Religious Right, right?

[moxdevil]

Scientists don't profess to answer nor know everything. That is the theist’s caricature only. Theists, if anybody, claim to 'know' things others don't, the problem is when they have to prove what they claim to know. They resort to gibberish or vaguely defined terms. THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ON THE THEIST TO SUPPORT THEIR IDEAS IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT CONFORM TO SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS, STANDARDS THAT REFLECT RATIONALITY. The theist twisting science and rationality to meet their assumptions is complete dishonesty.

And Cable, why do you hold the majority's opinion over expertise all the time. This will support your religious beliefs as the majority profess a religious belief but you're left with other stupidities that they happen to believe also. You should know that the majority takes its cue from those in power. By your logic every citizen in Soviet Russia knew there was no gods, rationally, as indicated by their atheism. Now, this goes without saying as being completely untrue. Don't resort to mob rule to support your beliefs.

Look up big bang theories, not all claim it came from nothing, you for your own benefit wish to couch it in such terms, but the reality is its just weak analogy to compare it with creationism.

"Widely publicised theories over facts" then stop reading the creationists pseudo-science! Also as I pointed out before scientific theory is entirely different to your vague laymen terms theory, the theory of evolution is both a theory in scientific terms and a fact. If the theists are going to persist abusing scientific jargon for their own ends, at least recognise that your use of the terms has nothing to do with the scientific approach.

Give me examples where religion explains the un-explainable. And please do it rationally, I don't want any more nonsense of mythical creatures, of vague and un-testable hypothesises.

And Duke, dude where are you going? Science fiction rarely becomes science fact.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

And Duke, dude where are you going? Science fiction rarely becomes science fact.

Straight to tha bank!!

 

[mindido]

Jeez, you guys have been busy overnight.

Mox,

Gotta give you credit. Doing yeomans work.


I propose a little experiment. You guys, with your religion, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, and reproducably, any single part of the Bible, Koran, whatever (anything other than a known location [any good author of fiction will incorporate identifiable locations in their story]).

Mox and I (and Iceberg if he chooses) will research some topic in the field of science and present the evidence. Biology is not my field but I've had a few courses way back when.

Any takers?

And Duke, just one question. What would happen to religions if your supposition that aliens planted us here is true? I'm not saying it is, but there are several cultures around the world that do believe that. What would happen to the worlds religions if, all of a sudden, little green or gray men presented themselves and said that we are their descendents, and could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. How would these religions handle that?

 

[mindido]

Hey Duke,

Just found this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050623/sc_space/settingsetissightsiiabodesforlife

Looks like those little green men aren't so farfetched after all.

 

[Red Horse]

Okay...min, Duke, mox and cable...tell you what. Whichever of you dies first, come back and tell us the eternal truths of the universe...Oh, wait...there may not be a hereafter to come back from, just oblivion...on the other hand, can there be oblivion when it's taught that energy can neither be created or destroyed (after all, we're made of matter)? Hmmm...seems to me this is neither a religious or scientific discussion at all...plain old philosophy lol.

 

[mindido]

Red Horse,

You are correct in that the argument has turned into a philosophic debate, but that was not its intent. The intent was the separation of religion and science.

"can there be oblivion when it's taught that energy can neither be created or destroyed"

Now there is an astute observation! I wonder if anyone else know what it means.

 

[moxdevil]

I cannot for the life of me remember when i advocated oblivion?

First law of Thermodynamics! mentioned it earlier in relation to Duke's ball!

Energy can be transformed, from type and form, in the process it can be lost- heat. (not literally lost, only a weaker form of energy) i think this is the second law? Been 3 years since i did this.

By the way i wasn't saying in that post this is disputed, but that big bang theories are. (incase of any misunderstanding or not)

 

[Red Horse]

You're an astronaut and NASA sends you on a trip to IO (moon of Jupiter)...you are the first human being ever to set foot on this little world...you're out and about picking up specimens and whoa!...there's a Rolex sitting on a small rock. Now, does that mean there have been visitors before you (time warp)? Others from somewhere else in the universe? God just messing with you? Or, over billions of years, erosion from wind, water, etc. that just accidentally made a Rolex? Until, and unless we find out the absolute truth, all answers are true.

 

[mindido]

Mox,

"First law of Thermodynamics! mentioned it earlier in relation to Duke's ball!"

I remember, just wondering about the other side.

Red Horse,

Great sig.

 

[moxdevil]

Mox,

"First law of Thermodynamics! mentioned it earlier in relation to Duke's ball!"

I remember, just wondering about the other side.

I know, i'm just a bit keen :blush:

Red Horse shouldn't it be 'all have the potential to be true' as opposed to 'all answers are true'?

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Hehe he said Duke's ball!!! Dukes ball baby!! Anyone remember the famous experiment by the scientist Stanely Miller? Spontaneous generation if i remember. mindido you said you didn't know of any scientist who came to the conclusion of a divine source. IF you get bored then type in his name for his story. You will find evolutionist scientists now teach creation from this experiment alone. I haven't heard of the theory of evolution that believes that everything did not start from nothing:redface: What is this theory called, id like to read up on it? What do you believe will happen to religions when the little green men come? What will the believers who believe in the little green men think about it? Hanes underwear stock will surely go up, i can tell you that!!

 

[mindido]

Duke,

I couldn't remember who he was until I did the Google search. I remember discussion of the experiment but thats about it. In any case, its beside the point.

Are you ready to take me up on the experiment I proposed?

"What do you believe will happen to religions when the little green men come? What will the believers who believe in the little green men think about it? Hanes underwear stock will surely go up, i can tell you that!!"

Is this supposed to mean something?

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

I gave you information to fully answer a previous question to be followed by another which can be asked in its complete opposite, only to be told its beside the point. :eyebulge:

 

[Red Horse]

I know, i'm just a bit keen :blush:

Red Horse shouldn't it be 'all have the potential to be true' as opposed to 'all answers are true'?

Aye, there's the rub...Good point!...I'm willing to say "I just don't know"

 

[cableguy]

i may be wrong on this, but i believe that nuclear energy violates the "energy cannot be created" deal... energy = mass x the speed of light squared... that one is einstein...

to everyone who has made the incorrect assumption that i am some kind of religious nutcase, please read my posts and let me in on how in the hell it is you are coming to that conclusion...

the challenge of positively prooving something in religion... anyone who asks that question simply cannot tolerate the answer... how does religion explain the unexplainable?? a single word... faith... a word that detractors cant handle rationally..

duke, the trend was set on that one months ago... get used to it, if you dont agree with them, anything you say is unqualified and/or biased... everything they say is unimpeachable... the definitive truth, and the only right answer... name calling removes the obligation to respond to a legitimate question...

 

[Iceberg]

i may be wrong on this, but i believe that nuclear energy violates the "energy cannot be created" deal... energy = mass x the speed of light squared... that one is einstein...

Einstein's theory reads:

E=mc^2,

or:

energy = mass * a constant squared.

Therefore, nuclear energy cannot violate the first law of thermodynamics because, depending on the mass of the radioactive material, the quantity of energy obtained can be quite a lot. (As I recall.)

And remember, nuclear material undergoes radioactive decay when exposed to certain substances, which converts the potential energy stored up in materials (such as Plutonium or Uranium) to kinetic energy. So, energy is not created at all, but converted from one form to another.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

"I gave you information to fully answer a previous question to be followed by another which can be asked in its complete opposite, only to be told its beside the point."

I'm still not sure what this means. I did look up "staneley" and "stanley" miller and assume you are talking about "staneley", a scientist from the 1930's and 40's. Great! You had to go back that far to find a scientist that believed in a divine source? I guess that just proves there aren't a whole bunch of them. I do know that there are more, some even recent, but I don't remember their names either.

And it is beside the point because, as Red Horse said, "seems to me this is neither a religious or scientific discussion at all...plain old philosophy..."

Philosophy can be debated ad nauseum (I had one semester in college and really disliked it) with no decision ever being made. This is a discussion that can have an end. All you guys have to do is PROVE one thing, one SIMPLE thing, ANYTHING, about the bible, koran, etc.

UNTIL that can be done, religion HAS NO PLACE in a scientific discussion or in a science classroom.

 

[cableguy]

mindido, if you insist that for religion to have any validity whatsoever, something must be undeniably proven, i must make a counter insistance that science, to be valid, must have absolutely NO conjecture at all, without the prominent display of the word "theory" (as in UNPROVEN) attached to it... sound fair??

 

[moxdevil]

Ah Stanley Miller, yes he's always pulled out by the Creationists, and his amino acid experiments are continually misrepresented by them. Miller's experiment showed that amino acid's could be produced in the lab. tis went down a storm in the 50's and 60's and since is used by creationists to rebuke cosmological arguments and not evolution, biological evolution.

The theory of biological evolution simply deals with the mechanisms governing how all of the life forms both past and present on earth derived from a single common ancestor that was capable of self-replication. It does not address how that first common ancestor came to be. That is the provenance of the field of abiogenesis. Biological evolution does not attempt to address how the earth or the universe came to be--that is the realm of cosmology.

Don't try to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, they are completely different fields, something the Creationist fails to realise, or simply intentionally ignores.

Duke, are you a Creationist or an ID'er? because i know its popular right now for Creationists to adopt aspects of the ID argument to make them feel more secure, the idea of science gives them that superficial respectability.

 

[mindido]

cable,

"science, to be valid, must have absolutely NO conjecture at all, without the prominent display of the word "theory" (as in UNPROVEN) attached to it... sound fair??"

Nope, sounds really stupid to me. Without conjecture (what if?) there would be no advancement. We'd still be relying on those priests and their "Its gods will!!!" You'd still be living in a cave trying to figure out if there was some way to get it warmer.

Asinine.

So I take it you guys can't find even ONE thing to prove your religious beliefs? Not ONE! Not even a simple ONE?

Gee, I wonder why that is.