...
Are we made in God's image?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
And a precursor to life, with 13.83 billion years to evolve via chemistry.
Yep, evidence of the only scientific reason for life...Abiogenesis via chemistry.
Pot, kettle, black again?
Yes, lets...Religion did its best to stifle science, at a time when the church was supreme.
Science of course did not justify genocide or anything else. Individuals, man, used science as an excuse for their inhumanity.
Are you suggesting scientists should not have delved into the atom for fear of the power evil people may release from that?
How about the good that came from it...you know, X-Rays, MRI scans and such.
Not only do you need to honest with yourself, you should avoid making excuses to justify your unjustifiable and unevidenced beliefs.
Life is chemistry. It's how life on Earth works.
That's like saying "no electromagnetic waves, just light."
Abiogenesis is the theory that inorganic precursors began replicating, and were able to inherit characteristics of previous generations. That's life. Even if you think life is all chemistry (which it is.) So evidence that those inorganic precursors can become organic molecules capable of replicating is evidence of abiogenesis.
Excellent dodge! But of course you didn't say anything about Bible doctrine, did you? You said "religions don't make scientific claims." I gave you several examples of religions that DID make scientific claims, claims strong enough to imprison (and even kill) people and ban books.
So to answer your actual post - yes, religions DO sometimes make scientific claims.
To be fair and honest, paddoboy, was it not groups, individuals, or more simply, man that used Religion to do their best to stifle science, at a time when the church was supreme?
And again, to be fair and honest, Religion of course did not justify genocide or anything else, paddoboy. It has always been groups, individuals, or more simply, man using Religion as an excuse for their inhumanity.
...
...
Last edited:
...like the obsession shown in the "Is FraggleRocker still with us?" Thread : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-fragglerocker-still-with-us.163186/#post-3639335 , where I simply couldn't keep myself from Posting the 3rd Post in that thread in some sort of freaky, precognitive and entirely obsessive response to the Ad-Hominem attack that you made in the 4th Post ?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
No, it's really not. Life has characteristics chemistry alone does not display. I can see why you'd have a vested interest in conflating the two though. Anything to justify your faith.
No, it's really not. A electromagnetic wave can be light, but a chemical reaction, alone, is not life. Man, the mental gymnastics you must go through.
No, it's really not. But thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of the actual science.
Religions are not the individual adherents, any more than science is individual scientists. Hence religions don't make scientific claims. Pretty simple reasoning there. You gave examples of individuals making claims against science, and I gave you examples of people making claims with science, claims strong enough to motivate genocide.
No religious scripture says how gravity works, how God went about constructing life, etc.. You're conflating what religious people may have done or said about religion with the religion itself.
The very fact that mythical beliefs, a trademark of religion, contradicts science, and then using that to stifle science and preach nonsense, is at the very core of religion and the harm mythical beliefs can do.
Yes, that would be nice dmoe...you know, to be fair and honest.
On the question, and specifically the holocaust, I don't believe the Vatican said much against it at that time. And as we all know, we have had many wars as a result of religion and religious beliefs dmoe.
yes, that just about sums up the level of your pretentious intelligence and mentality. Is that an adhom?
or the truth?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Why would you need to show any evidence for abiogenesis.. it's obvious...there is no other way life could have started any other way.
If you just use reason you can only come to that conclusion. It's not like there is a list of competing scientific theories each with different explanations as to how life started is there...the chemicals are all laying around in a pool lightning strikes a d you get life.. pretty simple.
What is there that you don't understand? And why do you want evidence for something so obvious as your request just seems like you are stalling in agreeing it's the only way.
I went to a creationist web site and they said the chances were astronomical which may be true but life is here which proves that even though the chances were slim life formed anyways.
Alex
One reply does not an obsession make dmoe...but if you like there is plenty of recorded history, if I was to chose to waste the time on someone not worthy of the time.
You are really really trying to live up to your pseudonym, and do so well with your effort
Please provide, at your leisure a
- religion theory along with
- how it was tested and
- results found and also any
- religion models
- what they modeled and what
- results came from the models and
- was said model followed up with full scale example
Have you tried DOG scientific knowledge?
Have you tried DOG religious scientific knowledge
Perhaps I should resurrect a thread I once started about a member here that in a past incident, when literally screwed because of his stupidity, then chose to play the "victim card" based on being dumb. Dumb in the specific case meaning mute, which if true [which it certainly was not] would be a very disgusting, ugly, and politically incorrect way to refer to anyone, even one's self as dumb, when meaning mute. Dumb as in dummy certainly.
The facts are that people are very rarely born mute...while a large section are born deaf....being deaf of course means that they cannot, or find it difficult to talk as they are unable to learn by listening....But essentially they are not mute.
Long story and interesting in seeing how some members chose to operate.
The facts are that people are very rarely born mute...while a large section are born deaf....being deaf of course means that they cannot, or find it difficult to talk as they are unable to learn by listening....But essentially they are not mute.
Long story and interesting in seeing how some members chose to operate.
Trying???You are really really trying to live up to your pseudonym, and do so well with your effort
You see paddoboy you are not being fonest when those feople build fhurches and fress up funny and freach
THEY are in feality using feligion to have their ficked fay
f
AH...but therein lies the rub, paddoboy...another in a very long line of Ad-Hominem Attacks from you could be construed as, or indeed indicative of, somewhat of an obsession.
psst...paddoboy.
...some readers of your Posts might even find it kind of an obsession that you constantly choose to waste so much time on someone that in your Ad-Hominem Attacks you repeatedly claim to be not worthy of the time.
Please do not insult other members.
I just see the need to refute your obsessions with me and your stupidity and highlight your mental capacity as you post. I certainly do not waste the time searching for the nonsensical attitude that the forum as a whole recognises, and that is evident in your past history and as recently mentioned by James. Oh, sorry Pssst
Now would you like to talk about being mute or dumb?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Sure, if "obvious" means without evidence. You know, obvious to the true believers. "No other way" means it's literally not falsifiable. That's not science, that's belief. Presuming only scientific answers are possible, when science itself states there are things forever beyond it, is scientism. But neat little mythology you have there. Lightening, huh? From Zeus?
If it's so obvious, create life already. That is the only evidence. Just like you demand to see God to accept its existence. Or are you just a hypocrite who can't see how you have different standards for your own beliefs compared to those of others? Saying "life is here" so it must have been abiogenesis is no more compelling that saying "life is here" so it must have been God (which you'll note, I've never said). In both cases, something existing does not, itself, explain its own origin. Nor does the bunch of vague arm waving you've offered.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Scientists can explain the probable process by invoking chemistry so it seems obvious ..do you want evidence of chemistry?
Yeh it's that good.
Science...belief..what does it matter..it's obvious..you can't argue with tested chemistry.
Hang on ..you have been lecturing us that there is stuff outside science..make up your mind.
Where does science say that?
You know it is funny..at first I did not like that word but really the more I hear it the more I like it...and it fits..Dawinism, Socialism, Vandalism Athieism, Communisism, Autism, ...it joins a long list..why shouldn't science have it's own ism...yes I must say I like it...Please let me use it..my first time...according to scientism the appearance of life was possible due to the building blocks of life finding themselves in the correct environment for the complex chemical interactions to take place creating life. Scientism has become the answer to everything. Scientism rules. Long live scientism.
Man it is a very handy word.
I thought you would think so..thanks.
Yes those flashes when you hide under the bed cause of the thunder..that's lightning..it causes the thunder...but nothing to worry about but scientism thinks lightning may have been that magic ingredient to give that life force to chemicals... but I do wonder given the folk killed by lightning..Anyways why worry those scientists must have it right...scientism never let's us down..not like creationism or communism or vandalism.
There you go trying to bring some god into it...lightning is not due to gods...that was the way they thought once and maybe they still teach that in church.. is that where you came up with that idea...no no no..no gods..this is scientism you know real stuff.
I have ..two daughters one son.
Me? I think you are confusing me with somebody else...Why would I demand to see a mythical being..do you think I am nuts...well of course you do...no I won't be demanding to see any mythical entity.
No but I am trying to learn..from you..you seem the best around here..who better..learn from the best they say... I think you have been called a hypocrite more than most..so yes show me how.
Well of course you would not say that when we are into scientism..it would be silly for starters a d as you know there is no reason to think there is a god, sure you can believe in God but you know it's not really real say like scientism.
OK you win, ...see I can be generous.
Alex
Last edited:
The only rub worthy of any comment dmoe, is that you have been proven to be a troll, both here and elsewhere, and that you have acted totally dishonestly in many ways, most notable, and again proven, your misuse of the like system. The similar misuse you were corralled at SFN for.
Except that like the majority of your posts, you mix lies with innuendo and misinterpretation.