Origins of life

[David George]

Let us take religion from the point it started.The early man had a lot of curisity and could not come to conclusions why some things happened.Ex he could not reason why the rain occurs or the rainbow come or fire burns things.So he gave his own reasons or made them into God.Agni is one such God in the hindu religion.And the reason give in the bible for the rainbow formation is an indication that God will not destroy earth one more time with water.These facts can be dissaproved by science.Looks like the blood pressure of Alex and Astus shooted up when they read the last line of my last post.No religion really preaches about the TRUE GOD.For the true God all animals including humans are the same and he does not have love or kindness nor is he a tyrant.He is God not Jesus not Bramha Not Buddha nor anything that humans preach.We need not praise him and waste our time he has given our job as to survive.Miracles of curing are not true if you say that God cured it even the true God I am speaking about.Disease are there to kill us it has its job to do that does not mean we can just let it grow we have a immune system to defend us.The world is a War Field all organisms are given specific weapons to fight there weapons get updated by Evolution and The True God does not support any organism.

[Khaiy]

Why is it that no one can just throw "I believe" in before they make a sweeping statement about religion? Nobody really knows exactly who or what God is, nor can they pretend to understand God's motives (if any, as David posited above). It's so arrogant to say that you understand the true God and no one else can be right, particularly since that's not really something that you can provide any evidence for.

[deostroll]

Evolution is like a religion of its own. It just happens to be the popular one right now.
I think scientists and biologists should keep looking for answers either way and keep an open mind.

I get your point Linn; in fact I was moved by this article on the national geographic website: I suggest you too take a look at it: try browsing to this link
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

[deostroll]

I think I vaguely see the connection to feminism, but you haven't made it clear in your post.

Try my blog for a change. I have attempted to explain it however I am not sure about it. After all its just a thought!

http://deostroll-thoughts.blogspot.com/2005_12_28_deostroll-thoughts_archive.html

[Linn]

[

quote="AstusAleator"]:roll:
Linn I would congratulate you on killing another scientific discussion, but it really has been mostly metaphysical from the beginning.
For a biologist to state the "meaning of life" in any sense other than biological would require him or her to go outside their realm of expertise and into the realm of speculation.

Likewise, for a scientist to state that there isn't a God or that the earth wasn't created, is also pure speculation, as that cannot be addressed scientifically.
right around the realm of... belief and faith in the metaphysical. Furthermore, faith in general. I consider it possible that abiogenesis may have occured in the way it is theorized to have, but I don't blindly put faith in that hypothesis. The closest you'll find scientists (ideally, i know some take science to the level of a religion and that's unfortunate) coming to "faith" will be using assumptions to base their experiments on and make models.

Do I sense some extreme hostility directed at me?
roar!!!
first of all, you need to go back and read all the posts
as to who said what, and secondly just because you do
not agree with me doesnt make creation less scientific than
your "belief"
I think these people have the right to say what they think
just like you do, dont you think?
you are the one killing this conversation of which
I was only commenting on what was already said.

Dont start
GoSH!!!

If I consulted the same sources as Lynn, I'd be in trouble too. They sounds so persuasive and reasonable...except they are totally wrong and unscientific, but alas (I'm not trying to be pretentious here, it's really true) only those who know and understand physics would be able to tell the difference.

Because they are reasonable
just as your sources semm to be.

Dont forget you do not have a theory if there is no opposition.
You taught me that from a link you previously provided.

I have not said anything that is not scientific either, except when some of you get off subject and start attacking the person instead of the argument. KWIM? Then every one gets sidetracked.

So then, where were we?

[Linn]

get your point Linn; in fact I was moved by this article on the national geographic website: I suggest you too take a look at it: try browsing to this link

Thank you I love National Geographic!
My point is that when they hear the word
creation or God they have predetermined
in their head that it is not scientific at all.
When we are still in the unknowns stage.

True science is objective is it not?
The question should always be what is the probability
And the probability that life suddenly self generated is
no more probable than design.

back to my point about the bible,
which was scientific way before its time.
How did those humble writers know to say the "circle"
of the earth
and that God hung the earth upon nothing, this at a time
when people (the scientists of their day) said the earth
was being carried by a giant turtle, and two elephants.

Even during Columbus day the popular view was that the
earth was flat.
Because they obviously did not read the bible.
it told of the cycle of evaporation, this cycle was unknown
in ancient times, yet it is clearly explained in the bible.

Then of course it is said that "in the begining God created
the heavens and the earth, Robert Jastrow explained this
when he said;"The essence of the strange developements
is that the universe had, in some sense, a beginning -that
it began at a certain moment in time."
This is the now commenly acepted big bang theory,
because there is observable data to support it.
Its not about religion, most are man made, interpretations,
its about the Creator, the inntelligence behind the design.
I believe someone quoted previously from the Koran too.
How did these writers know these things????

If we had been started or colonized here by a more advanced
civilazation isnt it logical that those early peoples would most
likely have been in touch with them?
And as time went on naturally we lost that contact and now
all we have left is these writings.

[mith]

You're trying to compare creationism sources and scientific sources and saying they hold equal weight because simply they are equally reasonable. Hopefully you'll realize that they aren't.

Being reasonable and logical is a step to getting to scientific truth but sites such as evolutiondeceit don't try to be scientific at all. As the talkorigins article stated, having metaphors helps to illustrate the fact but if the metaphors are inaccurate they're useless and harmful as a source of information which most of the creationist arguments are.

I don't remember saying that a theory isn't a theory if there isn't opposition but I do remember saying that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable, or a chance of being wrong(otherwise it is dogma). And there are stipulations and conditions which would put serious doubt on evolution if they existed, but the creationists haven't found any of those. Instead they invent reasonable "facts" to cast doubt such as with the laws of thermodynamics or claiming that the there are no transitional fossils.

[Linn]

mithrilhack
Please what have I said that is
not scientific or not debatable?

[mith]

You can debate it but as the talkorigins site stated, applying the laws of thermodynamics is unscientific, inaccurate and wrong.

[Linn]

don't remember saying that a theory isn't a theory if there isn't opposition but I do remember saying that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable, or a chance of being wrong(otherwise it is dogma). And there are stipulations and conditions which would put serious doubt on evolution if they existed, but the creationists haven't found any of those. Instead they invent reasonable "facts" to cast doubt such as with the laws of thermodynamics or claiming that the there are no transitional fossils.

I printed out information from a link from
Wikepedia.org
I do read what you post and the links you
provide.
I even print them out. That was from a disscussion two
mo ago, U know with Springer?

[Linn]

You can debate it but as the talkorigins site stated, applying the laws of thermodynamics is unscientific, inaccurate and wrong.

HAH?

Here is some of my thought on energy:
http://www.energyscience.org.uk/le/le05.htm

[Khaiy]

They will say there is proof
of evolution but I think if there is ever any real
proof with out any doubt at all (mit would be all over the news)
then evolution will
no longer be a theory and the debate will end.
Lynne

I think scientists and biologists should keep looking for
answers either way and keep an open mind.
Lynne

These seem to be a bit contradictory...
Here's the big reason that evolution is still a theory (and always will be). Way back in time, great thinkers coined laws. Think of Newton's three laws of motion, for example. But much later on, Einstein showed up and mathematically showed that Newton's equations only described a portion of the universe. They weren't wrong, but they weren't the whole picture either. At that point scientific progress took on more of an "It seems to describe everything we see right now" attitude, because there is always the chance that we will learn more that will subsume whatever we think of now. The evolutionary model works well, but it may not be the whole picture and that is why we leave the word theory attached. In that same vein, plenty of scientists keep their minds open, and don't let the fact that some people may be die hard about it lead you to stereotyping others. After all, there have been radicals in favor of creationist theories, but you wouldn't want me to discard the very idea of creationism just because of them, would you? And even if (IF) something is determined to be an absolute fact, there will always be dissenters. Google the Flat Earth Society if you need evidence of that.

And as for your link... zuh? Physics is hard, I think I'll stick to biology