theory and common fact. You're right it does remove faith from science... when the theory is proven consistently, if a theory isn't proven consistently then it remains a theory until proven consistently meaning if you believe in it you need faith because there is no consistent evidence.

All science isn't consistenly proven. No the circumstances that the scientist themselves create aren't random. They are very specific. The scientist believe that the " natural" process of how it may have happened is random, So if you create the set of circumstances that you say happened in this natural process, then yes the circumstances in the experiment are specific.

From a scientific standpoint no it isn't proven that God doesn't exist. Science itself is merely an explanation of different things in our universe. From a scientific stand point in your opinion God doesn't exists. All science doesn't try to disprove God, and not all scientists believe that God doesn't exist.

 

[Mewter]

Here we go. An entire post devoted to you.

We are inside an inhabitable zone but it has a much smaller room for error than you said. 30% difference in distance isn't true. In a book called "our universe accident or design" the margin for error is calculated to be up to 5 percent. If the earth were 5 percent closer the earth would have over heated millions of years ago. if it were merely 1 percent further away from the sun huge sheets of ice would cover the entire earth.

Can we not take other factors into account, such as planet size, atmosphere, techtonics, and others?

Spoiler

Also, you're using the anthropic principle.

As I said before, it only looks perfect because it's the only thing you've ever known. But, I may have made a mistake with the Earth "habitability" thing when it comes to those factors. Show me a credible source for this. I would be glad to listen to your reason.

Also life coming from something nonliving has never been proven in any laboratory. Even trying to make the jump from amino acids to protein or rna hasn't been done. I once read a theory called rna world or something like that that says that rna alone developed into a cell. It was based off the theory that rna could replicate on its own which has never been proven. It said that rna could first turn into a cell wall, then gradually become mitochondria (powerhouse) ribosomes (where proteins are made) chromosomes (containing dna) and everything else essential for a cells survival. however what his failed to explain even if the above were magically possible, and yes it would be magically, it doesn't explain where the rna came from, and how it had the energy necessary to produce a cell. I've never heard of any experimental proof of nonliving prgressing to living. These things haven't been even been proven in controlled environments but yet are still argued to have happened in uncontrolled environments. Yes a person could claim that these things came from outerspace, but that isn't an explanation of how amino acids came into existence or other things essential for life, it's just relocating the problem.

And i've found scientific experiments to try to prove life from nonliving matter and the progression of simplistic to complex interesting. Think about it for just a second. The theory of evolution is about things adapting and progression, however on their own with no assistance intelligent assistance. When a scientist sets up an experiment to try to replicate what may have happened he is controlling the environment to create an outcome. Key word "control" meaning he is assisting the circumstances. So then in an experiment who does the scientist represent?

Your two points here are:
1)"Non-living" matter becoming "living" matter interests you.
No mistake so far.... but wait.
2)Because of this, you lead into a conversation about evolution and scientists "controlling" the circumstances in an experiment.
First of all, evolution has nothing to do with how life began, only with how it progresses. I have no idea how your reasoning led you to linking abiogenesis with evolution because of experiments and variable controls.... about evolution.
Secondly, how else are you going to replicate the circumstances of early earth without setting up controls? What are you going to do? Put on some air conditioning, lay back, and enjoy the show? What show? If you've never seen a fish float belly up before because of starvation inside a glass tank, but you've known it to happen, and you want to set up an experiment, then of course you'll put a fish in a glass tank without food to see what happens instead of just feeding it the same old stuff that it usually has. So, what is the use of an experiment without control? Experiments are used to mimic circumstances, anyways. And for the question of who the scientist represents..... it's God, right? Well....
you're using the highly flawed anthropic principle.... congratulations(Edit: I had the wrong idea about the anthropic principle. In fact, the only reason you're asking these questions is because you're here in the first place!). Things never have to be "fine tuned". In baseball, if an automatic shooter shoots in random directions, you'll hit some balls, if enough are thrown in the right direction.
Anyways, they test the way things would be/were/are. I think BFDD put it well.

very good point by the way. i talked about how faith can be both scientific and religious a ways back in this thread and proved it with one of the definitions of faith. the big bang doesn't actually in itself as a teaching argue against the existence of God. It's only when you say that it came about on its own or was always in existence. There are different variations to it obviously. God may have actually created the big bang to develop the universe (assuming you were referring to the big bangt). It's currently the common belief because that's how the universe appears, as if it came from a singularity. Hawkings himself stated that God could have created the big bang or that he could have created the universe to appear like it had that type of beginning. (I only use him as an example to give credibility to the above statement). But your idea was a good one which was basically that, yes there are parts of the bible that require faith because they haven't been observed by anyone today, but it's the same with science. You need faith in alot of teachings because they haven't been proven.

Oh? Mathematics and observation are not enough?
Also, the Hawkings thing was a strawman. He said he could have. That's my, and any other open-minded person's, attitude toward it to. He was saying it could have been that way. Of course you gave credibility.... to a "maybe" statement.

And also, arrowhead, lol at the anthropic principle. Nice one(No, really). Oh no, more to quote.

if it is proven as much as possible that doesn't say much for it as a theory. Part of evolution (the progression of the universe and life in the universe) suggests nonliving to simplistic living to more complex living, and so on. Sorry but thats never been physically proven. No experiment has turned nonliving into living blah blah blah, i'm pretty sure i said that in detail a few posts ago.

Firstly, evolution is about the progression of life, and not abiogenesis, as you just said. Oh, and they found that non-living things could become "self replicating", at least. Uh... I think I posted about it a time ago....

And i was talking about experiments that attempt to replicate the spark of life and the process of the progression of simple matter like amino acids into rna or protein which are necessary for life. You can talk about how small changes equal big changes all you want but you can't prove that nonliving matter, or things like amino acids or rna adapted and became more complex things that are necessary for life. That isn't proven which is why it makes no sense to me that evolution is taught as fact.

Evolution is fact! We've seen it happen, which is why it is taught as fact! Natural selection, though, is the theory. Refer to my above reply for the rest.

I looked up the anthropic principle(Forget what I just said). The only thing i saw was that the idea of finetuning lacks reason because you can't physically prove intelligent design because you can't physically prove God. I see a bit of a loop hole in that principle because the idea of finetuning itself can be to a person "physical proof" of God. I wouldn't dare use the example of gravity not being seen to prove God now would I lol.

http://www.astronomybuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/AnthropicPrinciple.jpg
Look. It's my new wallpaper. Fine-tuning also lacks reason because you're saying that since you're here, then the universe must have been fine-tuned to make you! The way the anthropic principle works is that since something exists, then the universe is required to make you, and vice-versa! Pretty silly, huh? (Again, I had no idea what I was saying about the principle)Yet, you speak of fine-tuning in your earlier proofs and use it as argument. The anthropic principle is... wait for it.... a selfish human-centered explanation for our universe.

How are there an almost infinite amount of stars in a limited universe? I see your point, yes there are alot of stars. But in our observable universe, yet is there to be found another planet that can sustain life. So what does that say about your idea about the odds of the possibility of life given the large amount of stars?

There are most definitely other, more powerful, intelligent, technologically advanced beings that we have not encountered as of now, yet, because the universe is so huge! That hugeness also accounts for vastness and variety of forms of matter, and life. We are a blip in the cosmos. Look at my baseball bat example up above.

The probability of God existing being much lower than life coming about on its own is your opinion. That for sure isn't a proven fact. especially since how life came about on its own (from before the big bang, to the nonliving becoming living) isn't actually proven. there are just theories on it, never any replication in an experiment.

Also, scientific theories have enough going for them that they are accepted as more generally correct explanations for things because of the large amount of non-experimental but sensible and logical evidence for them. Life from non-life(abiogenesis) has some experimental(I'm not sure how much, as of the moment) evidence going for it, as of now.

All science isn't consistenly proven. No the circumstances that the scientist themselves create aren't random. They are very specific. The scientist believe that the " natural" process of how it may have happened is random, So if you create the set of circumstances that you say happened in this natural process, then yes the circumstances in the experiment are specific.

A specific time frame in specific circumstances which actually are trying to replicate just an instance of an unspecific time frame which held unspecific variables at the time. You can skip this example if you already have the idea, but I'll put it here, and I recommend you read it.
The Balloon Story:
You have a hundred of millions of balloons in a room, randomly placed, near a heat source. You then spin around and around with a needle and poke as many of them as you can within a specific time frame. At the time, different gases are going through the air, which may cause you to puncture slower or faster(softer or more roughly), and different chemicals may also pass through the balloons, which will create differing results because of the variables. The variables are the time of puncture, how close the balloons are to the heat source(or how hot it is, which matters more), the chemicals in the air, and the strength of the puncture.
First point:Suitability:
Some balloons may create strange reactions, and let's say intelligent life forms on some in some general conditions. They may think they're perfect, and their world is perfect and fine-tuned, but in reality, they're just accidents. The world was just in a suitable
Second Point: Generality:
Recreating the birth of their world in a lab is a conscious, concentrated effort. That doesn't mean the actual formation was, though. The actual formation was very general, and they're trying to be very specific.

That's where the differences are, generality and suitability. There are millions of galaxies. You would have to be delirious to think that there aren't more life forms out there that lived at one time or another. Creating a random thing requires less control, and creating specific things requires, well, more specifics. The anthropic principal violates generality, by requiring specifics. I hope I got my point across.

As for the last two paragraphs you wrote, consider that open-mindedness is the only way to truth. No objective science tries to disprove god. If it violates religion, it does so of it's own accord. I'll end this long post in a philosophical sense. To quote my favorite verse in the Bible:
"Only a fool denies God"
Of course. What is not our enemy but close-mindedness? That is all the evil in the world.

 

[arrowhead]

if it is proven as much as possible that doesn't say much for it as a theory. Part of evolution (the progression of the universe and life in the universe) suggests nonliving to simplistic living to more complex living, and so on. Sorry but thats never been physically proven. No experiment has turned nonliving into living blah blah blah, i'm pretty sure i said that in detail a few posts ago.

And i was talking about experiments that attempt to replicate the spark of life and the process of the progression of simple matter like amino acids into rna or protein which are necessary for life. You can talk about how small changes equal big changes all you want but you can't prove that nonliving matter, or things like amino acids or rna adapted and became more complex things that are necessary for life. That isn't proven which is why it makes no sense to me that evolution is taught as fact.

evolution has nothing to with the creation of life

sorry if i didn't explain specifically the particle accelerator, its supposed to show the outcome of the big bang within the first few seconds after it exploded.

so what do you have against their method of replication? do you think you know better than the scientists working on the project?

I looked up the anthropic principle. The only thing i saw was that the idea of finetuning lacks reason because you can't physically prove intelligent design because you can't physically prove God. I see a bit of a loop whole in that principle because the idea of finetuning itself can be to a person "physical proof" of God. I wouldn't dare use the example of gravity not being seen to prove God now would I lol.

and there is nothing to suggest there was a "finetuning" of the universe. the idea is that we adapted, not the other way around. so far the anthropic principal makes the least amount of assumptions, so it is the accepted idea.

My point was that theories aren't proven. So if you believe in a theory then you need faith. Unless you think all science is theory, then that would make this discussion pretty much impossible and no point. I don't know where you get this idea that scientists don't claim to know anything for sure from. Was there some sort of earth wide survey or something where every scientist agreed that they don't believe anything can be proven for sure. I mean its proven that different types of atoms make up different types of elements, It's proven that humans are a very large percent water, I really don't get why you keep saying that. Yes there are things currently taught as fact that don't always hold under certain circumstance. Someone somewhere in this thread says that relativity doesn't work on a quantum level or something like that. I'm pretty sure that it is actually true that relativity and quantum mechanics don't unify, but that doesn't speak for science as a whole, that's just one instance.

the WHOLE POINT of my caps was to put emphasis on the fact that NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES ANY OF THEIR THEORIES ARE ABSOLUTELY TRUE. they know it is impossible to prove a theory. i don't need to give you a survey because they ALL know that to prove something, it would need to be consistent with all possible observations in relation to the theory. which means we would need to collect all of those possible observations. and we all know this is impossible. there is no faith in science.

You contradicted yourself when you said it gives a "natural explanation of the creation of matter." By natural you mean unassisted since you don't believe in God. Yet the term "creation" refers to God or intelligent design. What I think you meant to say is it gives a "natural explanation of how matter came into existence", and no it doesn't.

i'm not very interested in a debate over the definition of "create"

oops here is the real link: http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-made-our-universe.html?full=true&print=true

 

[mc4]

Here we go. An entire post devoted to you.

Can we not take other factors into account, such as planet size, atmosphere, techtonics, and others? Also, you're using the anthropic principle. As I said before, it only looks perfect because it's the only thing you've ever known. But, I may have made a mistake with the Earth "habitability" thing when it comes to those factors. Show me a credible source for this. I would be glad to listen to your reason.




Your two points here are:
1)"Non-living" matter becoming "living" matter interests you.
No mistake so far.... but wait.
2)Because of this, you lead into a conversation about evolution and scientists "controlling" the circumstances in an experiment.
First of all, evolution has nothing to do with how life began, only with how it progresses. I have no idea how your reasoning led you to linking abiogenesis with evolution because of experiments and variable controls.... about evolution.
Secondly, how else are you going to replicate the circumstances of early earth without setting up controls? What are you going to do? Put on some air conditioning, lay back, and enjoy the show? What show? If you've never seen a fish float belly up before because of starvation inside a glass tank, but you've known it to happen, and you want to set up an experiment, then of course you'll put a fish in a glass tank without food to see what happens instead of just feeding it the same old stuff that it usually has. So, what is the use of an experiment without control? Experiments are used to mimic circumstances, anyways. And for the question of who the scientist represents..... it's God, right? Well....
you're using the highly flawed anthropic principle.... congratulations. Things never have to be "fine tuned". In baseball, if an automatic shooter shoots in random directions, you'll hit some balls, if enough are thrown in the right direction.
Anyways, they test the way things would be/were/are. I think BFDD put it well.



Oh? Mathematics and observation are not enough?
Also, the Hawkings thing was a strawman. He said he could have. That's my, and any other open-minded person's, attitude toward it to. He was saying it could have been that way. Of course you gave credibility.... to a "maybe" statement.

And also, arrowhead, lol at the anthropic principle. Nice one. Oh no, more to quote.


Firstly, evolution is about the progression of life, and not abiogenesis, as you just said. Oh, and they found that non-living things could become "self replicating", at least. Uh... I think I posted about it a time ago....

Evolution is fact! We've seen it happen, which is why it is taught as fact! Natural selection, though, is the theory. Refer to my above reply for the rest.


http://www.astronomybuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/AnthropicPrinciple.jpg
Look. It's my new wallpaper. Fine-tuning also lacks reason because you're saying that since you're here, then the universe must have been fine-tuned to make you! The way the anthropic principle works is that since something exists, then the universe is required to make you, and vice-versa! Pretty silly, huh? Yet, you speak of fine-tuning in your earlier proofs and use it as argument. The anthropic principle is... wait for it.... a selfish human-centered explanation for our universe.

There are most definitely other, more powerful, intelligent, technologically advanced beings that we have not encountered as of now, yet, because the universe is so huge! That hugeness also accounts for vastness and variety of forms of matter, and life. We are a blip in the cosmos. Look at my baseball bat example up above.

Also, scientific theories have enough going for them that they are accepted as more generally correct explanations for things because of the large amount of non-experimental but sensible and logical evidence for them. Life from non-life(abiogenesis) has some experimental(I'm not sure how much, as of the moment) evidence going for it, as of now.

A specific time frame in specific circumstances which actually are trying to replicate just an instance of an unspecific time frame which held unspecific variables at the time. You can skip this example if you already have the idea, but I'll put it here, and I recommend you read it.
The Balloon Story:
You have a hundred of millions of balloons in a room, randomly placed, near a heat source. You then spin around and around with a needle and poke as many of them as you can within a specific time frame. At the time, different gases are going through the air, which may cause you to puncture slower or faster(softer or more roughly), and different chemicals may also pass through the balloons, which will create differing results because of the variables. The variables are the time of puncture, how close the balloons are to the heat source(or how hot it is, which matters more), the chemicals in the air, and the strength of the puncture.
First point:Suitability:
Some balloons may create strange reactions, and let's say intelligent life forms on some in some general conditions. They may think they're perfect, and their world is perfect and fine-tuned, but in reality, they're just accidents. The world was just in a suitable
Second Point: Generality:
Recreating the birth of their world in a lab is a conscious, concentrated effort. That doesn't mean the actual formation was, though. The actual formation was very general, and they're trying to be very specific.

That's where the differences are, generality and suitability. There are millions of galaxies. You would have to be delirious to think that there aren't more life forms out there that lived at one time or another. Creating a random thing requires less control, and creating specific things requires, well, more specifics. The anthropic principal violates generality, by requiring specifics. I hope I got my point across.

As for the last two paragraphs you wrote, consider that open-mindedness is the only way to truth. No objective science tries to disprove god. If it violates religion, it does so of it's own accord. I'll end this long post in a philosophical sense. To quote my favorite verse in the Bible:
"Only a fool denies God"
Of course. What is not our enemy but close-mindedness? That is all the evil in the world.

wow i so don't wanna respond to all this lol

Ok so take planet size into account. If the earth were larger it's gravity would prevent hydrogen from escaping the atmosphere, and the earth wouldn't be hospitable for life. If any smaller oxygen would escape and water would evaporate. I can't think of the names of any of the specific articles that contain the information with the specifics because i've been through quite a bit of them. If you read any book like the one i mentioned "our universe: accident or design?" you'll find the specifics like the margin for error for the size or distance of the earth from the sun etc. They have all sorts of cool facts like that to support the argument.

The point is that in a scientific experiment you have to create the conditions inorder for the experiment to have an outcome of what you are looking for. This is an attempt to mimic the process of life right? The "natural" process as you believe didn't have anyone to create the circumstances inorder for life to happen. So then the fact that the scientist is aiding the process to prove what may have happened by creating the circumstances for the experiment would show that what happened could have happened, but with assistance. After all the scientist is assisting the experiment by creating whatever circumstances are said to have happened to progress life as you say. atleast that's what it seems like to me. What you said about a fish in a glass tank makes sense. But that experiment is only an attempt to prove that a fish will float belly up, and has nothing to do with explaining the progress of life as you say evolution describes. Its a big difference. Um, yes if you shoot enough balls randomly in baseball practice one of them will get hit it's true. What does that prove about the universe? things can obviously happen by chance. But i would wager that the chances of a ball getting hit if the balls were randomly shot, pales greatly, exponentionally to the chances of our universe having gotten everything just right for life. A big problem is that there are too many "if" statements in evolution. an if statement doesn't prove anything. The basis of evolution seems like nothing but if statements infact. And also if evolution doesn't attempt to explain where life came from, then why does it argue against the existence of intelligent design, if nothing else i would think atleast some evolutionists might think that an intelligent creator created the universe to evolve on its own.

My point with hawkings was only to say that the big bang is an idea that in itself doesn't argue against intelligent design.

Also other life in our observable universe has never ever been discovered for starters. I'm not one to conclude that there isn't other life in the universe. in the "light horizon" (i think that's the name of it) theory it is explained that our universe is larger than what we can observe. The universe is said to have expaned faster than the speed of light for a time after the big bang, however the speed of light has always been the same. Light in our universe has only had as long as the universe has been in existence from the big bang to travel, so depending on how old the universe is estimated to be which i forget, we can only observe how much time light has had to travel. It could be the case that there is other life in our universe, it's just likely to be beyond what we can observe since we haven't seen it in our observable universe. God could have created other life, i'm not disputing that.

nonliving things can become self replicating? so lets say you're correct (honestly i have no idea, never heard that one before) how does that prove nonliving=living?


we have seen micro evolution happen, but have never seen the large changes. I know it won't make sense to you that i agree with micro and not macro, but macro hasn't been observed man.

i have yet to hear of experimental evidence for abiogenesis, if that were proven that would be something, but i have a feeling that any proof would be more theories and not physical evidence.

the baloon thing was a good analogy but it has too many stipulations. your saying too many ifs. since when can a baloon support life? how does popping baloons and gases flowing through the air and your timing have anything to do with specific forces that create the circumstances for life. or specific conditions on a planet. in your analogy it seems more like the balloons represent difference universes and the ones that got it right were random (because every universe didn't get it right). thats a theory, can't be proven. I don't dismiss alternate universe, i just don't think that is a good argument since we can't observe them and find out if there is life in them. or if you were just referring to our universe and random stuff happening then that has no basis. big bang says singularity exploded, created particles, particles created atoms, atoms elements, elements to stars and stuff like that, there is nothing random in that process.

I'm sorry but i didn't get the point about generality and your argument against finetuning lol

you are correct no object science denies God. I said that (in some way or another). So why do so many evolutionists try to disprove the existence of God? They should just be worried about the process of life and not where it came from. Assuming evolution doesn't try to explain where it came from. "origin of the species" i think that was the name of a darwin book. origin means beginning. as far as your statement about open mindedness then the only people who are open minded are those in the middle. they neither believe or disbelieve in intelligent design. could a person who learns about an opposing idea but still doesn't accept it be called close minded. A truly close minded person wouldn't bother to learn about something they don't agree with. atleast that's what i think.