How is the information required for DNA ceated?

I have never outright denied that God could exist. Making such an assertion would require that I have personal knowledge of his non-existence. I simply believe that the existence of God is highly improbable because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he does exist, just as there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You rate them based on the amount of evidence that is available to support them.

That's because there is a lot more evidence indicating that evolution and Big Bang are true than there is that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy exist.

Yes, because science requires evidence and proof, whereas faith is firm belief without proof.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think Jade answered this response in the same manner as I would. But nonetheless I think I will drill the facts even moreso.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Hypothesis: A testable statement or prediction about the natural world which can be supported by experiment or observation.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances, often stated in a form of a mathematical equation.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of how the natural world works that explains facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Before a theory can be included in the system of science, it must meet all of the following criteria:

its ability to explain what has been observed;
its ability to predict what has not yet been observed; and
its ability to be tested by further experimentation and to be modified as required by the acquisition of new data.

Two types of evidence are accepted by practicing scientists:

1. Confirmation of hypothesis by data strengthens their validity.
2. Repeated inconsistency of data with a hypothesis eventually leads to the rejection of the hypothesis.


Science is not a matter of belief; rather, it is a matter of conclusive evidence that can be subjected to the test of observation, reasoning and peer review.

A scientific approach that may be valid is likely to be rejected as irrelevant by people who hold certain beliefs (e.g., astrology, fortune-telling, and superstition) One of the main reasons behind this rejection, is the fact that science can blantaly show that their personal beliefs are false, so to discredit science as not able to answer supernatural questions, would fit their personal agenda. Disgusting, yes, but it happens all the time.

It bothers me that the legitamacy of science, which is so obvious, is questioned by people because they are too invested in their particular beliefs. Science points in one direction, and they point in another and somehow the truth is so troubling to them, that they have the audascity to misconstrue fact and propegate a gross misunderstanding about scientific theories and principles.

Somehow in their self deluted mindset Science is one big conspiracy. They look around and see all the advancements made by science and still question it as a means for understanding our world. Thank science for the computer you are presently using, thank science for the car you drive, thank science for the antibiotics that keep you free from sickness, thank science for the numerous other advancements that make us happy and safe. But still somehow it is so off track. Jeez

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no proof that the "Big Bang" is correct. No proof that "Darwin" was correct. No proof that god exists or not.

You gotta have faith man, in all of them.

 

DefSkeptic

That is a brilliant answer, I go for it wholeheartedly.

I do not discredit science at all, I believe Darwin, Big Bang , and God theories all in the same sense: It IS possible, because no one has proved otherwise.

I appreciate your answer regarding the scientific aspects. But I can't put "can we find a cure for cancer?" in the same catergory as "Is there a god?" I hope you know what I mean.

 

The definition of faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". The definition of proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact". The evidence for evolution and Big Bang is convincing enough to accept the theories as true; faith is therefore not necessary.

 

"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power."
-Eric Hoffer

Faith - Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.

Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God. [More...]

 

stu43t-

Very true. Two very different questions. Philosophy is a huge contributor to the God question, maybe moreso than science. The evidence needs to be interpreted(God/no God), thats where philosophy comes in to play for the most part.

 

The acceptance of a theory is only valid to the acceptentee.

But I do not discredit any scientific theory or the probability of a god, I have faith that somewhere lies an answer, and hopefully one day we will find it

 

The copy before it did, or it is a new strand created from copies of the DNA of the parents. You obviously know this, so why is it that you're attemping to "christ it up" with everyone? How do you think this will support the vacuus case for ID or creationism?

EDIT:

The question of god is moot due to lack of evidence. Pardon, but it seems that you're pimping us in that direction. I'd like to say that there evidence supporting the big bang theory, evidence supporting evolution, and a bunch of emotionally needy idiots claiming they already KNOW there is a god, so that's all the evidence they need. How exactly is it that you compare the latter with the prior two? Do you have some lame assed evidence like the bible to site?

 

stu43


I dont have be promised heaven or be told to fear hell just to choose to be a nice person to others.

you are dangerously mixing spirituallity and morality.

define the two separately then define the slight overlap that they both enjoy.

if this definition is subjective, would you then go for the answer of majority rule?

 

LOL! "Christ it up."

But anyway, I got the impression that he is just keeping "all of his options open", rather than making a case specifically for Xianity.

 

Actually, I support stu43t, I think you people were unfair with him and not so open minded that you all claimed.

You see guys, thats true with the scientific community in general in our society, it took the place religion had in the past, and I think that that is equaly wrong. When you have an authority deciding what is the "truth" it creats a dogmatism that is as strong as religion was in the past. This is even more accurate, when one refer to those so-called skeptic organisations that made a fool of themselves. One example I can refer to is homeopathy, anyone that has done a full real research of homeopathy has concluded that this kind of threatment in many health condition was near as good as conventional medecine, this has not stoped some ignorants to selectivily choose few researches that have shown that some homeopathic substances had no effects, when it was demonstrated later that the substances were administrated for the wrong condition. But has the skeptics changed their views ? No ! They have ridiculised homeopathy, when there is hundreds of researches proving their efficiancies, and even more, is that homeopathy was tried with success by governments to protect soldiers against poisned gases.

It makes me laugh when I read few so-called MD physicians that publish articles making fun of homeopathy and claiming that real researches have proven that it has no effects, when those same said researches have been proven in their turn to be flawed because the wrong substance was tried, and when on the other hand, there is hundreds and hundreds of tests from various laboratories, including governmental research insitutes, that have established that homeopathy works, and I chalange everyone here to come and prove me with studies that it does not, because for each one one may post, I will prove with evidences how the test was flawed and conterattack with 10 other studies for each posted.

Skeptics works usually by first supposing something is not possible, when I say skeptics, I refer here to those from various so-called skeptic organisations, it is now like a religion, a kind of establishment, a way for PhDs to make fool of other peoples and discuss about subjects they totally ignore, homeopathy is one of the greatest examples of those, where skeptics talk with their a.s... without having a clue, and when the principle behind homeopathy is exactlly the same as vaccins.

I am myself an agnostic, and a REAL skeptic, when I say real, I mean, not like those from so-called scientific establishment that subscribe to those skeptic magasines to ridiculise without any moral sense and knowledge of the subject(without even paying close attention to it) others.

I think what we are facing know is the danger that science is becoming a religion, and anything that would harm its foundations will become a taboo subject.

Another example wanted ? An example could be the theory of relativity, there is many contradictions between the relativity and QUantum mechanics, and what are called those phenomens that contradict relativity ? Well, the relativity paradoxes... foundamental physic is full of paradoxes, and only science now could permit such nonesenses as paradoxes, when it is not science, this paradoxes become "lies" nonesense" but put them in science and they become paradoxes. Other examples could be brough here, like the big-bang, I can bring a full range of problems brough by this theory, things that would have rejected the big-bang in the first place if a scientific methodology was used.

We come to the same point here, religion or dogmatic science ? Which one is worst ? In fact, I would say that religion right now is less worst than dogmatic science, for the only reason that even those religious individuals have to respect what science bring, they recognise the majority of the principles in our present societies, while those so-called skeptics, reject everything with biases, the kind of logic: "I will prove this is wrong, because it can't be possibly right."

The Bible has many nonsense, against logic, but what makes the Bible any more majical than the weird effects of QUantum mechanic ?

Now, natural selection, I do not believe that natural selection alone could explain life on Earth, and there is many studies bringing evidences for that, it seems that an animal could mutate and then bring this modification to the other generation, other things should be studied, but science we have only Earth as example, we need to wait. But that does not prove or disprove a "God" again, its just that there is a possibility that there is life because there is properties in this Universe that permit sych a thing, I think one of those very important properties is that this Universe permit "conscience" without it there is no way that life could evolve like it evolved.

I think I wrote to much right now, and there is no much time for me to revise and correct many mistakes in what I wrote. Sorrt in advance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: Every possibilities should be open to discussion.

 

It humors me that people seem to jump to the defense of moronic ideas like ID and creationism, as if they are not mainstream... as if there exists a shred of reasonable evidence supporting their claims. Nice move there, defending the paradigm of ignorance and all. Very wise.

Should the possibility that the universe originated from my rectum be open for discussion?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I hope not.

 

I think the premise of this thread may have originated around that region.

 

I have not seen anyone claiming that creationism was the "truth" a person made his opinion, and suggested that as a possibility, I see nothing wrong in that.

As for your second paragraph, I think it does not worth any replies.

 

Then you contradict yourself with the following:

Why not then?

 

Originally posted by brainuniverse
It makes me laugh when I read few so-called MD physicians that publish articles making fun of homeopathy... (more complaining about homeopathy)
Some personaly issues here?

An example could be the theory of relativity, there is many contradictions between the relativity and QUantum mechanics... (more complaining about science)
Scientists fully acknowledge that relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatible. Science is always looking for progress and will accept any valid flaw pointed out. This does not include so called 'paradoxes' which are easily explained by science.

The Bible has many nonsense, against logic, but what makes the Bible any more majical than the weird effects of QUantum mechanic ?
Quantum mechanics is usefully and predicts reality. The Bible does not. Also, the Bible is not pen to 'change', while science is.

Now, natural selection, I do not believe that natural selection alone could explain life on Earth
Natural selection is not meant to explain where life came from.

But that does not prove or disprove a "God" again...
By definition, you can not prove or disprove "God". It's like me telling you an invisible unicorn which lives in my house create life.

PS: Every possibilities should be open to discussion.
Some possibilities exist which are not worth the time to discuss. There are plenty of things we have proof for.

 

Science is not about truth. It is about knowledge. No scientist can ever claim that he or she has proved something true. Proof is simply the result of evidence so compelling that it compels one to accept something as true. Religion, on the other hand, claims to know the truth, which (by the way) does not correspond with reality.

Although it may sometimes seem that the scientific community is "dogmatic", sufficient evidence from repeated experiments subject to peer review will eventually compel it into acceptance. Einstein's theory of relativity was also scoffed at by the scientific community. But the evidence to support it was overwhelming, which is why it has gained acceptance in the greater community.

You sound like you are very knowledgeable on this subject. I, on the other hand, am completely ignorant of homeopathy. But, like any other scientific theory, it will eventually gain acceptance in the scientific community if there is sufficient evidence to warrant such acceptance.

What relativity paradoxes?

There are certainly unanswered questions, but all accepted scientific theories are backed by evidence. Demons, angels, and talking asses are not; they are nonsense.

Scientific methodology was used to develop the Big Bang theory. Do you think someone just pulled this out of his ass? No! It is based on the observation that the universe is expanding, and it is supported by the Cosmic Background Radiation among other observations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah right. How many scientists do you see flying planes into buildings in the name of the theory of evolution? Do you see scientists fighting and killing each other to prove their theories correct? Sure they squabble amongst themselves, and for good reason; the scientific method and peer review are the best ways to attain knowledge.

Quantum mechanics is supported by evidence. The Bible is supported by the Bible, which is supported by the Bible, which is supported by the Bible, ad infinitum. See what I mean?