Audie
Veteran Member
See how your line of inquiry hanged?
Are sure it was ever an honest question ?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is disproven by science? Really?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
Are sure it was ever an honest question ?
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
I will take the critic that i don't know enough , but it has zero impact on the final answer.
What i know i have asked , if something was taken as offensive , i apologize.
Audie
Veteran Member
No call for apology. But the thought is appreciated.
I asked because you were all over the place with
what feel like rhetorical questions, too many to
possibly address.
Ftm, the. " zero effect in final answer" suggests to me
that you "know" the answers and it's pointless to respond
with contrary thoughts.
Yes, no?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I did not try to prove anything. Science does not disprove God. Creationists make the error of thinking that because we can demonstrate that they are wrong that we are trying to "disprove God". That has nothing to do with why we show that their claims are wrong.
As to people seeing things while unconscious that appears to be just the brain misfiring. We have ample evidence that thought is just chemical in nature.
Instead of bringing up nothing burger claims you should take a while to learn the scientific method. It is not that hard to understand. From there you can go on to scientific evidence. The sciences are very well respected because they work. Religion does not appear to work. It only comforts people against reality at times.
There may be a God. But I doubt if you will ever be able to prove that there is one. I do not try to prove that there is not one. I will only try to refute evil versions of God that clearly do not exist.
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
Yes , untill oposite is proven.You can take that as reverse also.No call for apology. But the thought is appreciated.
I asked because you were all over the place with
what feel like rhetorical questions, too many to
possibly address.
Ftm, the. " zero effect in final answer" suggests to me
that you "know" the answers and it's pointless to respond
with contrary thoughts.
Yes, no?
Because we take possibilities.
My personal opinion is that Creation has a better stand aggainst Evolution.With what i have seen..
I also wanted to see argument of the oposite side.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please stop that. What do you mean by "the unknown". And you do not even know what a hypothesis is so you should not use that term. This is why you should learn the basics of science. If follow the basics you will be on your way to understanding more of it. Right now you have no understanding of the sciences at all.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If that is your opinion you have a lot to learn. Magic never tops reason.
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
Acknowledged , i said that is on my list , maybe i will come back with different approach so we can discuss it like it should.
Untill then , peace.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It may take you a while to learn. And you may not believe this, but creationist sites all are very dishonest. For sites like ICR or AiG, and in fast most of them, people have to swear to not use the scientific method to even work there.
Audie
Veteran Member
OK so nothing about why life on earth , about
scientidts who are Christians etc.
Just evolution.
Just ToE. So what about ToE do you
wish to inquire about?
What alternative do you choose ?
Like Yec, oec, progressive etc..and why?
Oh, and if your ideas cannot be modified
no matter what, plz say so now.
Audie
Veteran Member
That's demonstrably untrue of course.
You may be thinking of religious beliefs
but got that wrong too, as religion doesn't even
have any hypotheses still less data to base one on.
gnostic
The Lost One
Evolution isn’t about creating anything, let alone cell structures, silly cowboy.
you are apparent confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis.
Are all creationists so stubbornly ignorant that they can’t distinguish Evolution from Abiogenesis?
And cell structures are not some magical entities. It is based on studies of molecular biology and cell biology and the facts that many of the components of cells are made of biological macromolecules, and they are all natural and fundamental biochemical matters:
- proteins (tissues, enzymes, etc)
- nucleic acids (DNA & RNA)
- carbohydrates
- lipids
protein:
- polymer chain of amino acids
nucleic acids:
- 5 nucleobase (nitrogenous base) molecules
- adenine,
- cytosine,
- guanine,
- thymine (for DNA),
- uracil (for RNA),
- phosphate group:
- AMP,
- ADP,
- ATP
- pentose (5-carbon) sugar:
- ribose (single helix)
- deooxyribose (double helices)
carbohydrates:
- there are many types of sugar, just as there are many function, depending on the cell types.
The points that tissues are made of cells are organic matters filled with organic molecules, and fundamentally they are all chemistry, with much of molecules are carbon-based.And the points require understanding of chemistry - inorganic and organic - their relationship to each other. And that’s what are required to research Abiogenesis.
As Abiogenesis is basically chemistry, there are nothing mystical, magical or supernatural about understanding Abiogenesis. The same cannot be said about your religious belief in Creation or in Intelligent Design.
the belief in miracles and divine powers, actually defied natural reality, meaning magic and supernatural, which are natural.
gnostic
The Lost One
The sciences that qualified and experienced Christians come from researches and hard works, through observations of evidence. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, etc, are all Christians, and geniuses, but their sciences come through their works, not from their beliefs in their bible or their church.
Creationists, on the other hand, are not doing sciences, they are not doing the works. And they are still using superstitions, eg the “God did it”.
The “God did it” isnt explanation as to what is natural phenomena and how such phenomena work (meaning the natural processes or the mechanisms).
I am afraid it is you, Apostle95, who don’t understand science, not @Subduction Zone .
Audie
Veteran Member
Perhaps not all are so dedicated toEvolution isn’t about creating anything, let alone cell structures, silly cowboy.
you are apparent confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis.
Are all creationists so stubbornly ignorant that they can’t distinguish Evolution from Abiogenesis?
And cell structures are not some magical entities. It is based on studies of molecular biology and cell biology and the facts that many of the components of cells are made of biological macromolecules, and they are all natural and fundamental biochemical matters:
And each of these macromolecules are made of other biological molecules, eg:
- proteins (tissues, enzymes, etc)
- nucleic acids (DNA & RNA)
- carbohydrates
- lipids
protein:
- polymer chain of amino acids
nucleic acids:
- 5 nucleobase (nitrogenous base) molecules
- adenine,
- cytosine,
- guanine,
- thymine (for DNA),
- uracil (for RNA),
- phosphate group:
- AMP,
- ADP,
- ATP
- pentose (5-carbon) sugar:
- ribose (single helix)
- deooxyribose (double helices)
carbohydrates:
- there are many types of sugar, just as there are many function, depending on the cell types.
The points that tissues are made of cells are organic matters filled with organic molecules, and fundamentally they are all chemistry, with much of molecules are carbon-based.
And the points require understanding of chemistry - inorganic and organic - their relationship to each other. And that’s what are required to research Abiogenesis.
As Abiogenesis is basically chemistry, there are nothing mystical, magical or supernatural about understanding Abiogenesis. The same cannot be said about your religious belief in Creation or in Intelligent Design.
the belief in miracles and divine powers, actually defied natural reality, meaning magic and supernatural, which are natural.
that particular stupidity.
But I doubt it. Possible reasons include
any or all of the following.
-intellectual capacity to understand the
distinction
- belief that "god" could create only
the way they say
- a need to have an eze- peeze way to
disprove ToE. For that " yeah but
life only comes from life: a scientific law of nature",
or some version of kalams cosmetic will serve.
- Incapacity to ever admit to any error/ no
concept of intellectual honesty
No doubt there's more
gnostic
The Lost One
What I have highlighted in your post, i am assuming you means, how life “started” on Earth in the first place.
That’s origin of life question, hence your question should be directed towards Abiogenesis, not Evolution.
like every single creationists I know here, you are confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis.
Evolution is a scientific theory that explain genetic variations in populations over time, that would include speciations. Evolution is all about the biod of organisms over time.
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF FIRST LIFE.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis regarding to origin of life. But it is more than that. It is also about the origins of cells, and the origins of biological macromolecules, which are essential to life. These large biological molecules are:
- proteins (eg tissues, enzymes, etc); proteins are made from amino acids;
- nucleic acids are the genetic coding (or genetic information) that govern inheritable physical traits (proteins) from generation to generation; you would know these nucleic acids as:
- RNA (ribonucleic acids)
- DNA (deoxyribonucleic acids);
- carbohydrates, of which there are many types of sugar that have many types of functions;
- lipids, of which there are many types and functions, and among one of that function is they make up the cell membrane, which protect the interior of the cells.
Amino acids are important organic compounds, because that’s what proteins are made of. Just as proteins are building blocks of tissues for multicellular organisms, amino acids are the building blocks to different types of proteins.
That experiments have been successful, demonstrating that Abiogenesis is a working falsifiable hypothesis, which means the hypothesis is heading in the right direction.
Abiogenesis may still be hypothesis, however it have far more potential of being science than either Creationism or Intelligent Design.
Both Creationism and Intelligent Design are pseudoscience concepts, because they still relied on beliefs of superstitions, eg “God did it” or “Designer did it”. Superstitions are not explanations of any mechanisms to living organisms.
They are pseudoscience because you cannot observe & test God or the Designer, which respectively make Creationism and Intelligent Design unfalsifiable & untestable.
What a big disappointment for evolutionism, isn't it?
If the first life that arose did not evolve from any other life, then the whole story is false.
It's like in mathematics: you check that a law is true if you can apply it to number 1 and number 2, because then you can understand that it also applies to all numbers consecutively. But if it doesn't apply to 1+1, you can never apply it to all numbers.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Evolutionism? Do you mean science? And no. Evolution works even if a God magically poofs the first life into existence. I am sure that this has been explained to you before. The ultimate source of first life does not refute evolution. It works no matter where life came from.What a big disappointment for evolutionism, isn't it?
If the first life that arose did not evolve from any other life, then the whole story is false.
It's like in mathematics: you check that a law is true if you can apply it to number 1 and number 2, because then you can understand that it also applies to all numbers consecutively. But if it doesn't apply to 1+1, you can never apply it to all numbers.
How so? Evolution needs life it doesn't matter how life 1st started.What a big disappointment for evolutionism, isn't it?
If the first life that arose did not evolve from any other life, then the whole story is false.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In science we don't assume, plus there no such thing as "evolutionism".
Hehehe ... Statistics are pure assumptions.
You don't sound like a scientist. Are you?