It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
It seems once again, that instead of providing any sort of proof of god him/her/itself (not just processes assumed to come from such) the method is simply a negative one. Or...I disagree with scientific understanding, therefore god must exist...No argument against science proves god. Show us where him/her/it is so that we might also believe.

This subject appears one of the last bastions for those afflicted/indoctrinated by the literal interpretation of popular religions, for the moment at least.



edit on 16-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



OK let me see if my prediction is correct by your responses.

If I say - a fine tuned universe proves the existence of God.

You say?

-- Life comes only from pre-existng life.

-- You say?

Intelligence in deign.

-- You say?

A beginning of the Universe points to existence of God.

-- You say?




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I don't necessarily have answers for any of the above. What I say at this point is, I don't know.

I will be happy for god or anything else to be the cause if it is proven. Though not if it is simply a religious belief.

Why not stop arguing against science and start positive argument for god. Where is direct proof (not secondary assumptions) of god itself?



edit on 16-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I don't necessarily have answers for any of the above. What I say at this point is, I don't know.

I will be happy for god or anything else to be the cause if it is proven. Though not if it is simply a religious belief.

Why not stop arguing against science and start positive argument for god. Where is direct proof (not secondary assumptions) of god itself?



edit on 16-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


I get what you're sayin' Ergo Sum - but the thing is, science in NOT being questioned here. In fact thanks to science mankind has advance so much to better his life. So - NO it's not science that's being questioned here but the use or rather the misused of it to prop a weak hypothesis that is based on ancient philosophy.

A philosophy that has nothing to do with science but more on a silly idea that equals or surpasses the flat earth belief - a spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.

Tell me this Ergo Sum - what's the difference between what the ancient Egyptian's and those who believe in abiogenesis of today>

The ANCIENT Egyptians saw scarab beetles suddenly appear out of the ground, they believed them to be self-produced.

According to The Encyclopedia Americana it says:


“Tremendous numbers of scarabs were often found on the surface of the mudbanks along the Nile River, and this supported the belief in spontaneous generation.” (Vol. 24, p. 336, 1977 edition)


on the other hand


Abiogenesis - is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.


en.wikipedia.org...

Any basic difference? I say they are one and the same.

As for the existence of God not being scientific - IT IS scientific based on observable evidence. In fact the scripture does not allow us just to blindly believe and accept but to observe and study the evidence.

Notice just a few of hundreds of scriptures:




““Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26)





“. . .For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;” (Romans 1:20)



See it - "they are perceived by the things made" - such the Fine Tuned Universe. The molecular structure of an atom or the DNA, biomemetics, The fundamental forces of the universe, and many more scientific findings and fields.

Each of these field of science shows tremendous amount of information and upon closer look shows intelligent elegant design but most of all purposeful design down to its minutest part/form!

So you see if you truly know true science then you should know - abiogenesis is NOT one.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Fair enough edmc^2. My point is that no matter how thoroughly you feel you can discredit the abiogenesis hypothesis, this won't give any more credence at all to the notion that "god did it" (though I think it will take more than Egyptians and Scarab beetles
). If it were found to be incorrect, wouldn't it simply refer back to the null hypothesis? As in, we don't know, back to the drawing board? Instead of going straight to the god that fills more gaps than a tube of spackfiller?

Surely we would need some direct proof of god first, before the idea we were thus created by him can be entertained as a hypothesis? Not indirectly via cultural myths or processes that are attribute to him via belief, but directly to god himself. You have mentioned nothing which points to this.


Scripture proves without doubt that people have written about and made all sorts of claims about their belief. Nothing else.


This is one of the few areas where the main claims in "gods"...ahem... story (bible) hasn't been shown to be complete nonsense..............as of yet that is. It surprises me when someone obviously intelligent as yourself promotes any part of it as scientific.

I doubt you really know how life began, any more than anyone else. We know that it did appear, as yet we are not sure how.


I'm certainly open to the idea of there being some sort of underlying intelligence/force in the universe that we are yet to discover or comprehend. I would be surprised if there wasn't. Though more in a nature/Spinoza's god type of way. Certainly not (IMO) in the form of some being or a personal deity as outlined in popular religious myth. I also realize that, as opposed to being scientific, this is an unsubstantiated personal opinion and as such could be wrong.





edit on 17-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   


Is Evolution just a theory or a fact?


It's a scientific theory. But then let me ask this:

Is God just a theory or a fact?

Since you can't say god is fact, he must be a theory. He can't be a scientific theory because then we would need a set of facts to back it up. More accurately, god is a hypothesis, just like abiogenesis. Scientists take hypotheses and test them and only if they can be backed up by facts can they call it a theory. Since they haven't created life yet in a lab, it's still a hypothesis, a work in progress. Maybe it'll turn out to be completely wrong but how will anyone know if it's just shrugged off? No, God did it, so we don't need to see if our hypothesis holds water.

One thing that is evident in every debate I have seen on this issue the only "evidence" creationists produce for their claim is discounting the scientific hypotheses and theories.

An example is the method used for dating fossils. I've seen lots of debate about why the existing method used to date of fossils isn't correct, but I haven't seen an alternate method, backed by evidence, that gives an alternate date of the bones.

OP, if you don't believe the bones are as old as they say they are, what is your theory on how old they are and how do you come up with your answer? See, these arguments against existing methods don't provide any alternate theory other than "god did it." They offer no evidence for themselves because evidence of god does not exist, so god can' t be used as an alternate method of dating the fossils. One evidence for god is found, only then can "god did it" be a real answer that scientists will take seriously.

So how can this debate ever be resolved? It can't and it's a waste of energy. Scientists are on a never-ending search for answers, even if finding them leads to proving the existence of God.

Creationists have their answer and no further investigation is required or will ever be accepted.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused



Is Evolution just a theory or a fact?


It's a scientific theory. But then let me ask this:

Is God just a theory or a fact?

Trick question since it's neither. For "God" to be a theory it needs to propose an explanation that is consistent with empirically obtained data (like modern synthesis). It needs to be falsifiable and make verifiable predictions (like modern synthesis). Obviously, God does none of this. God is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It's just an idea.
edit on 17-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Precisely, which is why this debate can't be a productive debate and is useless. Scientists need evidence, creationists don't so there isn't even common ground between the two. Raw faith simply cannot debate against a search for answers. I could believe purple elephants from Alpha Centauri created us but I have no evidence of that, so I have absolutely nothing to stand on if trying to use that in a creation v. evolution debate. Replace my purple elephants with "god" and the outcome is the same. You can't prove or disprove anything if you have no evidence to show in your argument. Science can't disprove the existence of god, but neither can it disprove purple elephants from Alpha Centauri. If I'm going to debate my belief that we really were created by these elephants, I better come to the table with something to back up my argument. I can't, just as creationist can't bring anything to the argument in this thread. This in no way indicates scientists are right and creationists are wrong, it only shows that there can't even be a debate on the subject in the first place.

(The following are just my personal thoughts and really don't add any proof or evidence of anything at all.)

I don't understand how believing an all-powerful intelligent being snapped his fingers and everything poofed into existence is any better or stranger than believing everything exploded into existence from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point.

I watched the latest episode of The Universe this past week. It was about the universe itself being a living, organism and I like that theory a bit. Some say this is what God is. Maybe life is not contained just in observable things--maybe it exists in every atom of every piece of matter. Maybe energy itself is alive. Quantum Mechanics shows how observing quantum particles changes the outcome of their behavior. That indicates some kind of intelligence to me. Maybe "life" as we know it, in ourselves and plants and animals, is a product of these living quantum particles coming together to create "super" life forms. ?? Who knows....maybe no one ever will know for sure and maybe that's why believing in "god" is enough for some people.
edit on 17-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: typo.

edit on 17-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why are you constantly attacking science, something you haven't yet grasped the basics of? STOP THE WAR ON SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE. You have not backed up a single thing you have claimed in this entire thread and you are being dishonest and simply dismissing anything that goes against your assumptions. What is your motivation to start a negative crusade against science?

Abiogenesis is not proven. We know this. Neither is god. Anything contradictory to that is a blatant lie.

Everything in science starts out as "a silly idea". But look how much of it has been proven correct? Our scientific database of knowledge is so huge, it is impossible for a human to learn all of it in a single lifetime.

FACT: abiogenesis has some supporting evidence. God does not.

It's all been posted in here but you ignore it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're a real person or just some robot being paid to promote nonsense.

What will you do when more and more evidence ads up and confirms abiogenesis? What will be your argument then?

You are one of those guys from the dark ages that screamed that the earth is the center of the universe and if you disagreed you should be killed. There's a reason Galileo was shunned and kicked out of the church after revealing the REAL solar system setup. He had to live the rest of his life in isolation despite the the fact that he was 100% right. Ignorance is bad. Fundamentalism is bad. Educate yourself and stop living in the past, thinking that everything we haven't yet discovered or learned is automatically god or wrong.

LEAVE SCIENCE ALONE. Let it do its thing and make your life better, despite your criticism. When's the last time that religion did that for non believers?
edit on 17-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



Fair enough edmc^2. My point is that no matter how thoroughly you feel you can discredit the abiogenesis hypothesis, this won't give any more credence at all to the notion that "god did it" (though I think it will take more than Egyptians and Scarab beetles ). If it were found to be incorrect, wouldn't it simply refer back to the null hypothesis? As in, we don't know, back to the drawing board? Instead of going straight to the god that fills more gaps than a tube of spackfiller?


That's the thing about this “we don't know” answer.

When it comes to the Origin of Life it is not a logical or satisfactory answer for it leads to a circular argument. That is trying to prove something that's already proven to be incorrect.

All evidence presented so far points to the fact that the abioGenesis hypothesis is a very flawed concept right from the get go. Yet people still try to convinced themselves that it must be the correct answer and the ONLY answer (even though “we don't know”) - because why?

The alternative is unpalatable – a Creator.

Yet evidence after evidence when studied carefully and put to rigorous test never fails and will always point to the fact that Life was the result of Special Creation.

Just to name two.

1st:
A Fine Tuned Universe:

Intelligent men and women who studied the universe have had to face the fact that the Universe is Fine Tuned to the highest degree. They admit this, yet they can't bring themselves to accept the fact that there's ONLY ONE answer to a Fine Tuned Universe – a Supreme Being.

Case in point:

George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology. In his book the “The Symbiotic Universe” said the following statements:


“So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. . . . Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”


His answer:


“God is not an explanation.”


He was sickened and horrified by the thought that someone was responsible for it. How about you?

Nevertheless Prof. Greenstein listed some of the many physical constants for Life to exist - The Symbiotic Universe, see pages 256-7.

They are:

1) The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite

2) the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent

3) a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur

4) if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable

5) without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed

6) had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible

7) and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.

Question is – do you think the universe with all it's amazing fine tuned properties just came to be by mere chance/accident?

2nd:
The Information inside the DNA molecule

Leading scientists and researchers are still at a lost as to how the information in the DNA are generated at precise moments.

For example:

Exactly how does the body communicate its need to the cell, and how does it trigger part of the DNA molecule to “unzip” at just the right place and later to go back together?

What prevents the rest of the DNA helix from “unzipping”?

How did not only the right chemicals, but also all the right mechanisms, such as the ribosomes, come to be in the cell for the making of a new strand of RNA?

How does the ribosome “read” the RNA and exactly how are just the right chemicals provided at the right places to reproduce the DNA’s pattern and to make the proper protein?

How is the information encoded on DNA transferred to cell enzymes that then control the growth of new cells?

And finally, we encounter the biggest question of all:

How did such complex substances, and life itself, get there in the first place?

Do you know the answers to these questions?

I can go further by hopefully you get my point.

None of these things can come, by mere chance event or by accident because each has a purpose right down to its molecular subatomic level – from dna molecules, atoms to the giant stars.

Later...with the rest.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why are you constantly attacking science, something you haven't yet grasped the basics of? STOP THE WAR ON SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE. You have not backed up a single thing you have claimed in this entire thread and you are being dishonest and simply dismissing anything that goes against your assumptions. What is your motivation to start a negative crusade against science?

Abiogenesis is not proven. We know this. Neither is god. Anything contradictory to that is a blatant lie.

Everything in science starts out as "a silly idea". But look how much of it has been proven correct? Our scientific database of knowledge is so huge, it is impossible for a human to learn all of it in a single lifetime.

FACT: abiogenesis has some supporting evidence. God does not.

It's all been posted in here but you ignore it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're a real person or just some robot being paid to promote nonsense.

What will you do when more and more evidence ads up and confirms abiogenesis? What will be your argument then?

You are one of those guys from the dark ages that screamed that the earth is the center of the universe and if you disagreed you should be killed. There's a reason Galileo was shunned and kicked out of the church after revealing the REAL solar system setup. He had to live the rest of his life in isolation despite the the fact that he was 100% right. Ignorance is bad. Fundamentalism is bad. Educate yourself and stop living in the past, thinking that everything we haven't yet discovered or learned is automatically god or wrong.

LEAVE SCIENCE ALONE. Let it do its thing and make your life better, despite your criticism. When's the last time that religion did that for non believers?
edit on 17-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Apparently - you're not paying attention of what I've been saying.

Anyway here's what I said to Ergo about science - I'll bold it for you OK?

I get what you're sayin' Ergo Sum - but the thing is, science in NOT being questioned here. In fact thanks to science mankind has advance so much to better his life. So - NO it's not science that's being questioned here but the use or rather the misused of it to prop a weak hypothesis that is based on ancient philosophy.

A philosophy that has nothing to do with science but more on a silly idea that equals or surpasses the flat earth belief - a spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.


later...



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And 100 years ago you would have argued that the only possible answer to the origin of the universe was that it was eternal, stupid big bang theory and its crazy ideas.

You may not believe your anti-science,. Thing is you are not. providing it is established science, no advancement or further investigation allowed, that can be molded to fit your worldview.

Your basically a scientific luddite afraid that advancement may upset your applecart.

On the day I was born man had not landed on the moon, black holes were wildly speculative known only because Einsteins math predicted them. I could give you a laundry list of things that we now have evidence for.

Many of which were "wild speculation" when first presented.

I am am not arrogant enough to dismiss a hypothesis out of hand because I think its "silly". I'll let the advances at the frontier of science do that.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



The "we don't know" answer, when this is so, is the only one with any honesty. Whether it appeals to your logic is of no consequence. It is a basic Socratic notion that the realization of ignorance precedes a search for knowledge. It seems the "god did it" believers have either not had this most basic realization, or had it quelled via a thorough religious indoctrination.

Attributing the apparent design you find in nature to an imagined god amounts to a logical fallacy. It presumes god exists. In essence, beyond the smoke screen, it says that everything must have been created by god because you believe so. Similar superstition used to have wise men consulting the entrails of goats. They found the gods obvious intelligent design laid out for them in the process, full of portents and omens, a way of communicating with the divine.

I understand that your mind is completely closed against anything to do with abiogenesis as a hypothesis, regardless how it fares. Yet so far, underneath it all, your argument boils down to "god did it".

Once again, where is your proof of god. Once again, not observations or processes that you would like to attribute to your imagined god, but something that shows god itself.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by edmc^2
 



The "we don't know" answer, when this is so, is the only one with any honesty. Whether it appeals to your logic is of no consequence. It is a basic Socratic notion that the realization of ignorance precedes a search for knowledge. It seems the "god did it" believers have either not had this most basic realization, or had it quelled via a thorough religious indoctrination.

Attributing the apparent design you find in nature to an imagined god amounts to a logical fallacy. It presumes god exists. In essence, beyond the smoke screen, it says that everything must have been created by god because you believe so. Similar superstition used to have wise men consulting the entrails of goats. They found the gods obvious intelligent design laid out for them in the process, full of portents and omens, a way of communicating with the divine.

I understand that your mind is completely closed against anything to do with abiogenesis as a hypothesis, regardless how it fares. Yet so far, underneath it all, your argument boils down to "god did it".

Once again, where is your proof of god. Once again, not observations or processes that you would like to attribute to your imagined god, but something that shows god itself.


Like I said - "we don't know" is the only answer to proponents of abioGenesis hypothesis because that's all they've got.

Inspite of the evidence that such an idea is NOT scientifically sound nor logical - people will still insist that it's the only explanation to the Origin Of Life because like I said - the alternative is unpalatable: God Did It!

So it's not a matter of I'm against abiogenesis but because it's NOT supported by facts - scientific facts that is.

To prove my point and test your logic - let me ask you a very simple logical question. I hope you'll provide a logical answer.

If you happen to come across a fully furnished house with all the amenities of life in a middle of a desert area and was asked how did it get there - how would you respond?

Is it:

1) I don't know

2) No one built it - it just came to be

3) Someone built it.

The planet earth is like that house in the midst of the inhospitable space - yet it's fully furnished with everything to NOT ONLY support life but enjoy life - did it just happen to be there?

What say you?


edit on 17-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: God did it!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


Eh???

So I'm a

"anti-science"... "a scientific luddite"
- is that all you got Noncompatible? ad hominem attacks?

Well if I'm one then you should be able to answer my scientifically constructed questions:

That is, do you think the universe with all it's amazing fine tuned properties (as listed below) just came to be by mere chance/accident?

1) The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite

2) the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent

3) a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur

4) if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable

5) without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed

6) had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible

7) and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.

If so please explain how scientifically is that possible?


And do you know the answers to the questions below?

1) Exactly how does the body communicate its need to the cell, and how does it trigger part of the DNA molecule to “unzip” at just the right place and later to go back together?

2) What prevents the rest of the DNA helix from “unzipping”?

3) How did not only the right chemicals, but also all the right mechanisms, such as the ribosomes, come to be in the cell for the making of a new strand of RNA?

4) How does the ribosome “read” the RNA and exactly how are just the right chemicals provided at the right places to reproduce the DNA’s pattern and to make the proper protein?

5) How is the information encoded on DNA transferred to cell enzymes that then control the growth of new cells?

And finally, we encounter the biggest question of all:

6) How did such complex substances, and life itself, get there in the first place?

If you think abioGenesis is capable of producing the amazing cell, the DNA structure surely you won't any problem answering my SCIENTIFIC questions above.

Time to put up or....



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


To your question regarding logic, I would assume people built it. Based on the observable and verifiable knowledge that people do exist and do build such things.

To your following assertion I would say, I wasn't there so personally don't know with 100% certainty. That is the only honest answer I can give. Yet the notion that earth was formed by accretion is so well supported it is worth taking seriously, don't you think? In view of the alternative you propose being a magical being with no known existence, creating the planet by magic? Unlike the dwelling example and people, there is no observable and verifiable knowledge that a god exist or builds planets.

I am afraid that your analogy and conclusions seem completely illogical, Mr. Spock
. To assume "god did it" based on knowledge that people build dwellings, is not only an error in logic, but also seems baseless. If not disingenuous (when claimed as truth, as opposed to belief).

Once again, the goats entrails were arranged so precisely by god that ancient diviners could see his message. Same logic.

So far god isn't required to explain what we do know, in fact science has continued to soundly debunk the simplistic ancient notion of god and reduce his area of imagined influence to the point where he might soon be irrelevant.

Though I wouldn't say the universe is without intelligence of some sort. This would be a dishonest claim. Yet the god of popular cultural myth is so unlikely to exist IMO, that he is already irrelevant.

Abiogenesis isn't claimed as factual as far as I am aware. It is a hypothesis.





edit on 18-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


So you think


"Creationists have their answer and no further investigation is required or will ever be accepted."


Now that is a statement based on ignorance. Where did you get such an idea?

To the contrary - proponents of creation are in constant search of how things were put together. Thanks to modern science we gained so much knowledge of the HOW, the WHERE, the WHEN. Unfortunately it lacks the ability to answer the WHY.

But the more we know the more we understand the WHY. Sadly proponents of evolution are stuck on "we don't know" - instead of the possibilities.

For instance - do you know WHY we're able to fathom the depths of the universe? Why we have the ability to conceptualized such things as space travel? WHY there such things as emotions? Such things as spirituality?

Evolutionists like you probably will attribute these things to just chemical reactions - nothing more nothing less.

Yet to proponents of Creation they are much more that that, because we know there's a real purpose to them.

They are not just chemical reactions.

Too bad though if you can't see beyond the physical.

As for "dating fossils", you asked:



if you don't believe the bones are as old as they say they are, what is your theory on how old they are and how do you come up with your answer? See, these arguments against existing methods don't provide any alternate theory other than "god did it." They offer no evidence for themselves because evidence of god does not exist, so god can' t be used as an alternate method of dating the fossils. One evidence for god is found, only then can "god did it" be a real answer that scientists will take seriously.


The thing is - the dating methods (radiocarbon / radiometric dating) have their strong points as well as weak points. In other words they have their proper place. It's when they are used improperly to promote something that it does not support - problem occurs. And that's what's happening - paleontologists of the evolution persuasion are trying to extend the life of something that's impossible to do.

And then when asked why, they'll just ridicule those who question them.

To prove my point - how would you resolve this situation:

What dating method are you going to use if you find a "fossil" next to an ancient dig? What dating method are you going to use to date the ancient artifacts?

If the artifacts shows that it's about 5000 years old and the fossil reads 100 million years old - which one is correct? Both or the fossil? If the fossil is 100 million years old, how is it the artifact is only 5000 years old? See what I mean?

And that's what I've been trying to point out - honesty.

And NO - you don't need God to date fossil - use common sense coupled with logic and honest scientific methodology. That's what's needed or lacking.

Here's an example I've cited a while back.


“Uranium series analyses of human bone samples from the Del Mar and Sunnyvale sites indicate ages of 11,000 and 8,300 years, respectively. The dates are supported by internal concordancy between thorium-230 and protactinium-231 decay systems. These ages are significantly younger than the estimates of 48,000 and 70,000 years based on amino acid racemization, and indicate that the individuals could derive from the population waves that came across the Bering Strait during the last sea-level low.”


Why the difference? Later when the re-dated the specimen the date went down further - close to 6000 years.

Now to proponents of evolution theory this is preposterous but truth is truth no matter how you bend it.

As for:



Is God just a theory or a fact?


It's a fact!

If you believe that life comes only from pre-existing life!!



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by edmc^2
 


To your question regarding logic, I would assume people built it. Based on the observable and verifiable knowledge that people do exist and do build such things.

To your following assertion I would say, I wasn't there so personally don't know with 100% certainty. That is the only honest answer I can give. Yet the notion that earth was formed by accretion is so well supported it is worth taking seriously, don't you think? In view of the alternative you propose being a magical being with no known existence, creating the planet by magic? Unlike the dwelling example and people, there is no observable and verifiable knowledge that a god exist or builds planets.

I am afraid that your analogy and conclusions seem completely illogical, Mr. Spock
. To assume "god did it" based on knowledge that people build dwellings, is not only an error in logic, but also seems baseless. If not disingenuous (when claimed as truth, as opposed to belief).

Once again, the goats entrails were arranged so precisely by god that ancient diviners could see his message. Same logic.

So far god isn't required to explain what we do know, in fact science has continued to soundly debunk the simplistic ancient notion of god and reduce his area of imagined influence to the point where he might soon be irrelevant.

Though I wouldn't say the universe is without intelligence of some sort. This would be a dishonest claim. Yet the god of popular cultural myth is so unlikely to exist IMO, that he is already irrelevant.

Abiogenesis isn't claimed as factual as far as I am aware. It is a hypothesis.


edit on 18-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


As expected - separate the two situation in order to invalidate the other.

A house is constructed by someone with intelligence based on "observable and verifiable knowledge that people do exist and do build such things", yet the earth - although much much more complicated to build than the house based on observation has no maker and doesn't require one.



Unlike the dwelling example and people, there is no observable and verifiable knowledge that a god exist or builds planets.


What kind of logic is that? Magic logic?

I guess that's the difference between my logic and yours.

I based my logic on common sense.

"Hbr 3:4 NIV - For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."

I based my logic that an Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.

That a Fine Tuned Universe requires a Fine Tuner.

That a law has a law maker.

An no - it's NOT magic but common sense.

So explain to me your logic -

If a less complicated house requires a builder why a far complicated system - like the solar system - doesn't require one?

On the same vain - if the far complicated highly fine tuned solar system can arise on its own without any builder why don't we see a house (as if by magic) arising on its own?

We should, shouldn't we using your logic?

Also you said that




Though I wouldn't say the universe is without intelligence of some sort.


If so does this "intelligence of some sort" a force of some sort or an Entity?

Logic dictates that intelligence - requires a thought - a thought requires a thinking mind - a thinking mind requires a brain - a brain a body - an Entity.

So what say you?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





This is one of the few areas where the main claims in "gods"...ahem... story (bible) hasn't been shown to be complete nonsense..............as of yet that is. It surprises me when someone obviously intelligent as yourself promotes any part of it as scientific.


Let me please state this fact! The Bible although NOT a scientific textbook is ACCURATE when it comes to /touches on scientific matters.

Case in point:

Gen 1:1 (ESV) states that


In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.


Even though you don't believe in the existence of God - the fact remains the Universe and the Earth had a "Beginning".

Which agrees with the scientific theory of "Singularity" - the "Big Bang Theory"


“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.” - The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14



“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot



Division of Energy Between Photons and Massive Particles One of the ideas associated with modeling the Big Bang is that the further back in time you project, the more the universe is dominated by photons. We think of today's universe as mostly matter, but the energy of the early universe was mostly photon energy with massive particles playing a very small role. The amount of energy in radiation in today's universe can be estimated with the use of the Stefan- Boltzmann law, considering that the universe is filled with blackbody radiation at a temperature of 2.7 K. -- hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...




Can you dispute that?

There's more but I'd like to see your pov on this on.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

As expected - separate the two situation in order to invalidate the other.


I didn't separate them. They would generally be considered by definition, already different things. One is a dwelling. The other is a planet floating in space. This would mean they are in fact different things, though no doubt related, see my answers below.



What kind of logic is that? Magic logic?

I guess that's the difference between my logic and yours.

I based my logic on common sense.



Fair enough, although very arguable. It's obvious you don't base it on anything that can be substantiated.


"Hbr 3:4 NIV - For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."

I based my logic that an Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.

That a Fine Tuned Universe requires a Fine Tuner.

That a law has a law maker.

An no - it's NOT magic but common sense.


I don't disagree that there could be underlying intelligence in the universe. Though I find your common sense very arguable and disagree with your assertion as fact that "god did it". First, show me god.

I also ask not only that no biblical quotes be put forth for my sake, as they will be wasted, but that no turtle doves/lambs/goats be sacrificed for my sake either. (leviticus or deuteronomy from memory. Yes I'm joking).


So explain to me your logic -

If a less complicated house requires a builder why a far complicated system - like the solar system - doesn't require one?

On the same vain - if the far complicated highly fine tuned solar system can arise on its own without any builder why don't we see a house (as if by magic) arising on its own?

We should, shouldn't we using your logic?


We most certainly do see houses springing up, as if by magic (though in the poetic sense, not the supernatural one). If the thought that supernova remnants/stellar dust largely formed our solar system and planet which gave rise to intelligent beings who build dwellings on it doesn't seem magical and awe inspiring, or create that sense of wonder, nothing will. So far in this process god is conspicuous by his absence. What seems worse, god seems to stifle this true sense of wonder of it all.





If so does this "intelligence of some sort" a force of some sort or an Entity?

Logic dictates that intelligence - requires a thought - a thought requires a thinking mind - a thinking mind requires a brain - a brain a body - an Entity.

So what say you?


First, this is based only on my own direct experience. People misinterpret personal experiences all the time, sometimes to the point of delusion. So it is not something I would argue over as being a truth, or scientific, or necessarily verifiable, or that I really understand it. Only that it is honest. Take it only for what you feel it might be worth.

It would be the most fundamental aspect of being. Unifying and beyond thought or individuality. Something all encompassing, simple enough and intelligent enough to be unfathomable. The most basic aspect of existence.





edit on 18-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Let me please state this fact! The Bible although NOT a scientific textbook is ACCURATE when it comes to /touches on scientific matters.


Please no.

Bible and scientific don't belong in the same sentence.


Even though you don't believe in the existence of God - the fact remains the Universe and the Earth had a "Beginning".

Which agrees with the scientific theory of "Singularity" - the "Big Bang Theory"


It really doesn't matter what it can be interpreted to agree with, until we find god.

Where is god?

Is he really Marshall Applewhite's father? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl? If yes, why? If not, why not? Please be specific.

What does he look like, taste like, smell like, feel like? How can science repeatably observe these things? What is he made of? What is his atomic weight, how does he react to acid, being bombarded with particles. What frequency is he in the electromagnetic spectrum? Is he in the fossil record? Perhaps he is everywhere, that should make things easy, what instruments can I measure him with? Again, please be specific.

God is an unnecessary assumption, in any scientific sense, until he can be reasonably proven to exist. He is a belief that often contradicts knowledge and requires faith. Whether he exists in some form, being another matter altogether. He might, but that would be more a problem for the field of philosophy to ponder. Wouldn't you agree?



edit on 18-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.




top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join