Why Sceince Vs Religion

[outhouse]

No, it doesn't. There are still tons of questions and holes to fill about the current theories. The Big Bang isn't a sure thing: it's just the best we've got based on what we currently know and can observe. (And, despite the fact that many aspects of the theory don't make any sense to me, I accept that it's currently the most likely scenario.)

Science is about the search for truth, not stating the truth.

first, there was a big bang as we can see the aftermath, what happened before that we dont know.

NOW when I stated about a start im talking about abiogenesis, we know pretty much exactly how it started and my statement stands solid

heres a little education for you so you know where we stand

[youtube]yet1xkAv_HY[/youtube]
YouTube - Abiogenesis: The Origin Of Life

[youtube]U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube]
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak

 

[Alex_G]

Why don't we all just get along? God made dirt and dirt don't hurt! We all agree that we came from the dirt and it was good for human life! Can't we just fix the space in between?

The tension or conflict exists because both make claims about reality that are incompatible with the other. And in all seriousness, the both cant really exist together. Science makes claims based on reason and evidence, and religion makes its claims on authority, or faith. What religion says about reality directly conflicts with that of science.

 

[outhouse]

my statements hold solid

[youtube]qsRgOYgBwwA[/youtube]
YouTube - Abiogenesis DID happen!

 

[McBell]

the poor old atheists need to wake up and realize that all things are created by some other thing and that no thing can create itself.

Cool.
Now since you have established that God has to have a creator, who/what created him?

 

[SLAMH]

first, there was a big bang as we can see the aftermath, what happened before that we dont know.

SO it doesn't explain everything .

 

[SLAMH]

Cool.
Now since you have established that God has to have a creator, who/what created him?

This really irreconcilable and inapplicable comparison. Whatever is true for us the creation is not necessary to be true for the creator.

 

[Ace7X]

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

[McBell]

This really irreconcilable and inapplicable comparison. Whatever is true for us the creation is not necessary to be true for the creator.

Not it isn;t.
He flat out said that that all things are created by some other thing.
You are merely attempting to make god an exception.
Now if god can be an exception, why can't the universe be another exception?

In other words, to make an exception for god is to show that there is in fact exceptions.
So now the onus is on you to show how god is an exception and that nothing else is.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

This has nothing to do with "atheists", and the common misuse of the word "atheist' when discussing science and religion only serves to confuse the issue.
Nor is it necessary that "all things are created by some other thing".
It can be shown than on both the quantum level, and at the original singularity that "cause" is not a necessity.

And how is this shown?

 

[outhouse]

SO it doesn't explain everything .

no one said it did

I stated we have a clear picture of how it started, and we do.

asking to see beyond 14billion years, over 10 billion years before the earths existance is not abiogenesis

read a little more carefull

NOW when I stated about a start im talking about abiogenesis

 

[Riverwolf]

[youtube]yet1xkAv_HY[/youtube]
YouTube - Abiogenesis: The Origin Of Life

So, this video seems to present a highly likely scenario, not the conclusive, absolutely definite way abiogenesis occurred. Thus, my statement stands as far as this video is concerned, and I wonder why you brought it up.

[youtube]U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube]
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak[/quote]

Hey, it's Ode to Joy! I love that piece.

Anyway, had to skip the first few minutes, because it was old news to me. (Refuting creationist arguments)

So, that video basically was a bunch of biology jargon which made no sense to me, and included a bunch of circles containing smaller colored circles that made no sense. Seeing as I can't understand it, I can neither defend my argument, nor can I refute it.

 

[outhouse]

So, this video seems to present a highly likely scenario, not the conclusive, absolutely definite way abiogenesis occurred. Thus, my statement stands as far as this video is concerned, and I wonder why you brought it up.

[youtube]U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube]
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak

Hey, it's Ode to Joy! I love that piece.

Anyway, had to skip the first few minutes, because it was old news to me. (Refuting creationist arguments)

So, that video basically was a bunch of biology jargon which made no sense to me, and included a bunch of circles containing smaller colored circles that made no sense. Seeing as I can't understand it, I can neither defend my argument, nor can I refute it.[/quote]





I stated they see a clear picture of how life started. Its not all that complicated.

I believe neil degrasse tyson stated that there is a 400,000 year window that life started in once the earth had cooled enough.

 

[Riverwolf]

my statements hold solid

[youtube]qsRgOYgBwwA[/youtube]
YouTube - Abiogenesis DID happen!

Again, that one seems to present another likely scenario, not an absolute definite answer to the question.

So my statement still stands.

Besides, even if we do manage to create life in a lab (and I need something other than a magazine as a source, BTW), that doesn't automatically mean that MUST be the way it happened. After all, perhaps there are other (non-supernatural, BTW) methods that we don't know about.

 

[Riverwolf]

I stated they see a clear picture of how life started. Its not all that complicated.

But they don't. They seem to present likely scenarios, not absolute knowledge on the subject.

So, more like they see a clear picture of how life MAY HAVE started.

I believe neil degrasse tyson stated that there is a 400,000 year window that life started in once the earth had cooled enough.

...what's that have to do with anything?

 

[tumbleweed41]

And how is this shown?

Cause and effect are physical laws that are dependent upon time/space.
We can see this in quantum mechanics. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason.
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences.
So that even when looking at the physical laws within our own space/time observances, cause/effect on a subatomic level is not necessary. It is only when we reach a level of interaction with time/space that the cause/effect law is demonstrable.

As for the existence of the Singularity. Look at it this way, at one time the Singularity was an infinitely dense speck of potential space, time, energy and matter.
Where did/does it exist?
Space and time came about only a few plank times after the initial expansion. And only within the Singularity. All the known laws that govern space, time, energy and matter exist within the Singularity.
Asking where the Singularity originated from, or if it originated at all is irrelevant as we cannot apply reasoning based on natural laws beyond the Singularity/Universe.
We cannot say any cause is necessary for the existence of the Singularity because the necessity for existence is only a product of natural laws within the Singularity/Universe.

 

[outhouse]

So, more like they see a clear picture of how life MAY HAVE started.

Ill buy that

what's that have to do with anything?

Neil is cool to listen to, i have never heard him make a wrong statement yet.

probably one of the most brilliant minds we have

the youtube vid of him and dawkins chatting is really good, they go over this subject and make it sound more then plausible in a short geologic timetable.

 

[SLAMH]

Now if god can be an exception, why can't the universe be another exception?

In other words, to make an exception for god is to show that there is in fact exceptions.
So now the onus is on you to show how god is an exception and that nothing else is.

The universe is a part of the creation and within the range in which the law of nature and physics is valid and applicable. If God created everything, then this law or whatever law that is applicable for its creature, doesn't necessitate to be implied for the creator. If within this range it is acceptable that nothing can create itself and there must be cause for everything, then out of this range it will be an assumption to apply the same law in order to state what it is a necessity for the existence of the creator. That is the reason that God can be an exception, but the universe can't be.

 

[SLAMH]

On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause/effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason.

Is replacing the law of cause/effect by anarchy, an excuse for not knowing the particular cause or reason of occurrence within the atomic scale ?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Is replacing the law of cause/effect by anarchy, an excuse for not knowing the particular cause or reason of occurrence within the atomic scale ?

Things happen randomly at the quantum level for no apparent reason. No cause has been shown to be necessary. This is not to say that there is no cause, just that, apparently, cause may not be necessary at the quantum level.

 

[SLAMH]

Things happen randomly at the quantum level for no apparent reason. No cause has been shown to be necessary. This is not to say that there is no cause, just that, apparently, cause may not be necessary at the quantum level.

Thank you for answering.