Thread: God - Seriously

I've seen a lot of the science.

Why are you so shy about saying what any of this 'evidence'/'science' is?

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Why are you so shy about saying what any of this 'evidence'/'science' is?

I'm not. Specifically I've been talking about how life originated, and pointing to the common main stream theories that attempt to explain it. One example is the life bearing comet.

Originally Posted by 9999

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Why are you so shy about saying what any of this 'evidence'/'science' is?

I'm not. Specifically I've been talking about how life originated, and pointing to the common main stream theories that attempt to explain it. One example is the life bearing comet.

"Life bearing comet" not sure where you are going with this. Why would life be more likely to start on a comet than on the extreme conditions found (based on geological evidence) during the early stages of earth's creation?

Rather than being upset by other poster's comments, perhaps you could consider any challenges to your beliefs as an opportunity to understand how other people think about the possible theories of life on earth?

Without challenging opinions to inspire thought and discussion there can be no personal or collective growth in terms of understanding.

Peace (Santi),

RickThai

Originally Posted by 9999

I'm not. Specifically I've been talking about how life originated, and pointing to the common main stream theories that attempt to explain it. One example is the life bearing comet.

Which has nothing to do with directed intelligence.

Originally Posted by RickThai

"Life bearing comet" not sure where you are going with this. Why would life be more likely to start on a comet than on the extreme conditions found (based on geological evidence) during the early stages of earth's creation?

I dunno. This is one of the main stream 'scientific' theories. The origin of life on that comet is never addressed. They wanted examples of what I'm saying intelligent design is just as likely as (reading between the lines), so there's one.

Originally Posted by RickThai

Without challenging opinions to inspire thought and discussion there can be no personal or collective growth in terms of understanding.

Yep that's pretty much what I'm trying to do, and don't worry I'm not really offended about the butters thing. I don't think the blanket denial angle is a very good way to argue though. But that's what you have to deal with when broaching the subject these days.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Which has nothing to do with directed intelligence.

I'm not sure what your point is but no the scientific comet theory does not need intelligence the way it was taught to me in science at school. But they fail to explain the origin of life on the comet. We're expected to believe it because it's cosmic or something.

Originally Posted by 9999

I'm not sure what your point is but no the scientific comet theory does not need intelligence the way it was taught to me in science at school. But they fail to explain the origin of life on the comet. We're expected to believe it because it's cosmic or something.

That's because the theory you refer to doesn't stipulate that the comet contains life (albeit dumb rubes keep assuming that) merely that comets (plural) transported and brought along the raw components that, when brought together, result in conditions conducive to life. None of which requires the comets to contain life, or for life to have originated elsewhere and to be transported here.

Life is simple enough to develop on it's own, that it does not require a diaspora.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Life is simple enough to develop on it's own, that it does not require a diaspora.

That's a fair enough statement. It's been mentioned and dealt with already though. Rather than repeating ourselves, why don't you go back and address my response to this point you have brought up again.

Also, since I've shared what I think is the most likely candidate in my mind for the origin of life; intelligent design. So I think it's only fair that anyone responding here should also share what they think is the most likely way that life originated.

All we've had so far is the negative to my position, that intelligent design cannot be ruled out (and in my mind is a 50% shot). And since this is a futile position to take, we'll just end up going around in circles unless the fact of intelligent design as a possibility (no matter how small) is conceded. Then we can go into why we think what we do.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

That's because the theory you refer to doesn't stipulate that the comet contains life (albeit dumb rubes keep assuming that)

I guess my nigh school science teacher was a bit of a noob. Actually everyone was a noob at genetics then. So why were they teaching it as fact?

Originally Posted by 9999

All I see in modern science is dogma.

Science is a process for hypothosis, testing or observing repeatedly, and finding the same results repeated before relying on it as fact. It is not a belief or a dogma trying to be imposed on anybody. Those that believe that God did it have set up this psuedo "science" (Creationism) that proves nothing except the biases that it went in with.

Creationism sets out to prove itself. Science sets out to find the fact of something.

I agree with your sentiments MrG. But why does science have to rule out the possibility of intelligent design?

Because a scientific argument for Intelligent Design that passes scientific muster has never been presented. It sets out with a premise, then goes about making arguments to "prove" it. It denies long scientifically established facts, and presents no credible evidence to support it's positions.

Originally Posted by MrG

Because a scientific argument for Intelligent Design that passes scientific muster has never been presented.

You obviously haven't been following David Icke :P

Originally Posted by MrG

It denies long scientifically established facts, and presents no credible evidence to support it's positions.

The whole thing is, and I'm glad you brought this up (finally), is that intelligent design is being discussed in the csope of the work going on at the fringes of experimental science. Tied into variants of string theory and quantum mechanics, not just allowing, but some hypothesis even requiring intelligent design.

But before we go any further, since it's established that modern science is taking intelligent design semi-seriously, I'd like to hear a rationale for the stance everyone seems to be taking which is the ruling out of intelligent design as a possibility. Sorry MrG but saying no plausible scientific hypothesis for intelligent design has been brought forward and is therefore impossible, is not enough.

David Vaughan Icke (pronounced /aɪk/, or IKE, born 29 April 1952) is a British writer and public speaker, best known for his conspiracy literature. Describing himself as the most controversial speaker in the world, he is the author of 19 books and has attracted a global following that cuts across the political spectrum. His 533-page The Biggest Secret (1999) has been called "the Rosetta Stone for conspiracy junkies."[1]
Icke was a well-known BBC television sports presenter and spokesman for the Green Party, when in 1990 a psychic told him he was a healer who had been placed on Earth for a purpose, and that the spirit world was going to pass messages to him so he could educate others. In March 1991 he held a press conference to announce that he was a "Son of the Godhead" – a phrase he said later the media had misunderstood – and the following month told the BBC's Terry Wogan show that the world would soon be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes. He said the show changed his life, turning him from a respected household name into someone who was laughed at whenever he appeared in public.[2]

Wikipedia

So this is the guy you recommend as a source of discussion for Intelligent Design.

And Inteligent Design is part of a scientific theory involving string theory, etc....

My, oh my.

Well, I've had my string pulled enough for one evening. Probably many.

Originally Posted by 9999

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

This:

Originally Posted by RickThai

The concept of a single enity creating everything seems more and more farfetched if you give it any rationale, unbiased thought

Intelligent design does not have to mean a single all powerful entity.

And why is it that talking about the alternative possibility that there was some kind of intelligence behind the creating of life and/or the universe, automatically gets you branded a religious nutter that believes in one almighty god?

Am I supposed to abandon this as a possibility because of what has been stated in this thread?

This is not a troll and I find that insulting. This is what I actually believe. And I've seen a lot of the science. I find these blanket dismissals and branding ignorant to say the least.

It's just silly,that's why.


LIfe came to earth on a comet.
Why would they send it in such random, fragile,slow distribution method?
Uhhh, they thought comets where cool.
Hmm, ok. What created that life?
God created life.
Who created god?
Uhhh..another bigger god.
Ok, who created him?
No-one did,he evolved.
From what?


It's a line of thought that goes nowhere and requires untestable beliefs.

Dutch approve move to scrap blasphemy law

The Dutch blasphemy law was introduced in the 1930s

Dutch authorities have decided to approve a motion abandoning a law under which it is a crime to insult God.

A majority of parties in parliament said the blasphemy law was no longer relevant in the 21st Century.

The legislation, introduced in the 1930s, has not been invoked in the last half century.

However, it still remains illegal under Dutch law to be disrespectful to police officers or to insult Queen Beatrix, the country's monarch.

Freedom of speech is a much-cherished right in the liberal and traditionally tolerant Netherlands.

The BBC's Anna Holligan, in The Hague, says that there was much debate about the issue after a Dutch court ruled that the far-right anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders should be allowed to criticise Islam, even if his outspoken opinions offended many Muslims.

In 2008, a coalition government decided against repealing the blasphemy law in order to maintain support from a conservative Christian political party.



Long overdue and a step in the right direction for those living in the modern world

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

conservative Christian political party

AKA the people who gleefully tear out or completely ignore those bits of the Bible they don't like and stick in bits of Atlas Shrugged instead...

Originally Posted by 9999

I'm not sure what your point is but no the scientific comet theory does not need intelligence the way it was taught to me in science at school. But they fail to explain the origin of life on the comet. We're expected to believe it because it's cosmic or something.

Nothing to do with believe. Amino acids have been detected in comets and meteorites. That's one possibility. Then there was the famous Miller experiment in 1952, and I wonder why the anniversary hasn't been appreciated last year. They reproduced the early conditions of the Earth's atmosphere in the lab, put hydrogen, water, ammonia, methane in sterile glas tubes and flasks, heated, cooled, and treated it with electric sparks to copy lightning, and after two weeks of continuous operation, more than 20 different amino acids had been produced. Another theory says that life originated in the smoke stacks of undersea volcanoes, they also generate amino acids.

Anyway, it's established that all the macromolecules necessary for life rise on their own out of anorganic matter by natural processes. Let's take the nucleotides, the RNA and DNA molecules. Adenine for example comes with the simple formula C5H5N5, Guanine adds an O to the group, Cytosine subtracts 1C and 2N from that, they all are similar. The very property of those 4 nucleotides is to form base pairs and stacks, their chemistry forces them to do it.

The origin of life is not a place anymore to look for intelligent design, you have to go back further.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by 9999

I'm not sure what your point is but no the scientific comet theory does not need intelligence the way it was taught to me in science at school. But they fail to explain the origin of life on the comet. We're expected to believe it because it's cosmic or something.

Nothing to do with believe. Amino acids have been detected in comets and meteorites. That's one possibility. Then there was the famous Miller experiment in 1952, and I wonder why the anniversary hasn't been appreciated last year. They reproduced the early conditions of the Earth's atmosphere in the lab, put hydrogen, water, ammonia, methane in sterile glas tubes and flasks, heated, cooled, and treated it with electric sparks to copy lightning, and after two weeks of continuous operation, more than 20 different amino acids had been produced. Another theory says that life originated in the smoke stacks of undersea volcanoes, they also generate amino acids.

Anyway, it's established that all the macromolecules necessary for life rise on their own out of anorganic matter by natural processes. Let's take the nucleotides, the RNA and DNA molecules. Adenine for example comes with the simple formula C5H5N5, Guanine adds an O to the group, Cytosine subtracts 1C and 2N from that, they all are similar. The very property of those 4 nucleotides is to form base pairs and stacks, their chemistry forces them to do it.

The origin of life is not a place anymore to look for intelligent design, you have to go back further.

Interesting, but as Albert Einstein said (more or less), "Dozens of experiments will not prove my theory correct, but only a single experiement can prove me wrong".

Originally Posted by RickThai

I realize people believe things for different reasons, but how can any intelligent person really believe that there is one entity that created the entire Universe, for what basicallly amounts to his/her/its viewing pleasure?

If there was such an entity, where did it come from? and why is there only one?

I know the pat answer is to not question, just have blind faith, but that is just a cop out.


RickThai

Suppose you were a dog.

Now suppose you were asked to explain how a car engine works

if people didn't spend their time focused on an after-life
the FEAR etc.

the after-life rules and occupies our minds and is deemed more important than the here an now.

the so-called 'permanent' is all in the conditioning and brain-washing and what is known as the 'impermanent' is less important.

what a waste of good energy.