Jump to content

SCIENCE IS AN AMAZING WORK WHOS PURPOSE IS TO EXPLAIN GOD'S CREATIONS.


zorro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nothing we can view in the cosmos would prove a higher Deity.

That is entirely consistent with there not being any deity.

It is also inconsistent with a deity that it's worth praying to. (If I pray for a miracle and I see a miracle then I have viewed something in the cosmos that proves the deity's existence, but that's forbidden by the idea that "Nothing we can view in the cosmos would prove a higher Deity. ")

 

If we can't show that God exists, He might as well not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zorro Comments Above :-

 

 

It's difficult to read through the many pages of this thread, and his thread posts on ( theistic scientists by unit 3 +) without tripping over all the Ack, Ack, fire. But this opening statement by Zorro seems to be suggesting Science is a tool for exploring and explaining the Universe in a way that enables an appreciation of God.

 

I asked ( on one of Zorro 's threads ,) how many scientists believed in a higher power , which seems to be unresolved.

 

I think there is a " Kings suit of clothes" phenomenon at work here.

 

While a number of prominent scientists speak openly of their detestation of anything to do with a god ( Like Richard Dawkins, and a few others) Who wants to stand up and say " look , the king has got no clothes on" .

 

I propose that IF a prominent Scientist Said openly that they had a change of heart say with good reason , a lot of other scientists would jump ship fairly quickly. [ perhaps the percentages would become clearer and include the 'behind the scenes' believers in a higher power ]

 

I have read a few books lately , by well known science names , where respected scientists are HINTING at something for and with due reasons . Just hinting, but with arguable reasons. Perhaps their reasoning and hints are a pre-cursor to something else, BUT ..may be not.

 

Mike

 

I think that most Scientists who are "outed" per say from a belief I a higher deity would fear criticism by the vocal few Since I am a novice Scientist / Engineer My view floats the wind like a leaf. Your proposal is good as the sciences and philosophers reach beyond reality to the infinite all the time to find a beginning . To preserve that zeal and to run into a Higher Order must be possible. The philosopher is satisfied with close the Scientist must have the singularity in the Petri Dish.

 

Society pays the sciences well to find Mother Natures secrets and hand these discoveries over to the Engineer to make useful products and warring. The Petroleum industry has civilization by the neck and time is running out in my view. Science must deliver the furnace options and investigating close to the higher order is necessary.

Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that science folks are frightened by Religion as well as by a loud Atheistic minority banter that is organized with a political agenda.

 

I wouldn't say frightened, probably more annoyed than anything else. Politics is an entirely separate arena than what we are discussing.

 

 

I think it started around Copernicus’s time when he was reluctant to publish until his deathbed. …..Then in the Inquisition time, Science Leaders were chastised, punished and either banned from their work or killed. …. Then it was the affair of Religion vs. Galileo wherein he was punished, not for his Science, but for his audacity to reveal that he can and does interpret the Bible. This all for the struggle to place religion as the only contact with God and sidetrack sciences. ….Then to Darwinism and it’s effect / controversies surrounding biological evolution. ……. Now this fear is carried by Guru Priest as Richard Dawkins against God and to eliminate God altogether and thrash Religion.

 

This doesn't follow with your previous statement. If anything it shows a fear from religion of science (not always the case and an entirely different discussion as well).

 

Scientists want to do their work in isolation and see who gets the Nobel. But most Scientists find the Universe and Species to be complex and elegantly arranged. They are afraid to confront the Atheists and so Sciences, God and Religion are splitting. They have a notion of origination and have formed: evolutionary thought, the God Particle and Big Bang and notions to pull sense into their works.

That's an odd statement considering that a great number of nobel prized are awarded to multiple people and not a single individual. Scientists collaborate all the time, your argument is one from ignorance of how scientists actually work.

 

Now because all seem comfortable with Higher Order Deities, we have Religion Sciences, God Sciences and Higher Order Deities that could be separated to various forums more comfortably as stated above.

What religion sciences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that most Scientists .......

 

We are well furnished with evidence of scientific observations of the astronomical Stars , Galaxies, Super Novas, Dust clouds, Star births. Also of the micro, world through better microscopes etc show us the very small. We have never had it so good. As I said in a previous post, famous science writers like John Gribbin, Paul Davies, Marcus Chown, Robert Laughlin and others seem to hint at :-

 

" the Goldilocks principle " { namely things are not too big or too small, too hot or too cold , too close or too far , But just Exactly right.

 

Whether what they are saying is ......... well I do not know, because they do not say it..... they just seem to hint.

 

Nobody seems to want to say " the king has got no clothes on " when everybody can see he has no clothes on but are frightened to say so.

 

 

 

" We screwed up, we got it wrong, there is very likely to be, something behind all this,"

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't follow with your previous statement. If anything it shows a fear from religion of science (not always the case and an entirely different discussion as well). That's an odd statement considering that a great number of nobel prized are awarded to multiple people and not a single individual. Scientists collaborate all the time, your argument is one from ignorance of how scientists actually work. What religion sciences?

I have worked with many scientists an as a engineer sad the struggles to bring their works to make them usable . Like the engineer. Scientists prefer to work alone thinking. When in a social setting they avoid the word God like Jews do but if outed, they preferrer Higher Being.

Interesting take zorro, let me get this straight, you are asserting the completely natural process of child birth confirms god or they are voids? Hmmm... no sorry makes no sense what so ever to me... care to try again?

No! Wait! I guess it does support my vast Brobdingnagian creature that mindlessly excretes universes as part of it's natural digestive system... whew! Almost missed that one...

 

BTW what does the complexity of the eye have to do with anything?

 

Come on zorro, don't ignore me, you've made some serious assertions here, how does a void before the beginning of the universe have anything to do with the completely natural process of child birth? I have personally been present for child birth from beginning to end nothing supernatural about it, no miracles, no faith required and definitely no void...

Again you can't read me and barbel my thoughts. The void is a higher entity Diet from zero to your first ancestor . Your mother came first I wound guess down to the first reproductive pair. So thy void is to tell us hoe te pair got the with Genome and all emotions in place. Well it time for you to step up and plain this. The eye is just one of billions of Complexity that confirms a Higher Entity Diet and you need only to look in a mirror.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have worked with many scientists an as a engineer sad the struggles to bring their works to make them usable . Like the engineer. Scientists prefer to work alone thinking. When in a social setting they avoid the word God like Jews do but if outed, they preferrer Higher Being.

Again you can't read me and barbel my thoughts. The void is a higher entity Diet from zero to your first ancestor . Your mother came first I wound guess down to the first reproductive pair. So thy void is to tell us hoe te pair got the with Genome and all emotions in place. Well it time for you to step up and plain this. The eye is just one of billions of Complexity that confirms a Higher Entity Diet and you need only to look in a mirror.

 

 

Irreducible complexity is horse feathers zorro, the complexity of the many eyes that have evolved independently in animals on our Earth is easily explained by evolution, in fact examples of all stages of eyes from eyes no better than light detectors to eyes that make the best sighted humans legally blind by comparison are present on the Earth right now... Your void argument is based in ignorance and incredulity and is either trivially falsified by demonstrable natural processes or simply unknown at this time and unknown does not equal goddidit... I suggest you learn the difference between deity and diet, how complexity arises out of chaos, not to mention positive feed back loops and what does Genome and emotions have to do with each other? ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Irreducible complexity is horse feathers zorro, the complexity of the many eyes that have evolved independently in animals on our Earth is easily explained by evolution, in fact examples of all stages of eyes from eyes no better than light detectors to eyes that make the best sighted humans legally blind by comparison are present on the Earth right now... Your void argument is based in ignorance and incredulity and is either trivially falsified by demonstrable natural processes or simply unknown at this time and unknown does not equal goddidit... I suggest you learn the difference between deity and diet, how complexity arises out of chaos, not to mention positive feed back loops and what does Genome and emotions have to do with each other? ...

 

 

You must be the devil's advocate on the forum. ..... Hell bound to the pearly gates as the king with no clothes.

 

You seemed to sidestep all my points with gibberish innuendoes. When was your first ancestor born.? Where is it'a Support Environment ?? Dismissivity on your part shows streams of ignorance's of the void arguments.

 

The eye is one of the immaculate creations and you dismiss it because are blinded to this argument. It was in the Ammonites 450 M years ago and still works now. The eyes see color and distance, feed themselves from the body, cleanse themselves, attract a mate, sees motion and 3D on a flat plane, crank down to sunlight and open to the dark, focus to the infinity and bend and reverse light. If that isn't a miracle then Hummingbirds don't fly.

 

Yes the Higher Order does miraculous things that none other can and even offers eternity. ...... does yours ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You must be the devil's advocate on the forum. ..... Hell bound to the pearly gates as the king with no clothes.

 

You seemed to sidestep all my points with gibberish innuendoes. When was your first ancestor born.? Where is it'a Support Environment ?? Dismissivity on your part shows streams of ignorance's of the void arguments.

 

The eye is one of the immaculate creations and you dismiss it because are blinded to this argument. It was in the Ammonites 450 M years ago and still works now. The eyes see color and distance, feed themselves from the body, cleanse themselves, attract a mate, sees motion and 3D on a flat plane, crank down to sunlight and open to the dark, focus to the infinity and bend and reverse light. If that isn't a miracle then Hummingbirds don't fly.

 

Yes the Higher Order does miraculous things that none other can and even offers eternity. ...... does yours ???

 

 

Can you offer any positive empirical evidence of that world salad you call a post or are you just going over the edge due to inability to come up with anything but "I can't understand it so it couldn't have happened that way"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you offer any positive empirical evidence of that world salad you call a post or are you just going over the edge due to inability to come up with anything but "I can't understand it so it couldn't have happened that way"?

 

Mine is obvious and you have eyes of your own to cross ceck. I await your explanation of the first reproductive pair and the first sympathetic environment. Does your Higher Order Deity appear anywhere. Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Translation: I am unable to answer the question you asked me, so I will evade it completely and try to distract attention from that fact by asking you a separate and unrelated question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O

^Translation: I am unable to answer the question you asked me, so I will evade it completely and try to distract attention from that fact by asking you a separate and unrelated question.

You are the king of wrong so what is your answer to the gap .... Blank like Moo .... The ball remains in your courts. We await also your answer as to how we got to the original reproductive pair from you????

Edited by zorro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, it would seem strange to demand a first human ancestor as a leading question to "debunk" evolution, as the biblical account has all of humanity arising from Adam and Eve - therefore it's impossible to escape intra-population evolutionary divergence, even if you are a new earther. Black, white, brown, yellow etc people all have a common ancestor, and yet back people don't give birth to white babies.

 

While we're on the unreasonable demands bandwagon, can you direct me to the graves of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, so we can verify the biblical account of the origin of humanity? Seems only fair given you're demanding others account for the precise identification of a pair of prehistoric individuals.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We await also your answer as to how we got to the original reproductive pair from you????

Do you believe that your personal incredulity on a subject is enough to adequately discredit or dismiss it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, it would seem strange to demand a first human ancestor as a leading question to "debunk" evolution, as the biblical account has all of humanity arising from Adam and Eve - therefore it's impossible to escape intra-population evolutionary divergence, even if you are a new earther. Black, white, brown, yellow etc people all have a common ancestor, and yet back people don't give birth to white babies.

 

While we're on the unreasonable demands bandwagon, can you direct me to the graves of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, so we can verify the biblical account of the origin of humanity? Seems only fair given you're demanding others account for the precise identification of a pair of prehistoric individuals.

Thanx for trying to let Moo wiggle out of his own thought. So let him reply. ..... BTW I do not debunk evolution here I skip over it entirely to keep it simple for Moo. So Moo;; what happened in the gap from zip to the first reproductive pair and how did they arrive and get a full set of genes??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx for trying to let Moo wiggle out of his own thought. So let him reply. ..... BTW I do not debunk evolution here I skip over it entirely to keep it simple for Moo. So Moo...

Moo hasn't been active at this site for quite a while and is certainly not posting in this thread. To whom are you referring? Me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moo hasn't been active at this site for quite a while and is certainly not posting in this thread. To whom are you referring? Me?

.

 

No no. Moo is posting here see # 83 above. So let him speak instead of a lacky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx for trying to let Moo wiggle out of his own thought. So let him reply. ..... BTW I do not debunk evolution here I skip over it entirely to keep it simple for Moo. So Moo;; what happened in the gap from zip to the first reproductive pair and how did they arrive and get a full set of genes??

 

 

No, it's a demand you made of Moontanman in post 84 and 86.

 

What you post here is a strawman argument based on your own lack of even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. There is no "first ancestor". Speciation as a process is a continuum.

See here for a comprehensive explanation of the process. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_40

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your own lack of even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72973-comments-on-moderation/?p=753423

imatfaal-

There are comments which are clearly directed at another member in person (claiming lack of understanding or ability to understand) rather than at any argument - they are not acceptable.

If you have been misunderstood - then provide explanation rather than assert another member's lack of ability to comprehend.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72973-comments-on-moderation/?p=754910

hypervalent_iodine-

A report was made asking how telling someone that they lack comprehension is offensive and to provide a source.

in·sult

/inˈsəlt/

Verb

Speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

 

Noun

A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.

 

Telling someone that they lack basic comprehension falls pretty solidly into the disrespect column. And whether or not you think it's offensive, we (staff) do and so do the people you directed the comment(s) to, so you'd do well to keep it in mind in future.

 

Hmmm weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The distinction being that I was pointing out that the strawman argument posed was due to the poster's lack of understanding, then explaining why the argument was a strawman, and finally providing a link as so that the poster, and other readers who did not understand why the argument posed was logically invalid could educate themselves - Rather than simply asserting that zorro was wrong because he couldn't/wouldn't understand.

 

While I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit behind the mod comment in that basing an entire argument on accusing someone of not understanding should be considered innappropriate, being absolutely unable to point out where someone has a lack of basic understanding, and offer to correct their understanding of a theory would significantly curtail discussions negatively. E.g., here if I was unable to point out that zorro's argument stems from a lack of basic understanding of what evolutionary theory claims about the process of speciation, it would be much more difficult to add some fundamental explanation to the thread.

 

In addtion, zorro had a substantial history of arguing using logically flawed premises and from misunderstood positions, and shown resistance to correction. This may well have led to an exasperated/frustrated tone in my and other's posts, which is probably not the most constructive way to debate, for which I apologize.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx for trying to let Moo wiggle out of his own thought. So let him reply. ..... BTW I do not debunk evolution here I skip over it entirely to keep it simple for Moo. So Moo;;

 

Sad to see zorro go but since I hate for people to think I bailed out in the middle of a discussion the real world held a bit more attraction last night and now I have a head ache and I slept late... but sometimes it is better to allow someone who is digging a hole to realize the sky is getting smaller by themselves than keep pointing it out to them.

 

I can indeed answer zos question, in fact it is quite simple, I have a video that destroys the information argument as effectively as a nuclear bomb but in the hope that zo will read this after he forgives me for having a life I'll attempt to paraphrase the argument as I understand it...

 

what happened in the gap from zip to the first reproductive pair and how did they arrive and get a full set of genes??

 

 

 

This is really three questions:

 

what happened in the gap from zip to the first reproductive pair

 

 

there is no gap and no first reproductive pair...

 

and how did they arrive

 

 

I am not going to be a smart ass, I will answer this bizarrely formed question bearing in mind there was no first reproductive pair, humans, and yes I know you are asking about humans really, evolved over many thousands if not millions of generations from what we would call, if the were alive today, APES, not a pair of apes but a population of apes that slowly over time and many generations acquired the characteristics we would call human. If you traced your ancestors back through time there would be no point at which an ape would give birth to a human, at no point could you point to an individual and say he or she was human but his parents were apes.

 

Just in case you were not specifically speaking of humans I will say you could follow your ancestry back through to the first Eukaryota in just this way to the same effect, further back than that and common ancestry was not occurring due to gene transfer between bacteria.

and get a full set of genes??

 

 

This is a bit more difficult to answer, like asking when humans first evolved eyes, all re-productively alive and healthy animals have a set of genes they received from their ancestors, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at but if you are suggesting that the information of those genes had a source then you are mistaken since genes are chemicals not information...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then you are mistaken since genes are chemicals not information...

according to wikki,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

 

Genes hold the information to build and maintain an organism's cells and pass genetic traits to offspring.

according to news-medical.net

 

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Genes-What-are-Genes.aspx

Genes are the working subunits of DNA. Each gene contains a particular set of instructions, usually coding for a particular protein or for a particular function.

dictionary

in·struc·tion

 

in·struc·tion [in strúkshən]

n (plural in·struc·tions)

or in·struc·tions, npl

 

 

1. list of things to do: printed information about how to do, make, assemble, use, or operate something

according to,

 

Genetics Home Reference

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/gene

 

Genes, which are made up of DNA, act as instructions to make molecules called proteins.

 

" For more information about genes:

Genetics Home Reference provides consumer-friendly gene summaries that include an explanation of each gene’s normal function and how mutations in the gene cause particular genetic conditions. ",

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/BrowseGenes

 

" The Centre for Genetics Education offers a fact sheet that introduces genes and chromosomes.

This link leads to a site outside Genetics Home Reference..

GENES AND CHROMOSOMES: THE GENOME

http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications%20and%20Resources/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/Genes%20and%20Chromosomes%20-%20The%20Genome

Important points

"Each of the approximate 20,000 genes in the cell contains a piece of genetic information which guides our growth, development and

health.

- The genetic information contained in the DNA is in the form of a chemical code, called the genetic code"

and many more references if those do not meet standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to wikki,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

 

 

according to news-medical.net

 

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Genes-What-are-Genes.aspx

 

dictionary

 

according to,

 

Genetics Home Reference

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/gene

 

 

and many more references if those do not meet standards.

In reality genes to not meet the criteria for 'information' in any good definition of information. When someone says genes are information or carry information it is usually an analogy or they are not using information in a strict sense. There was a very interesting blog post on this somewhere that explains better than I can, I'll try to find it and link it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetic code

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

 

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.

for more actual reputable references,

on genetic code

http://cornell.worldcat.org/search?q=genetic%20code&qt=wc_org_cornell

 

http://www.cornell.edu/search/?q=genetic+code&submit=go&tab=

 

http://www.genome.gov/

 

this last link is probably the best source at this point in time,

 

The Human Genome Project (HGP)

http://www.genome.gov/10001772

 

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/index.shtml

 

there's also these sites also,

http://www.genengnews.com/search?q=genetic+coding

Edited by krash661
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.