How have anti-evolution tactics evolved over time? They’ve gotten sneakier.

[Coloradomtnman]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a Theory

If this is what we are now teaching kids in government funded schools it's a really good argument for ending government funded schools.

You are welcome to teach any scientific facts supporting the existence of God...I will teach scientific facts supporting evolution including biological, fossil, geological and DNA evidence

No, I am not welcome to teach any scientific facts supporting the existence of God because you won't allow that. DNA is actually a scientific fact that supports God. Logic also supports God because the physical cannot create itself.

DNA as evidence is in itself to broad and to vague to support a creator hypothesis. Apparent design does not necessarily mean designed. Same for logic. No one knows if the reason mathematics works so well to describe reality is because reality reflects math or if human perception of reality is mathematical.

The US Constitution prohibits you from teaching God in public school, not rightwinger.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Stop trying to make this ridiculous argument that someone's religion belongs alongside science. It doesn't.

What's funny, IsaacNewton, is the real Isaac Newton would laugh his ass off at you. I hate to tell you this but people's religion is along side them no matter what they do. If they are teaching or learning science, if they are passing or voting against legislation... their religious beliefs are right there with them and there's not a whole lot you're going to ever do about that.

Teaching about the theory of Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity, is not teaching a religion. It can be taught without any deference to religion. In fact, myself and many others who would favor teaching ID would insist that it be that way. I don't want any religious view being taught but that also includes YOUR religious view that God doesn't exist. No one ever agreed to elevate your religion above all others.

Regardless of whether you believe ID is religious bunk, it's still a legitimate theory and will remain one until you can refute it. We cannot simply teach things we like and dismiss things that make us uncomfortable. Can you imagine what sort of fucked up world that would produce? And, since Evolution theory regards the evolution of existing life and ID theory deals with the origin of life, it is completely possible for both theories to be valid. One doesn't negate the other, they are not competing theories. In fact, they don't even deal with the same thing. They are both associated with "irreducible complexity" which is a phrase first found in Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.

Isaac Newton is laughing in your face, along with Einstein, Galileo, and Copernicus.

Teach your religious fantasy in your home or your church. Just like every other religion. There are 300,000 churches in the US, I think there are plenty of venues to get your flying grandpa theories out there. Knock yourself out.

And you don't get to label everyone else as believing in a 'religion' like you do. Your religion is not based on fact or evidence, it is based on feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs. Science relies on evidence.

You read a few articles and like to portray yourself as 'educated' on a few subjects but you aren't. You just use things to try to fit your religious beliefs into rational evidence based science.

This is a new convention for the religious minded kristian in the US. It is a phoney attempt to try to put 'belief' on the same level as 'evidence'. Do whatever mental gymnastics your mind feels compelled to do to try to make yourself feel better about believing in fairies.

They are still fairies.


'intelligent design' is neither. It is farce dreamed up by the current crop of bible thumpers to try to give their beliefs gravitas in academia and the public. But it is farce, it is not 'legitimate'.

Isaac Newton was very religious. So was Rene Descartes, and he invented the scientific method.

Otherwise, other than in tone, I think you are mostly correct.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Logic also supports God because the physical cannot create itself

Who made God?
Where is your scientific fact for that?

God doesn't have to be made because God is not physical.

If something cannot come from nothing, then it is special pleading to not apply that argument to God.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Logic also supports God because the physical cannot create itself

Who made God?
Where is your scientific fact for that?

God doesn't have to be made because God is not physical.

Do you have scientific evidence to support your theory?

How does something not physical create something physical? What is your hypothesis?

Simple.. it's the only rational and logical explanation. Physical nature exists. It either always existed which means it defies it's own laws of thermodynamics and entropy... OR it began existing at some point, presumably at the creation of the physical universe. It can't create itself because it doesn't exist. So logic dictates something outside of physical nature created physical nature. We can vaguely define that as Spiritual Nature.

We don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang. Maybe some quantum state? Maybe the very phrase "prior to the Big Bang" is meaningless or inaccurate. The laws of nature, as we understand them, may have been different and breakdown even now at singularities.

It does not logically follow that something outside of physical nature is required to create physical nature. There is not enough information to make a credible argument either way.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Logic also supports God because the physical cannot create itself

Who made God?
Where is your scientific fact for that?

God doesn't have to be made because God is not physical.

Do you have scientific evidence to support your theory?

How does something not physical create something physical? What is your hypothesis?

Simple.. it's the only rational and logical explanation. Physical nature exists. It either always existed which means it defies it's own laws of thermodynamics and entropy... OR it began existing at some point, presumably at the creation of the physical universe. It can't create itself because it doesn't exist. So logic dictates something outside of physical nature created physical nature. We can vaguely define that as Spiritual Nature.

What type of logic would assume a non physical entity can create something out of nothing? Sounds more like magic than logic

Lots of things sound like magic... quantum entanglement, for example.

Which is amazing, but not necessarily a miracle of the creator or supreme being.

 

[Boss]

Please do the math,what are the statistical probabilities that,life managed to form,that same life managed to keep itself alive,then after that found a way to reproduce,before it died as all life here does at some point.

Goes WAY beyond that. First you need to explain how we became a water world, and it needs to be an explanation which also explains why only our planet has water. They used to say.. well, meteorites brought the water here over millions of years. (This was based on a meteorite they found which contained a salt crystal with a tiny droplet of water inside.) However, they've dated Earth to 4.2 billion years old and recently discovered the oldest Earth rock, which is 4 billion years old. Problem is, studying it's composition we discovered it was created under water. So the young earth at 200 million years was already covered in water.

That's a lot of meteorites in a short period of time, relatively speaking. And why didn't Mars or the Moon, or any other planets receive this life-giving gift of abundant water? Ahh... well the reason there is, the Earth has a molten iron-nickel core which enables an atmosphere... this also requires explanation. It seems our planet, at some point after material coalesced due to gravity, was essentially "cooked" at a very high temperature, which caused the heavier elements (iron and nickel) to sink and lighter elements of the mantle and crust to rise. But again, how did our planet get "cooked" but not the moon or other planets?

Speaking of the moon, it has to be up there pulling on the ocean tides or our oceans become stagnant pools which no life could survive in. When some larger body careened into our planet to form the moon, it also caused a unique wobbling rotation of our planet which gives us seasons and ocean convection as well as climate. Again, seasons are vital to almost all life. As you can see, there are LOTS of mathematical improbabilities that have happened in our journey before we ever get to a point where life can even exist. We haven't even touched origin yet.

Speculations abound over how the very first living organism came to be. Regardless of the theory, we have never been able to produce a living organism of any kind from inorganic material. We have the most sophisticated labs with all the latest nuclear technology and despite our best efforts, we cannot make this happen. Yet... somehow it happened by random chance. (supposedly) and everything evolved from there (supposedly).

Every form of living organism contains a DNA molecule which depends on 27 or so amino acids and 40-90 enzymes and proteins created by those amino acids. The chance of any one amino acid or enzyme being randomly created from a mutation is 10^180 ...that's greater than the amount of all atoms in the universe. Yet, in order to account for all the interdependent and symbiotic relationships found in life, this had to happen millions and millions of times and it had to happen very rapidly because, well, symbiotic means what it implies.

Actually comets are hypothesized, not meteorites.

During the early formation of the planet is is thought to have been constantly hit with meteorites and comets (raising its temperature). 200 million years is a long time. The current explanation for the core is that while Earth (and all of the other planets) formed it was extremely hot and as it cooled the nickel and iron elements would have attracted eachother due to magnetism and gravity thereby forming the planet's core. The core being those heavier elements gives the planet more mass enabling it to retain an atmosphere but not because it's molten but spinning: that gives the planet an electro-magnetosphere which protects it (and all life on it) from cosmic and solar radiation.

There is substantial evidence that Mars did have water and still does in the form of ice. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere and therefore wouldn't have retained any water.

The tides and seasons are necessary for life as we know it. Perhaps not necessary for all possible forms of life.

That we don't know how life formed does not necessarily mean God did it: god of the gaps argument and argument from ignorance fallacy.

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. Around each of those stars there may be planetary systems of one or more planets. That one of those planets out of all possible worlds has the right conditions for life to arise should be of no surprise.

Lots of disputable information in your post. How come Mars doesn't have the same atmosphere as Earth? Or the same molten iron-nickel core, for that matter? How is it that Earth's atmosphere largely depends on greenhouse gases mostly comprised of water vapor but you say the atmosphere is what enabled Earth to retain water? Cart before the horse, isn't it?

And sorry... "perhaps not necessary for all forms of life" is irrelevant until we find other forms of life, isn't it? What we know is, life as we know it couldn't exist without seasons and tides. The ocean itself, could not function as an environment suitable for life if not for seasons, tides and climate.

You SAY that life elsewhere wouldn't be a surprise because of all the billions and trillions of planets... but I'm saying, why is life not prevalent everywhere, if it were merely a result of random things in nature happening? If the building blocks of life are there and it's so simple to explain.. why isn't it everywhere?

 

[Boss]

It does not logically follow that something outside of physical nature is required to create physical nature.

Sure it does. Something that is non-existent can't create itself.

 

[Boss]

Which is amazing, but not necessarily a miracle of the creator or supreme being.

The problem is you're interjecting the word "being" into the conversation. I mentioned no being.

From my perspective, a "being" would be an entity in the state of physical being. I don't think such an entity created physical nature.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Stop trying to make this ridiculous argument that someone's religion belongs alongside science. It doesn't.

What's funny, IsaacNewton, is the real Isaac Newton would laugh his ass off at you. I hate to tell you this but people's religion is along side them no matter what they do. If they are teaching or learning science, if they are passing or voting against legislation... their religious beliefs are right there with them and there's not a whole lot you're going to ever do about that.

Teaching about the theory of Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity, is not teaching a religion. It can be taught without any deference to religion. In fact, myself and many others who would favor teaching ID would insist that it be that way. I don't want any religious view being taught but that also includes YOUR religious view that God doesn't exist. No one ever agreed to elevate your religion above all others.

Regardless of whether you believe ID is religious bunk, it's still a legitimate theory and will remain one until you can refute it. We cannot simply teach things we like and dismiss things that make us uncomfortable. Can you imagine what sort of fucked up world that would produce? And, since Evolution theory regards the evolution of existing life and ID theory deals with the origin of life, it is completely possible for both theories to be valid. One doesn't negate the other, they are not competing theories. In fact, they don't even deal with the same thing. They are both associated with "irreducible complexity" which is a phrase first found in Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.

Isaac Newton is laughing in your face, along with Einstein, Galileo, and Copernicus.

Teach your religious fantasy in your home or your church. Just like every other religion. There are 300,000 churches in the US, I think there are plenty of venues to get your flying grandpa theories out there. Knock yourself out.

And you don't get to label everyone else as believing in a 'religion' like you do. Your religion is not based on fact or evidence, it is based on feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs. Science relies on evidence.

You read a few articles and like to portray yourself as 'educated' on a few subjects but you aren't. You just use things to try to fit your religious beliefs into rational evidence based science.

This is a new convention for the religious minded kristian in the US. It is a phoney attempt to try to put 'belief' on the same level as 'evidence'. Do whatever mental gymnastics your mind feels compelled to do to try to make yourself feel better about believing in fairies.

They are still fairies.


'intelligent design' is neither. It is farce dreamed up by the current crop of bible thumpers to try to give their beliefs gravitas in academia and the public. But it is farce, it is not 'legitimate'.

Well... Unlike Newton, I do not have a religion. I also didn't attend a religious college like Newton or devote much study to biblical chronology and alchemy. But... Similar to Newton, I believe in what he defined as a "mercurial spirit coursing through our universe" and I don't believe in the Holy Trinity.

Your post is full of seething hate and venom. Anyone with a rational mind can objectively see this in the choice of words and phrases you use. This is a hallmark of people devoid of spiritual connection and faith. When your morals are no longer grounded in something greater than self, you devolve into a lesser animal. You have fallen from your higher state. Ultimately, you become more and more demonic. Less and less caring for humanity. It's a gradual change and you don't notice it yourself but others do, as I have pointed it out here.

I agree that the post is certainly angry and all that, but I do not agree that nonbelievers devolve into lesser animals or become demonic and less caring of others.

 

[rightwinger]

Logic also supports God because the physical cannot create itself

Who made God?
Where is your scientific fact for that?

God doesn't have to be made because God is not physical.

Do you have scientific evidence to support your theory?

How does something not physical create something physical? What is your hypothesis?

Simple.. it's the only rational and logical explanation. Physical nature exists. It either always existed which means it defies it's own laws of thermodynamics and entropy... OR it began existing at some point, presumably at the creation of the physical universe. It can't create itself because it doesn't exist. So logic dictates something outside of physical nature created physical nature. We can vaguely define that as Spiritual Nature.

What type of logic would assume a non physical entity can create something out of nothing? Sounds more like magic than logic

Lots of things sound like magic... quantum entanglement, for example.

Again you lack scientific evidence to support you hypothesis of an intelligent non physical entity.
There are reams of biological, fossil, geologic and DNA evidence supporting the the process of evolution is a fact

You lack such evidence

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Please do the math,what are the statistical probabilities that,life managed to form,that same life managed to keep itself alive,then after that found a way to reproduce,before it died as all life here does at some point.

Goes WAY beyond that. First you need to explain how we became a water world, and it needs to be an explanation which also explains why only our planet has water. They used to say.. well, meteorites brought the water here over millions of years. (This was based on a meteorite they found which contained a salt crystal with a tiny droplet of water inside.) However, they've dated Earth to 4.2 billion years old and recently discovered the oldest Earth rock, which is 4 billion years old. Problem is, studying it's composition we discovered it was created under water. So the young earth at 200 million years was already covered in water.

That's a lot of meteorites in a short period of time, relatively speaking. And why didn't Mars or the Moon, or any other planets receive this life-giving gift of abundant water? Ahh... well the reason there is, the Earth has a molten iron-nickel core which enables an atmosphere... this also requires explanation. It seems our planet, at some point after material coalesced due to gravity, was essentially "cooked" at a very high temperature, which caused the heavier elements (iron and nickel) to sink and lighter elements of the mantle and crust to rise. But again, how did our planet get "cooked" but not the moon or other planets?

Speaking of the moon, it has to be up there pulling on the ocean tides or our oceans become stagnant pools which no life could survive in. When some larger body careened into our planet to form the moon, it also caused a unique wobbling rotation of our planet which gives us seasons and ocean convection as well as climate. Again, seasons are vital to almost all life. As you can see, there are LOTS of mathematical improbabilities that have happened in our journey before we ever get to a point where life can even exist. We haven't even touched origin yet.

Speculations abound over how the very first living organism came to be. Regardless of the theory, we have never been able to produce a living organism of any kind from inorganic material. We have the most sophisticated labs with all the latest nuclear technology and despite our best efforts, we cannot make this happen. Yet... somehow it happened by random chance. (supposedly) and everything evolved from there (supposedly).

Every form of living organism contains a DNA molecule which depends on 27 or so amino acids and 40-90 enzymes and proteins created by those amino acids. The chance of any one amino acid or enzyme being randomly created from a mutation is 10^180 ...that's greater than the amount of all atoms in the universe. Yet, in order to account for all the interdependent and symbiotic relationships found in life, this had to happen millions and millions of times and it had to happen very rapidly because, well, symbiotic means what it implies.

Actually comets are hypothesized, not meteorites.

During the early formation of the planet is is thought to have been constantly hit with meteorites and comets (raising its temperature). 200 million years is a long time. The current explanation for the core is that while Earth (and all of the other planets) formed it was extremely hot and as it cooled the nickel and iron elements would have attracted eachother due to magnetism and gravity thereby forming the planet's core. The core being those heavier elements gives the planet more mass enabling it to retain an atmosphere but not because it's molten but spinning: that gives the planet an electro-magnetosphere which protects it (and all life on it) from cosmic and solar radiation.

There is substantial evidence that Mars did have water and still does in the form of ice. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere and therefore wouldn't have retained any water.

The tides and seasons are necessary for life as we know it. Perhaps not necessary for all possible forms of life.

That we don't know how life formed does not necessarily mean God did it: god of the gaps argument and argument from ignorance fallacy.

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. Around each of those stars there may be planetary systems of one or more planets. That one of those planets out of all possible worlds has the right conditions for life to arise should be of no surprise.

Lots of disputable information in your post. How come Mars doesn't have the same atmosphere as Earth? Or the same molten iron-nickel core, for that matter? How is it that Earth's atmosphere largely depends on greenhouse gases mostly comprised of water vapor but you say the atmosphere is what enabled Earth to retain water? Cart before the horse, isn't it?

And sorry... "perhaps not necessary for all forms of life" is irrelevant until we find other forms of life, isn't it? What we know is, life as we know it couldn't exist without seasons and tides. The ocean itself, could not function as an environment suitable for life if not for seasons, tides and climate.

You SAY that life elsewhere wouldn't be a surprise because of all the billions and trillions of planets... but I'm saying, why is life not prevalent everywhere, if it were merely a result of random things in nature happening? If the building blocks of life are there and it's so simple to explain.. why isn't it everywhere?

Mars doesn't have as much mass as Earth and so doesn't have as much gravity as Earth to retain as much atmosphere as Earth. The make-up of Earth's atmosphere is also partly the result of life and geologic activity (active volcanoes, tectonic movement, among many other factors) making it's make-up different than Mars.

Plaanetary mass and location are also a factors in planetary cooling. Mars is a smaller planet and further from the Sun which is why it is currently tectonically dead.

Because we can only currently speculate as to how other forms of life may arise or survive does not negate that we don't know what we don't know. We only know life that has formed on this planet. Perhaps it is the only kind of life that can form. Perhaps it is the only life that has formed anywhere ever or will ever, but we don't know that. So I don't find it a particularly strong argument that only life as we know it can form.

I don't think the building blocks of life are simple. The conditions, so far as we know, seem to be very narrowly defined. Most of the Universe is too harsh for life to form. That is why it is not apparently abundant.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It does not logically follow that something outside of physical nature is required to create physical nature.

Sure it does. Something that is non-existent can't create itself.

That wasn't my criticism of your logic. My criticism is that we don't know enough about physical reality, and we know nothing about non-physical reality, to know what would be logical or not regarding how the physical universe came to be.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Which is amazing, but not necessarily a miracle of the creator or supreme being.

The problem is you're interjecting the word "being" into the conversation. I mentioned no being.

From my perspective, a "being" would be an entity in the state of physical being. I don't think such an entity created physical nature.

The word wasn't meant to imply anything - just placeholder for whatever you wish to define as the creator or creative force of the Universe.

 

[Boss]

Please do the math,what are the statistical probabilities that,life managed to form,that same life managed to keep itself alive,then after that found a way to reproduce,before it died as all life here does at some point.

Goes WAY beyond that. First you need to explain how we became a water world, and it needs to be an explanation which also explains why only our planet has water. They used to say.. well, meteorites brought the water here over millions of years. (This was based on a meteorite they found which contained a salt crystal with a tiny droplet of water inside.) However, they've dated Earth to 4.2 billion years old and recently discovered the oldest Earth rock, which is 4 billion years old. Problem is, studying it's composition we discovered it was created under water. So the young earth at 200 million years was already covered in water.

That's a lot of meteorites in a short period of time, relatively speaking. And why didn't Mars or the Moon, or any other planets receive this life-giving gift of abundant water? Ahh... well the reason there is, the Earth has a molten iron-nickel core which enables an atmosphere... this also requires explanation. It seems our planet, at some point after material coalesced due to gravity, was essentially "cooked" at a very high temperature, which caused the heavier elements (iron and nickel) to sink and lighter elements of the mantle and crust to rise. But again, how did our planet get "cooked" but not the moon or other planets?

Speaking of the moon, it has to be up there pulling on the ocean tides or our oceans become stagnant pools which no life could survive in. When some larger body careened into our planet to form the moon, it also caused a unique wobbling rotation of our planet which gives us seasons and ocean convection as well as climate. Again, seasons are vital to almost all life. As you can see, there are LOTS of mathematical improbabilities that have happened in our journey before we ever get to a point where life can even exist. We haven't even touched origin yet.

Speculations abound over how the very first living organism came to be. Regardless of the theory, we have never been able to produce a living organism of any kind from inorganic material. We have the most sophisticated labs with all the latest nuclear technology and despite our best efforts, we cannot make this happen. Yet... somehow it happened by random chance. (supposedly) and everything evolved from there (supposedly).

Every form of living organism contains a DNA molecule which depends on 27 or so amino acids and 40-90 enzymes and proteins created by those amino acids. The chance of any one amino acid or enzyme being randomly created from a mutation is 10^180 ...that's greater than the amount of all atoms in the universe. Yet, in order to account for all the interdependent and symbiotic relationships found in life, this had to happen millions and millions of times and it had to happen very rapidly because, well, symbiotic means what it implies.

Actually comets are hypothesized, not meteorites.

During the early formation of the planet is is thought to have been constantly hit with meteorites and comets (raising its temperature). 200 million years is a long time. The current explanation for the core is that while Earth (and all of the other planets) formed it was extremely hot and as it cooled the nickel and iron elements would have attracted eachother due to magnetism and gravity thereby forming the planet's core. The core being those heavier elements gives the planet more mass enabling it to retain an atmosphere but not because it's molten but spinning: that gives the planet an electro-magnetosphere which protects it (and all life on it) from cosmic and solar radiation.

There is substantial evidence that Mars did have water and still does in the form of ice. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere and therefore wouldn't have retained any water.

The tides and seasons are necessary for life as we know it. Perhaps not necessary for all possible forms of life.

That we don't know how life formed does not necessarily mean God did it: god of the gaps argument and argument from ignorance fallacy.

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. Around each of those stars there may be planetary systems of one or more planets. That one of those planets out of all possible worlds has the right conditions for life to arise should be of no surprise.

Lots of disputable information in your post. How come Mars doesn't have the same atmosphere as Earth? Or the same molten iron-nickel core, for that matter? How is it that Earth's atmosphere largely depends on greenhouse gases mostly comprised of water vapor but you say the atmosphere is what enabled Earth to retain water? Cart before the horse, isn't it?

And sorry... "perhaps not necessary for all forms of life" is irrelevant until we find other forms of life, isn't it? What we know is, life as we know it couldn't exist without seasons and tides. The ocean itself, could not function as an environment suitable for life if not for seasons, tides and climate.

You SAY that life elsewhere wouldn't be a surprise because of all the billions and trillions of planets... but I'm saying, why is life not prevalent everywhere, if it were merely a result of random things in nature happening? If the building blocks of life are there and it's so simple to explain.. why isn't it everywhere?

Mars doesn't have as much mass as Earth and so doesn't have as much gravity as Earth to retain as much atmosphere as Earth. The make-up of Earth's atmosphere is also partly the result of life and geologic activity (active volcanoes, tectonic movement, among many other factors) making it's make-up different than Mars.

Plaanetary mass and location are also a factors in planetary cooling. Mars is a smaller planet and further from the Sun which is why it is currently tectonically dead.

Because we can only currently speculate as to how other forms of life may arise or survive does not negate that we don't know what we don't know. We only know life that has formed on this planet. Perhaps it is the only kind of life that can form. Perhaps it is the only life that has formed anywhere ever or will ever, but we don't know that. So I don't find it a particularly strong argument that only life as we know it can form.

I don't think the building blocks of life are simple. The conditions, so far as we know, seem to be very narrowly defined. Most of the Universe is too harsh for life to form. That is why it is not apparently abundant.

And yet it is so easily explained away with speculative theories that have no basis in science or logic. You're even having difficultly explaining how we "lucked out" and managed to get all the assorted variables to fall into place here on Earth to enable life to exist. Add to this the cosmological constant which has to be precise to within .000000000000000000001% or the universe as we know it cannot function as it does and not even our miraculous planet can exist.

But I do agree... we don't know what we don't know... we don't even really know what we know for certain. Many times, we thought we knew... only to find we didn't know at all. So to automatically discount and dismiss the possibility of a force beyond our comprehension which could have guided the process or created the physical universe and reality we exist in, all because you are pissed off at religious people who condemn your immorality, is foolish. And...it's certainly NOT SCIENCE.

 

[Boss]

Which is amazing, but not necessarily a miracle of the creator or supreme being.

The problem is you're interjecting the word "being" into the conversation. I mentioned no being.

From my perspective, a "being" would be an entity in the state of physical being. I don't think such an entity created physical nature.

The word wasn't meant to imply anything - just placeholder for whatever you wish to define as the creator or creative force of the Universe.

But words DO have implications. Some people envision God as a man-like entity sitting on a throne in the clouds with a white robe, etc. I don't believe in such an entity. To me, God is a placeholder for the force beyond the physical which is part of nature... in other words, it is not supernatural. It is metaphysical.

 

[Boss]

Stop trying to make this ridiculous argument that someone's religion belongs alongside science. It doesn't.

What's funny, IsaacNewton, is the real Isaac Newton would laugh his ass off at you. I hate to tell you this but people's religion is along side them no matter what they do. If they are teaching or learning science, if they are passing or voting against legislation... their religious beliefs are right there with them and there's not a whole lot you're going to ever do about that.

Teaching about the theory of Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity, is not teaching a religion. It can be taught without any deference to religion. In fact, myself and many others who would favor teaching ID would insist that it be that way. I don't want any religious view being taught but that also includes YOUR religious view that God doesn't exist. No one ever agreed to elevate your religion above all others.

Regardless of whether you believe ID is religious bunk, it's still a legitimate theory and will remain one until you can refute it. We cannot simply teach things we like and dismiss things that make us uncomfortable. Can you imagine what sort of fucked up world that would produce? And, since Evolution theory regards the evolution of existing life and ID theory deals with the origin of life, it is completely possible for both theories to be valid. One doesn't negate the other, they are not competing theories. In fact, they don't even deal with the same thing. They are both associated with "irreducible complexity" which is a phrase first found in Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.

Isaac Newton is laughing in your face, along with Einstein, Galileo, and Copernicus.

Teach your religious fantasy in your home or your church. Just like every other religion. There are 300,000 churches in the US, I think there are plenty of venues to get your flying grandpa theories out there. Knock yourself out.

And you don't get to label everyone else as believing in a 'religion' like you do. Your religion is not based on fact or evidence, it is based on feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs. Science relies on evidence.

You read a few articles and like to portray yourself as 'educated' on a few subjects but you aren't. You just use things to try to fit your religious beliefs into rational evidence based science.

This is a new convention for the religious minded kristian in the US. It is a phoney attempt to try to put 'belief' on the same level as 'evidence'. Do whatever mental gymnastics your mind feels compelled to do to try to make yourself feel better about believing in fairies.

They are still fairies.


'intelligent design' is neither. It is farce dreamed up by the current crop of bible thumpers to try to give their beliefs gravitas in academia and the public. But it is farce, it is not 'legitimate'.

Well... Unlike Newton, I do not have a religion. I also didn't attend a religious college like Newton or devote much study to biblical chronology and alchemy. But... Similar to Newton, I believe in what he defined as a "mercurial spirit coursing through our universe" and I don't believe in the Holy Trinity.

Your post is full of seething hate and venom. Anyone with a rational mind can objectively see this in the choice of words and phrases you use. This is a hallmark of people devoid of spiritual connection and faith. When your morals are no longer grounded in something greater than self, you devolve into a lesser animal. You have fallen from your higher state. Ultimately, you become more and more demonic. Less and less caring for humanity. It's a gradual change and you don't notice it yourself but others do, as I have pointed it out here.

I agree that the post is certainly angry and all that, but I do not agree that nonbelievers devolve into lesser animals or become demonic and less caring of others.

But again, you are interjecting words that I haven't used. I consider myself a "nonbeliever" because there are lots of things I don't believe in. I believe that all organized religion is inherently flawed and self-contradictory because it is the creation of man who is not flawless. I can respect the religious because I think they are nurturing their spiritual connection in a way they can relate. Although, that doesn't mean I automatically assume all religious people are good or all non-religious people are bad.

Many people mask their spirituality for fear of criticism. Some of the biggest believers in God are Atheists... or so they claim to be. While some of the most reprehensible humans hide behind their religious professions. Others simply replace their spiritual faith with faith in something else, like science, for example. But generally speaking, people who do not have a core belief in something greater than self, have a real problem maintaining a genuine moral compass. They talk a good game, they just find a way to justify whatever pleases them in the moment... because there is nothing holding them accountable. These people tend to become more demonic and less human over time and they never realize it.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Stop trying to make this ridiculous argument that someone's religion belongs alongside science. It doesn't.

What's funny, IsaacNewton, is the real Isaac Newton would laugh his ass off at you. I hate to tell you this but people's religion is along side them no matter what they do. If they are teaching or learning science, if they are passing or voting against legislation... their religious beliefs are right there with them and there's not a whole lot you're going to ever do about that.

Teaching about the theory of Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity, is not teaching a religion. It can be taught without any deference to religion. In fact, myself and many others who would favor teaching ID would insist that it be that way. I don't want any religious view being taught but that also includes YOUR religious view that God doesn't exist. No one ever agreed to elevate your religion above all others.

Regardless of whether you believe ID is religious bunk, it's still a legitimate theory and will remain one until you can refute it. We cannot simply teach things we like and dismiss things that make us uncomfortable. Can you imagine what sort of fucked up world that would produce? And, since Evolution theory regards the evolution of existing life and ID theory deals with the origin of life, it is completely possible for both theories to be valid. One doesn't negate the other, they are not competing theories. In fact, they don't even deal with the same thing. They are both associated with "irreducible complexity" which is a phrase first found in Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.

Isaac Newton is laughing in your face, along with Einstein, Galileo, and Copernicus.

Teach your religious fantasy in your home or your church. Just like every other religion. There are 300,000 churches in the US, I think there are plenty of venues to get your flying grandpa theories out there. Knock yourself out.

And you don't get to label everyone else as believing in a 'religion' like you do. Your religion is not based on fact or evidence, it is based on feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs. Science relies on evidence.

You read a few articles and like to portray yourself as 'educated' on a few subjects but you aren't. You just use things to try to fit your religious beliefs into rational evidence based science.

This is a new convention for the religious minded kristian in the US. It is a phoney attempt to try to put 'belief' on the same level as 'evidence'. Do whatever mental gymnastics your mind feels compelled to do to try to make yourself feel better about believing in fairies.

They are still fairies.


'intelligent design' is neither. It is farce dreamed up by the current crop of bible thumpers to try to give their beliefs gravitas in academia and the public. But it is farce, it is not 'legitimate'.

Well... Unlike Newton, I do not have a religion. I also didn't attend a religious college like Newton or devote much study to biblical chronology and alchemy. But... Similar to Newton, I believe in what he defined as a "mercurial spirit coursing through our universe" and I don't believe in the Holy Trinity.

Your post is full of seething hate and venom. Anyone with a rational mind can objectively see this in the choice of words and phrases you use. This is a hallmark of people devoid of spiritual connection and faith. When your morals are no longer grounded in something greater than self, you devolve into a lesser animal. You have fallen from your higher state. Ultimately, you become more and more demonic. Less and less caring for humanity. It's a gradual change and you don't notice it yourself but others do, as I have pointed it out here.

I agree that the post is certainly angry and all that, but I do not agree that nonbelievers devolve into lesser animals or become demonic and less caring of others.

You don't need to feed the troll, he likes to read his own inner feelings into what others say. Anger? LOL Only at the religious types who lie with every breath they can muster because they know their worldview is slowing going bye bye because it doesn't have any evidence to support it.

I've tried discussion with 'boss' before, not only does he try to defend magic he does so in a dishonest way by claiming anyone who doesn't believe as he does also has a 'religion' yada yada yada. This is also a red herring the religious crowd has come up with relatively recently to try to drag evidence based science down into the same cesspool as believing in magic and invisible flying gods.

No anger, just derision for people that cannot put forth an honest argument and rely on a list of fallacies and never deviate from them. I view these people as desperate to shore up their shaky beliefs so all their arguments devolve into "I know you are but what am I".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Please do the math,what are the statistical probabilities that,life managed to form,that same life managed to keep itself alive,then after that found a way to reproduce,before it died as all life here does at some point.

Goes WAY beyond that. First you need to explain how we became a water world, and it needs to be an explanation which also explains why only our planet has water. They used to say.. well, meteorites brought the water here over millions of years. (This was based on a meteorite they found which contained a salt crystal with a tiny droplet of water inside.) However, they've dated Earth to 4.2 billion years old and recently discovered the oldest Earth rock, which is 4 billion years old. Problem is, studying it's composition we discovered it was created under water. So the young earth at 200 million years was already covered in water.

That's a lot of meteorites in a short period of time, relatively speaking. And why didn't Mars or the Moon, or any other planets receive this life-giving gift of abundant water? Ahh... well the reason there is, the Earth has a molten iron-nickel core which enables an atmosphere... this also requires explanation. It seems our planet, at some point after material coalesced due to gravity, was essentially "cooked" at a very high temperature, which caused the heavier elements (iron and nickel) to sink and lighter elements of the mantle and crust to rise. But again, how did our planet get "cooked" but not the moon or other planets?

Speaking of the moon, it has to be up there pulling on the ocean tides or our oceans become stagnant pools which no life could survive in. When some larger body careened into our planet to form the moon, it also caused a unique wobbling rotation of our planet which gives us seasons and ocean convection as well as climate. Again, seasons are vital to almost all life. As you can see, there are LOTS of mathematical improbabilities that have happened in our journey before we ever get to a point where life can even exist. We haven't even touched origin yet.

Speculations abound over how the very first living organism came to be. Regardless of the theory, we have never been able to produce a living organism of any kind from inorganic material. We have the most sophisticated labs with all the latest nuclear technology and despite our best efforts, we cannot make this happen. Yet... somehow it happened by random chance. (supposedly) and everything evolved from there (supposedly).

Every form of living organism contains a DNA molecule which depends on 27 or so amino acids and 40-90 enzymes and proteins created by those amino acids. The chance of any one amino acid or enzyme being randomly created from a mutation is 10^180 ...that's greater than the amount of all atoms in the universe. Yet, in order to account for all the interdependent and symbiotic relationships found in life, this had to happen millions and millions of times and it had to happen very rapidly because, well, symbiotic means what it implies.

Actually comets are hypothesized, not meteorites.

During the early formation of the planet is is thought to have been constantly hit with meteorites and comets (raising its temperature). 200 million years is a long time. The current explanation for the core is that while Earth (and all of the other planets) formed it was extremely hot and as it cooled the nickel and iron elements would have attracted eachother due to magnetism and gravity thereby forming the planet's core. The core being those heavier elements gives the planet more mass enabling it to retain an atmosphere but not because it's molten but spinning: that gives the planet an electro-magnetosphere which protects it (and all life on it) from cosmic and solar radiation.

There is substantial evidence that Mars did have water and still does in the form of ice. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere and therefore wouldn't have retained any water.

The tides and seasons are necessary for life as we know it. Perhaps not necessary for all possible forms of life.

That we don't know how life formed does not necessarily mean God did it: god of the gaps argument and argument from ignorance fallacy.

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. Around each of those stars there may be planetary systems of one or more planets. That one of those planets out of all possible worlds has the right conditions for life to arise should be of no surprise.

Lots of disputable information in your post. How come Mars doesn't have the same atmosphere as Earth? Or the same molten iron-nickel core, for that matter? How is it that Earth's atmosphere largely depends on greenhouse gases mostly comprised of water vapor but you say the atmosphere is what enabled Earth to retain water? Cart before the horse, isn't it?

And sorry... "perhaps not necessary for all forms of life" is irrelevant until we find other forms of life, isn't it? What we know is, life as we know it couldn't exist without seasons and tides. The ocean itself, could not function as an environment suitable for life if not for seasons, tides and climate.

You SAY that life elsewhere wouldn't be a surprise because of all the billions and trillions of planets... but I'm saying, why is life not prevalent everywhere, if it were merely a result of random things in nature happening? If the building blocks of life are there and it's so simple to explain.. why isn't it everywhere?

Mars doesn't have as much mass as Earth and so doesn't have as much gravity as Earth to retain as much atmosphere as Earth. The make-up of Earth's atmosphere is also partly the result of life and geologic activity (active volcanoes, tectonic movement, among many other factors) making it's make-up different than Mars.

Plaanetary mass and location are also a factors in planetary cooling. Mars is a smaller planet and further from the Sun which is why it is currently tectonically dead.

Because we can only currently speculate as to how other forms of life may arise or survive does not negate that we don't know what we don't know. We only know life that has formed on this planet. Perhaps it is the only kind of life that can form. Perhaps it is the only life that has formed anywhere ever or will ever, but we don't know that. So I don't find it a particularly strong argument that only life as we know it can form.

I don't think the building blocks of life are simple. The conditions, so far as we know, seem to be very narrowly defined. Most of the Universe is too harsh for life to form. That is why it is not apparently abundant.

And yet it is so easily explained away with speculative theories that have no basis in science or logic. You're even having difficultly explaining how we "lucked out" and managed to get all the assorted variables to fall into place here on Earth to enable life to exist. Add to this the cosmological constant which has to be precise to within .000000000000000000001% or the universe as we know it cannot function as it does and not even our miraculous planet can exist.

But I do agree... we don't know what we don't know... we don't even really know what we know for certain. Many times, we thought we knew... only to find we didn't know at all. So to automatically discount and dismiss the possibility of a force beyond our comprehension which could have guided the process or created the physical universe and reality we exist in, all because you are pissed off at religious people who condemn your immorality, is foolish. And...it's certainly NOT SCIENCE.

I think you're confusing me with some of the other posters on this thread. I'm not pissed off at religious people. I do not discount the possibility of a creator or creative force. I'm agnostic about that question.

I think the perception that there was a string of seemingly extremely improbable events that could only have been guided by an higher power to result in life, or life only on this planet, is looking at the entite thing incorrectly. A lottery winner has a tiny chance of winning, but someone wins the lottery.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Stop trying to make this ridiculous argument that someone's religion belongs alongside science. It doesn't.

What's funny, IsaacNewton, is the real Isaac Newton would laugh his ass off at you. I hate to tell you this but people's religion is along side them no matter what they do. If they are teaching or learning science, if they are passing or voting against legislation... their religious beliefs are right there with them and there's not a whole lot you're going to ever do about that.

Teaching about the theory of Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity, is not teaching a religion. It can be taught without any deference to religion. In fact, myself and many others who would favor teaching ID would insist that it be that way. I don't want any religious view being taught but that also includes YOUR religious view that God doesn't exist. No one ever agreed to elevate your religion above all others.

Regardless of whether you believe ID is religious bunk, it's still a legitimate theory and will remain one until you can refute it. We cannot simply teach things we like and dismiss things that make us uncomfortable. Can you imagine what sort of fucked up world that would produce? And, since Evolution theory regards the evolution of existing life and ID theory deals with the origin of life, it is completely possible for both theories to be valid. One doesn't negate the other, they are not competing theories. In fact, they don't even deal with the same thing. They are both associated with "irreducible complexity" which is a phrase first found in Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.

Isaac Newton is laughing in your face, along with Einstein, Galileo, and Copernicus.

Teach your religious fantasy in your home or your church. Just like every other religion. There are 300,000 churches in the US, I think there are plenty of venues to get your flying grandpa theories out there. Knock yourself out.

And you don't get to label everyone else as believing in a 'religion' like you do. Your religion is not based on fact or evidence, it is based on feelings and unsubstantiated beliefs. Science relies on evidence.

You read a few articles and like to portray yourself as 'educated' on a few subjects but you aren't. You just use things to try to fit your religious beliefs into rational evidence based science.

This is a new convention for the religious minded kristian in the US. It is a phoney attempt to try to put 'belief' on the same level as 'evidence'. Do whatever mental gymnastics your mind feels compelled to do to try to make yourself feel better about believing in fairies.

They are still fairies.


'intelligent design' is neither. It is farce dreamed up by the current crop of bible thumpers to try to give their beliefs gravitas in academia and the public. But it is farce, it is not 'legitimate'.

Well... Unlike Newton, I do not have a religion. I also didn't attend a religious college like Newton or devote much study to biblical chronology and alchemy. But... Similar to Newton, I believe in what he defined as a "mercurial spirit coursing through our universe" and I don't believe in the Holy Trinity.

Your post is full of seething hate and venom. Anyone with a rational mind can objectively see this in the choice of words and phrases you use. This is a hallmark of people devoid of spiritual connection and faith. When your morals are no longer grounded in something greater than self, you devolve into a lesser animal. You have fallen from your higher state. Ultimately, you become more and more demonic. Less and less caring for humanity. It's a gradual change and you don't notice it yourself but others do, as I have pointed it out here.

I agree that the post is certainly angry and all that, but I do not agree that nonbelievers devolve into lesser animals or become demonic and less caring of others.

But again, you are interjecting words that I haven't used. I consider myself a "nonbeliever" because there are lots of things I don't believe in. I believe that all organized religion is inherently flawed and self-contradictory because it is the creation of man who is not flawless. I can respect the religious because I think they are nurturing their spiritual connection in a way they can relate. Although, that doesn't mean I automatically assume all religious people are good or all non-religious people are bad.

Many people mask their spirituality for fear of criticism. Some of the biggest believers in God are Atheists... or so they claim to be. While some of the most reprehensible humans hide behind their religious professions. Others simply replace their spiritual faith with faith in something else, like science, for example. But generally speaking, people who do not have a core belief in something greater than self, have a real problem maintaining a genuine moral compass. They talk a good game, they just find a way to justify whatever pleases them in the moment... because there is nothing holding them accountable. These people tend to become more demonic and less human over time and they never realize it.

You're speculating about other people's psychology. I don't believe in something greater than myself and I hold myself accountable. I don't murder, steal, cheat, lie (well, anymore than anyone else and less than some); I'm not hedonistic, inconsiderate, or a sociopath. I don't feel the need to be supervised in order to be moral, and I wouldn't truly be moral if I did.

I don't mean to assume you're a Christian or any other religiously affiliated person. Pardon me for doing so. But you do practice a faith in a higher power. I don't believe in science as though it were a religion. I don't believe in the theories of evolution or the big bang theory, or any other scientific theory. I trust science, but not blindly or without skepticism. Faith in something vague or undetectable without sufficient evidence is not something I find satisfactory.

 

[Boss]

I think you're confusing me with some of the other posters on this thread. I'm not pissed off at religious people. I do not discount the possibility of a creator or creative force. I'm agnostic about that question.

I think the perception that there was a string of seemingly extremely improbable events that could only have been guided by an higher power to result in life, or life only on this planet, is looking at the entite thing incorrectly. A lottery winner has a tiny chance of winning, but someone wins the lottery.

I wasn't referencing you in particular. I think the perception there was a string of known improbable events which all had to occur for life to exist at all, must be the work of some force beyond our comprehension because no one wins the lottery thousands of times consecutively. I think any other way of looking at it is illogical and irrational.

To expound on your lottery analogy, can you imagine the probability of anyone winning three mega lotteries at precisely the same instant? Before we can even discuss carbon-based life or carbon-based anything, that had to happen. It's called the triple-alpha process. And that is just the initial kick-starter of improbable lottery wins which all had to happen in order for life as we know it to exist.

Now maybe life can still exist without all the variables which enable life as we know it, but so far, we haven't discovered any life on any place other than Earth. If the universe is full of the building blocks for life, you'd think it would be more abundant... instead, we've found none.