Are we made in God's image?

[Michael 345]

Now would you like to talk about being mute or dumb?

With his pseudonym I'd bet on dumb

I would also question the avatar of dmoe showing a photo where the position of the photographer appears to be a short distance from the moon

 

[Vociferous]

Scientists can explain the probable process by invoking chemistry so it seems obvious ..do you want evidence of chemistry?

"Probable" without evidence means it's only speculation. Chemistry is a long way from a living organism, otherwise you could create life in a lab. See how much mythology you have built up around your beliefs?

Yeh it's that good.

Not falsifiable is not science. Not even bad science.

Science...belief..what does it matter..it's obvious..you can't argue with tested chemistry.

No chemistry has ever been shown to result in a living organism, not even the simplest sort of organism. You equivocating over science and belief may mean there's hope for you realizing yours is the latter.

Hang on ..you have been lecturing us that there is stuff outside science..make up your mind.

Taking fragments of sentences out of context lets you play all sorts of bs game, huh?

Where does science say that?

Fro example, science tells us that we cannot see back to the first moment of the Big Bang, send information faster than the speed of light, nor retrieve information beyond an event horizon. All due to the laws of physics.

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.

Very apropos your beliefs anyway.

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.

Your sarcasm is a defense mechanism to protect your unsupported beliefs.

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.

Might as well be from a God, since abiogenesis has mythical proportions in your beliefs anyway.

I have ..two daughters one son.

Nature created that life, not you. You merely contributed.

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.

So no amount of evidence could possible convince you of a God? That would mean your atheism is not falsifiable, and thus not supported by science.

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.

My standards are the same for all beliefs.

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.

Your deflection is kind of pathetic.

 

[Michael 345]

Friends email

So this is what theist mean when they bang on about having to experience god for yourself before you understand

At least this church is being brutally honest about its intentions for you

 

[dumbest man on earth]

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.

I would ask , paddoboy, that since this is a Science Forum and since it is you that holds The Scientific Method so sacrosanct, that you might provide evidence to support these spurious allegations that you claim have been "proven".

But would you provide any conclusive evidence if I did ask?

Would you, paddoboy?

After all, as a true arbiter of the purity of Science and the Scientific Method, it would seem that you would do just that without even being asked...

But, Meh...it is not important for you to actually Practice what you Preach on this Forum is it, paddoboy?

Seriously, paddoboy, you only seem to be Posting examples of the same Logical Fallacy.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

With his pseudonym I'd bet on dumb

I would also question the avatar of dmoe showing a photo where the position of the photographer appears to be a short distance from the moon

If you believe wikipedia, the photo in my Avatar has been declared by Nature photographer Galen Rowell as "the most influential environmental photograph ever taken".

The photo, Earthrise, is purported to have been taken by astronaut William Anders during the Apollo 8 mission

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

 

[James R]

The photo, Earthrise, is purported to have been taken by astronaut William Anders during the Apollo 8 mission

Do you doubt that it was taken by William Anders?

What does this have to do with the thread topic, by the way?

 

[paddoboy]

I would ask , paddoboy, that since this is a Science Forum and since it is you that holds The Scientific Method so sacrosanct, that you might provide evidence to support these spurious allegations that you claim have been "proven".

But would you provide any conclusive evidence if I did ask?

Would you, paddoboy?

After all, as a true arbiter of the purity of Science and the Scientific Method, it would seem that you would do just that without even being asked...

But, Meh...it is not important for you to actually Practice what you Preach on this Forum is it, paddoboy?

Seriously, paddoboy, you only seem to be Posting examples of the same Logical Fallacy.

it's not only true dmoe, it's been true for years, both here and elsewhere. Evidence? In recent times you have been labeled a troll by James, and convicted of misuse of the like system...I know that, and the forum knows that.
In essence what you need to do, is quit while you are behind.

 

[Beaconator]

View attachment 3471

Friends email

So this is what theist mean when they bang on about having to experience god for yourself before you understand

At least this church is being brutally honest about its intentions for you

Jesus died for your sins weather you believe in him or not. It is not so much that he requires your consent to penetrate you before you go into heaven...

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Do you doubt that it was taken by William Anders?

Michael 345 seemed to Question the veracity of the Photo in his Post #221.
I merely tried to provide him some quick backround on the picture.

Since I was presenting background evidence for that veracity from the wikipedia Site, I used the word purported, intended to be synonymous with words like : proclaimed ; maintained ; declared ; expressed ; professed ; asserted ; avered, etc...

What does this have to do with the thread topic, by the way?

Michael 345 might be able to answer that question, James R. introduced it in his Post #221.

Since you asked "What does this have to do with the thread topic, by the way?" :
May I ask you, James R, what does whether or not I doubt that the Photo was taken by William Anders have to do with the thread topic?

 

[paddoboy]

I would ask , paddoboy, that since this is a Science Forum and since it is you that holds The Scientific Method so sacrosanct, that you might provide evidence to support these spurious allegations that you claim have been "proven".

But would you provide any conclusive evidence if I did ask?

Would you, paddoboy?

While you certainly are not worth the time for extensive searches, and since you asked so nicely, and since one of these was reasonably recent, I'll grant you your request....

The rules regarding private messages are published in our Site Posting Guidelines, which are readily available in the Site Feedback subforum. Basically, private communications are private, unless you have the express permission of the sender to publish.
Probably you are referring to my warning to you that you should consider ceasing your trolling behaviour.

Since your filing reports and your posting this thread are both a continuation of the same behaviour that led to the initial warning, starting the current thread really isn't helping your case.

The moderator group will consider whether your continued participating on this forum is desirable in good time.

If you wish to make a case for why we ought to retain you as a member, please send a private message copied to myself, Bells and Tiassa.

Thank you.

Apologies to James for further off topic posts, but I was asked nicely for evidence......

 

[James R]

Michael 345 seemed to Question the veracity of the Photo in his Post #221.
I merely tried to provide him some quick backround on the picture.

Ah. Okay then.

Since you asked "What does this have to do with the thread topic, by the way?" :
May I ask you, James R, what does whether or not I doubt that the Photo was taken by William Anders have to do with the thread topic?

Nothing. That was my point. michael's post questioning the photo is off topic. Your post talking about the photo is off topic. My questioning you about your beliefs about the photo is off topic. And so it goes ... a series of off-topic posts.

Interesting that you avoided answering my question to you, though.

So, let's drop it and get back to the topic. Agree?

 

[Michael 345]

Michael 345 seemed to Question the veracity of the Photo in his Post #221.
I merely tried to provide him some quick backround on the picture.

Really? That is what you dig out of my comment on your Avatar?

Not dumbest man on earth has Avatar which is from a vantage point NOT ON EARTH

If pseudonym had been - dumbest man in SPACE - sure

Apologies James

 

[paddoboy]

The topic "áre we made in God's image" Fairly presumptive anyway, considering that such a concept is unscientific anyway, and made greatly superfluous.....but be that as it may, I have heard it said that we are made in God's image, and yet on the other hand, I have heard some of our preachers on this forum, say that God is essentially a spiritual being, and does not have a body.
And this God whoever he looks like, or whatever he looks like, is said to care for all humanity, and has a plan for us all, good, bad, indifferent, even me, as my lovely wife tells me on the odd occasion.
But then it needs asking

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

"Probable" without evidence means it's only speculation

Yes what else can it be at the moment?

. Chemistry is a long way from a living organism, otherwise you could create life in a lab.

Well we could but there is an absence of funding.

Not falsifiable is not science.

Yes so it should appeal to folk who feel science should not be trusted.

. You equivocating over science and belief may mean there's hope for you realizing yours is the latter.

OK to help you feel you get some sort of say in all this yes...mmm maybe I should say confidence rather than belief..to make you happy.

Taking fragments of sentences out of context lets you play all sorts of bs game, huh?

I may have chopped it down but I think I made a fair call...really make up your mind...be consistent.

Your sarcasm is a defense mechanism to protect your unsupported beliefs.

Well what would you do if you held unsupported beliefs like..mmm...can't think of any but what would you do?

Might as well be from a God, since abiogenesis has mythical proportions in your beliefs anyway.

There is no way you can compare the two but it suggests to me you are not fully accepting abiogenesis ...don't worry you can think what you like but as I have said there is no other way for life to come from the building blocks of life..it must be chemistry.

Nature created that life, not you.

What do you mean...nature created that life?

So no amount of evidence could possible convince you of a God?

I would not say that.

That would mean your atheism is not falsifiable, and thus not supported by science.

What has that got to do with anything...Godism made a claim that has no support...I think if one were to make the claim that humans invented gods it would be easy to offer evidence in support...again just like the life thing so obvious why waste any more time if you want to prove a god do so if you want to disprove the life via chemical action do so...

My standards are the same for all beliefs.

I will take you at your word...do not disappoint me.

Your deflection is kind of pathetic.

Come now be more forceful if you think it's pathetic say so don't mince about like timid cat.

Now so you don't think I am being too flippant ..I know what you are saying about belief and if you were talking to someone else you could be right..but in your hast to prove something you failed to take any notice of my statement that I don't really believe anything...I think the Big Bang is the best model we have but really I don't believe it necessarily reflects reality, same for all of it ..I am not as infected with scientism as you call out..you talk about straw men now I see why..you are obsessed with the concept...Anyways you ignored what I told you so that is why you are not going to get any sence out of me...my position is on everything I don't know if they are right but I take it on board...as to religion I think I know enough to saygods are human invention and if you follow the history you can not conclude anything different..is there any sort of God?...I doubt it as there is no need for a creator as the universe can only be eternal...do I believe that..not entirely but it make sense to me more than any god story.
Life from chemicals..makes sense..do I believe it..well I won't bet the house..
Nice chatting please answer my life elsewhere question.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Chemistry is a long way from a living organism, otherwise you could create life in a lab.

Well we could but there is an absence of funding.

And we havn't had the 4.6 billion years to do it in also.

 

[Michael 345]

But then it needs asking

I look both ways because of reality and traffic

 

[paddoboy]

I look both ways because of reality and traffic

Don't we all have a guardian angel?

 

[Michael 345]

Don't we all have a guardian angel?

Mine likes god's image so much it could not believe got lumbered with moi, not in any way close to god's image

So I guess mine is MIA here on Earth, and probably kissing up to Sky Daddy while drunk

 

[Vociferous]

Yes what else can it be at the moment?

Certainly not the fact paddo and billvon claim it to be. And certainly not devoid of belief, as you have claimed.

Well we could but there is an absence of funding.

That's you unfounded beliefs talking again.

Yes so it should appeal to folk who feel science should not be trusted.

Non sequitur.

OK to help you feel you get some sort of say in all this yes...mmm maybe I should say confidence rather than belief..to make you happy.

No, you've tried that mealymouthed bs before. The religious are no less confident in their beliefs.

I may have chopped it down but I think I made a fair call...really make up your mind...be consistent.

No, you took it out of context so you could outright lie. You're the one who has repeatedly been inconsistent, and you had to resort to taking quotes out of context to project that on me. Get some integrity, man.

Well what would you do if you held unsupported beliefs like..mmm...can't think of any but what would you do?

Exactly what I do all the time...readily admit they are only beliefs.

There is no way you can compare the two but it suggests to me you are not fully accepting abiogenesis ...don't worry you can think what you like but as I have said there is no other way for life to come from the building blocks of life..it must be chemistry.

It's only your blind faith that fails to see the direct comparison of two unsupported beliefs. "Must be" is an article of faith, and seemingly puts you in line with paddo and billvon in presuming it fact.

What do you mean...nature created that life?

Humans do not have the knowledge to create life themselves. They must utilize natural processes to procreate.

I would not say that.

Then make up your mind. Either you have some criteria which you would accept as evidence of God or you don't.

What has that got to do with anything...Godism made a claim that has no support...I think if one were to make the claim that humans invented gods it would be easy to offer evidence in support...again just like the life thing so obvious why waste any more time if you want to prove a god do so if you want to disprove the life via chemical action do so...

Theism doesn't claim to based on scientific fact or evidence. The onus for the claim of abiogenesis is on those who tout it. Don't try to shift the burden for your own claim.

I will take you at your word...do not disappoint me.

My standards have always been consistent and intellectually honest.

Now so you don't think I am being too flippant ..I know what you are saying about belief and if you were talking to someone else you could be right..but in your hast to prove something you failed to take any notice of my statement that I don't really believe anything...I think the Big Bang is the best model we have but really I don't believe it necessarily reflects reality, same for all of it ..I am not as infected with scientism as you call out..you talk about straw men now I see why..you are obsessed with the concept...Anyways you ignored what I told you so that is why you are not going to get any sence out of me...my position is on everything I don't know if they are right but I take it on board...as to religion I think I know enough to saygods are human invention and if you follow the history you can not conclude anything different..is there any sort of God?...I doubt it as there is no need for a creator as the universe can only be eternal...do I believe that..not entirely but it make sense to me more than any god story.
Life from chemicals..makes sense..do I believe it..well I won't bet the house..

Like I said, make up your mind. If it's only a speculative belief, quit mincing words like "confidence" and "must be". And quit pretending that your beliefs are any more compelling that any others.

 

[paddoboy]

Certainly not the fact paddo and billvon claim it to be. And certainly not devoid of belief, as you have claimed.

But you prefer some fabricated ancient myth about some supernatural being, which over the course of time, science has pushed further and further back to near oblivion.

That's you unfounded beliefs talking again.

Totally wrong, again. We have many many lines of evidence pointing to Abiogenisis, and of course the stuff of life is everywhere we look. You Vociferous are simply start stuff and through chemistry, over 13.83 billion years, have evolved into a life form.

Non sequitur.

You have a bad habit when confronted with reality and the truth, in writing them off as strawmen or non sequiturs...The fact remains, that Abiogenisis is the only factual scientific answer...Now if you prefer to argue whether the methodology of Abiogenisis is a result of just local Earth like conditions or something like Panspermia, then you maybe talking bout something with substance that can be falsified or otherwise.

No, you've tried that mealymouthed bs before. The religious are no less confident in their beliefs.

Yet it is you that comes to a science forum, preaching creationism and rubbishing the scientific method with useless rhetorical nonsense. I don't believe that Alex will do the reverse at some church or creationist convention anytime soon, and I can say with utmost certainty, that I would never find that necessary. Rather technology and improved scientific knowledge and observation alone, will hopefully see such nonsense conveyed to the scrap heap.