If God doesn't exist...

[BuckToothMoron]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

So if science can't explain it in terms you can understand, it qualifies as a miracle?

View attachment 79667

Does science explain what came before the Big Bang?

What about all those things that happened right after the Big Bang that didn't follow the natural laws of the universe because they were 'special events'?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Science is a process, unlike faith or religion which are closer to an ends. Science is about learning and discovery. Just because science can't answer the question does not prove the existence of God or a miracle. Early civilizations prayed to Sun gods, rain gods, hunting gods, etc., because their science didn't explain the lack of rain or dearth of eatable animals. Science is for those with patience, faith is for those who don't work well with the unknown.

 

[forkup]

I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the positive mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier. Eat more GMO foods. Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep. That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it? Another would be Craig Venter. He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.

I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana. He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC. Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work. Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better. I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.

I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument. Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.

I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease. Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome. Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness? I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation. Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.

If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals. It is evidence for creation. Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.

I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it. Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.

You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more. The two ways you are referring to are 1) Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution. I thought we agreed on that and natural selection? What other context are you using it in?

I do not think we can stop mutations. That's just part of life. We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution. They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution. Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells. Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells. I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand. Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?

I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far. Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity. Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking. Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.

So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.
As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,

 

[yiostheoy]

Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).

You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.

Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument. He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.

Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.

The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea. It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it. It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God. Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.

Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.

Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.

The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.

The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.

 

[forkup]

Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).

You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.

Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument. He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.

Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.

The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea. It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it. It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God. Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.

Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.

Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.

The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.

The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.

How I look at it, is that science does give the answer. The answer is, keep searching. I for one, have no problem with the sentence. "I don't know." That sentence drives me to find out. I consider myself a pragmatic man, And I have a problem with the idea of first cause to begin with. Cause you can put the argument into the infinite. " Who created the creator." Something had to be at the beginning but you can't even define the something or the beginning.

 

[yiostheoy]

Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).

You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.

Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument. He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.

Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.

The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea. It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it. It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God. Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.

Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.

Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.

The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.

The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.

How I look at it, is that science does give the answer. The answer is, keep searching. I for one, have no problem with the sentence. "I don't know." That sentence drives me to find out. I consider myself a pragmatic man, And I have a problem with the idea of first cause to begin with. Cause you can put the argument into the infinite. " Who created the creator." Something had to be at the beginning but you can't even define the something or the beginning.

"Who created the creator" is a first cause argument. In Philosophy there must have been one Creator who (1) was the first and (2) who always existed and was not therefore in need of creation. There are no other philosophical possibilities without getting into further hot water about what gods are and what we are.

So the Philosophical answer to the question of "is there a god?" is answer by "there must be a god because someone had to create us and all things and we know we did not create ourselves because we don't know how".

The answers of the various religions depends on what religion or mythology you follow. Christianity and Islam are completely silent about creation -- they simply start with their own messengers -- Jesus and Muhammad.

Judaism begins with a creation story formulated by Moses.

Greek mythology begins with matter having existed forever, out of which Gia the Earth (a goddess) creates herself and then she creates her brother the Ouranos the heavens. Hindu has similar myths with similar gods.

Science cannot answer the question because science has insufficient data from which to infer the likely answer. Science can tell us that based on red shifts from distant galaxies in the Hubble deep field the Universe was created 13.82 billion years ago with some sort of big bang that has left background radiation of itself 13.82 billion light years away from the Earth, but not more specifically as to how or from what or by whom.

History does not tell us either. There is no consistent oral tradition passed down from ancient times to us which explains the recollections of where our ancient fathers and mothers came from. Moses came up with his own when he invented his own shorthand Hebrew script for writing down all of his visionary experiences and laws. But he falls short of giving us specific sources and therefore his credibility does not go unchallenged. He does not say "I learned such and so from my father and mother and such and so from the Hebrew/Babylonian stories of the people". He just rants. If you read Moses' writings in Hebrew they consist of long run-on sentences without punctuation. The scribes have since cleaned it up a bit.

 

[james bond]

All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.

Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.

What is the death driven rubbish?

We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.

 

[james bond]

We do have proof of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang - NASA Science
What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang? - Universe Today

The Big Bang is the most well-supported and logical model of how the universe came to be.

Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then? Ha ha.

The Big Bang is still a theory. Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end. It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.

The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator). It more closely backs up the Bible.

 

[james bond]

I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the positive mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier. Eat more GMO foods. Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep. That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it? Another would be Craig Venter. He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.

I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana. He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC. Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work. Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better. I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.

I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument. Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.

I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease. Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome. Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness? I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation. Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.

If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals. It is evidence for creation. Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.

I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it. Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.

You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more. The two ways you are referring to are 1) Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution. I thought we agreed on that and natural selection? What other context are you using it in?

I do not think we can stop mutations. That's just part of life. We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution. They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution. Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells. Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells. I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand. Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?

I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far. Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity. Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking. Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.

So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.
As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,

Microevolution is natural selection. Neither are facts. In fact, I have not given it to you as a fact. We conclude natural selection from the facts, such as the changes of a finch's beak. It is the best theory we have to explain what happens when life changes. It is the diversity of life. So, are you agreeing that it is not a mutation? Skin color is not a mutation because that is what is intended to happen. Mutation would be an organism that does not change by natural selection. Can you think of life that does not change? Even the most simplest of life has changed. Buddhists state life is change.

Let's stop with the discussion on mutation. You can not admit that I am right and you just move on to something else. We are not communicating and it's extremely boring. Moreover, you have not explained nor given an experiment where life is created from molecules as you stated (your experiment stated with a living organism and its DNA and RNA. You did not know the answer to what is a simple cell -- algae or bacteria.

Let's just stop with our discussion altogether. I never met anyone who is so stubborn in their beliefs that they will not admit when someone else has provided better points than them.

For those who are smart enough to understand mutation, if it is positive, then we should see some results such as more bone density, i.e. stronger bones, we can sleep less hours and be productive, our immune system will be able to better resist disease and infection and our mortality will be going up, our endurance will be better, our bodies will be stronger and we can demonstrate this by measuring our strength, and we will have better memories.

We are done

 

[sealybobo]

I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the positive mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier. Eat more GMO foods. Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep. That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it? Another would be Craig Venter. He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.

I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana. He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC. Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work. Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better. I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.

I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument. Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.

I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease. Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome. Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness? I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation. Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.

If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals. It is evidence for creation. Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.

I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it. Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.

You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more. The two ways you are referring to are 1) Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution. I thought we agreed on that and natural selection? What other context are you using it in?

I do not think we can stop mutations. That's just part of life. We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution. They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution. Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells. Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells. I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand. Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?

I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far. Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity. Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking. Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.

So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.
As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,

Microevolution is natural selection. Neither are facts. In fact, I have not given it to you as a fact. We conclude natural selection from the facts, such as the changes of a finch's beak. It is the best theory we have to explain what happens when life changes. It is the diversity of life. So, are you agreeing that it is not a mutation? Skin color is not a mutation because that is what is intended to happen. Mutation would be an organism that does not change by natural selection. Can you think of life that does not change? Even the most simplest of life has changed. Buddhists state life is change.

Let's stop with the discussion on mutation. You can not admit that I am right and you just move on to something else. We are not communicating and it's extremely boring. Moreover, you have not explained nor given an experiment where life is created from molecules as you stated (your experiment stated with a living organism and its DNA and RNA. You did not know the answer to what is a simple cell -- algae or bacteria.

Let's just stop with our discussion altogether. I never met anyone who is so stubborn in their beliefs that they will not admit when someone else has provided better points than them.

For those who are smart enough to understand mutation, if it is positive, then we should see some results such as more bone density, i.e. stronger bones, we can sleep less hours and be productive, our immune system will be able to better resist disease and infection and our mortality will be going up, our endurance will be better, our bodies will be stronger and we can demonstrate this by measuring our strength, and we will have better memories.

We are done

Mutations are real. Some help and some don't. If they hurt your species dies off. If it helps your kind thrives.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Science is a process, unlike faith or religion which are closer to an ends.

What ends would those be?

Science is about learning and discovery.

I've never said it wasn't.

Just because science can't answer the question does not prove the existence of God or a miracle.

On the other hand it doesn't prove God doesn't exist either.

Early civilizations prayed to Sun gods, rain gods, hunting gods, etc., because their science didn't explain the lack of rain or dearth of eatable animals.

And so.o..o...?????

Science is for those with patience,...

I have me lot's of patience... At least a 145 pages worth of patience at this time.

*****CHUCKLE*****

...faith is for those who don't work well with the unknown.

Isn't that also why people, who claim to be atheists, who hardly have a working knowledge of science and math fall back on the scientific consensus because they require faith in something?

Looks like that to me anyway.

Seems that the followers of God and the followers of science have a lot in common.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then? Ha ha.

The Big Bang is still a theory. Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end. It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.

The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator). It more closely backs up the Bible.

The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

 

[Epitah]

Science is a process, unlike faith or religion which are closer to an ends.

What ends would those be?

Science is about learning and discovery.

I've never said it wasn't.

Just because science can't answer the question does not prove the existence of God or a miracle.

On the other hand it doesn't prove God doesn't exist either.

Early civilizations prayed to Sun gods, rain gods, hunting gods, etc., because their science didn't explain the lack of rain or dearth of eatable animals.

And so.o..o...?????

Science is for those with patience,...

I have me lot's of patience... At least a 145 pages worth of patience at this time.

*****CHUCKLE*****

...faith is for those who don't work well with the unknown.

Isn't that also why people, who claim to be atheists, who hardly have a working knowledge of science and math fall back on the scientific consensus because they require faith in something?

Looks like that to me anyway.

View attachment 79781

Seems that the followers of God and the followers of science have a lot in common.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Science aims to learn more about everything through processes while Religion just promises straight answers, even if they're completely illogical.

It's up to the person that thinks God exists to prove it, do we need to go back to the teapot?

His point was that people invented Gods to explain things that they had no knowledge of at the time, Gods don't actually give you any answers.

Science actually gives logical explanations with evidence and no magic, so it's better to believe it than religion.

Could you quit spamming the thread with music videos and ***CHUCKLE***? You look like an idiot.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).

You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.

Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument. He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.

Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.

The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea. It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it. It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God. Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.

Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.

Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.

The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.

The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.

The underlying problem here is not understanding what the OP believes about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Science aims to learn more about everything through processes while Religion just promises straight answers, even if they're completely illogical.

Did I state anywhere in this thread that I belonged to some sort of standard religion?

It's up to the person that thinks God exists to prove it, do we need to go back to the teapot?

Shall we go back to your faith that something unknown somehow kick started the universe some 13.82 billion years ago?

*****CHUCKLE*****

His point was that people invented Gods to explain things that they had no knowledge of at the time, Gods don't actually give you any answers.

My God gives me all sorts of answers if I ask the right questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Science actually gives logical explanations with evidence and no magic, so it's better to believe it than religion.

So you're a scientist and/or have a firm background in science?

OR

Are you one of those that has faith when you say there is a 100% or 99% or 81% or 66% scientific consensus on the matter?

Could you quit spamming the thread with music videos and ***CHUCKLE***? You look like an idiot.

No!

Could you learn not to be so discriminating and bigoted about other peoples posts and style?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then? Ha ha.

The Big Bang is still a theory. Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end. It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.

The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator). It more closely backs up the Bible.

The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

A theory is nothing more than a conglomeration of facts that scientists utilize to interpret the data currently collected. Tomorrow there may be new facts that will lead to the current theory being circular filed (abandoned) and a new theory will take it's place. Therefore a 'theory' is not a 'fact' it is a amalgamation of facts brought together to come up with an interpretation or assumption.

How do you know that some ancient astronaut didn't rely a story of what his/her/its people discovered about the universe to Moses or some other religious fellow and what came about was a story about how everything was created?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Epitah]

Science aims to learn more about everything through processes while Religion just promises straight answers, even if they're completely illogical.

Did I state anywhere in this thread that I belonged to some sort of standard religion?

It's up to the person that thinks God exists to prove it, do we need to go back to the teapot?

Shall we go back to your faith that something unknown somehow kick started the universe some 13.82 billion years ago?

*****CHUCKLE*****

His point was that people invented Gods to explain things that they had no knowledge of at the time, Gods don't actually give you any answers.

My God gives me all sorts of answers if I ask the right questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Science actually gives logical explanations with evidence and no magic, so it's better to believe it than religion.

So you're a scientist and/or have a firm background in science?

OR

Are you one of those that has faith when you say there is a 100% or 99% or 81% or 66% scientific consensus on the matter?

Could you quit spamming the thread with music videos and ***CHUCKLE***? You look like an idiot.

View attachment 79785

No!

Could you learn not to be so discriminating and bigoted about other peoples posts and style?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Telling you to quit spamming the page with music videos and childish behavior isn't bigotry. That's not a style, it's what a 12 year old does on forums.

Believing the Big Bang isn't a faith. Faith is believing something without evidence, and all we know is that something happened, but we don't know what so we have no reason to believe anything specific right now.

Saying your God gives you answers is completely useless information and has nothing to do with what you were responding too.

I've researched the Scientific models of evolution, the Big Bang and other important stuff. I would say I am well educated.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Telling you to quit spamming the page with music videos and childish behavior isn't bigotry. That's not a style, it's what a 12 year old does on forums.

Says the person who can't handle diversity.

Believing the Big Bang isn't a faith. Faith is believing something without evidence,...

Is it now?

...and all we know is that something happened, but we don't know what so we have no reason to believe anything specific right now.

Sounds like faith to me.

Saying your God gives you answers is completely useless information and has nothing to do with what you were responding too.

Says the person who has no clue to as to what my beliefs are.

I've researched the Scientific models of evolution, the Big Bang and other important stuff. I would say I am well educated.

Most eighth graders can supposedly claim that... And yet you consider a theory to be a fact.

Hallelujah to scientific consensus!

Has the god of global warming wrote death and destruction to all the earth yet?

"But then you don't like music now do ya?"...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

Telling you to quit spamming the page with music videos and childish behavior isn't bigotry. That's not a style, it's what a 12 year old does on forums.

Says the person who can't handle diversity.

Believing the Big Bang isn't a faith. Faith is believing something without evidence,...

Is it now?

...and all we know is that something happened, but we don't know what so we have no reason to believe anything specific right now.

Sounds like faith to me.

Saying your God gives you answers is completely useless information and has nothing to do with what you were responding too.

Says the person who has no clue to as to what my beliefs are.

I've researched the Scientific models of evolution, the Big Bang and other important stuff. I would say I am well educated.

Most eighth graders can supposedly claim that... And yet you consider a theory to be a fact.

Hallelujah to scientific consensus!

Has the god of global warming wrote death and destruction to all the earth yet?

"But then you don't like music now do ya?"...

*****CHUCKLE*****

Apparently not liking shitposting is anti-diversity. What?

Believing the Big Bang happened isn't faith. Believing in a god is faith because you are believing something is true without actual evidence. Nobody is asserting what or how the Big Bang happened, thus there can be no faith. If something didn't cause the Big Bang then the only alternative is that the universe has just always existed in this state, which we know isn't true.

A scientific theory is different from how the word theory is commonly used by people. A scientific theory actually means established fact, I really wish they'd quit calling it a theory so people would quit getting it messed up and using that as a really weak argument against established science.

At this point you're just going on about unrelated topics and shitposting more music videos.

 

[yiostheoy]

Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).

You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.

Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument. He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.

Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.

The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea. It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it. It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God. Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.

Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.

Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.

The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.

The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.

The underlying problem here is not understanding what the OP believes about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

With 7 billion people on the planet nobody is going to care what you believe.

That you stole it from Tomas Aquinas and plagiarized it to make yourself look smart is more telling about your own lack of ethics and lack of morality.

Q.E.D.

 

[HUGGY]

All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.

Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.

What is the death driven rubbish?

We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.

Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.

If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.

The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.