The Origin of the Universe

[Edwardo Piet]

Science is not trying to create an answer like religion it tries to find answer.

Awesome quote here Giff I think. Perhaps even worthy of a sig?

EvF

If you want to, or do you mean I should have it as a signature?

However I changed it to "to find an answer" I think that's a more correct english. If that's more correct?

Yes that's correct. I knew what you meant so TBH I didn't even notice you missing out hte word "an", I filled it in so it made sense.

Well I mean I think it's worthy of a sig. I'd add it to mine but there is no room and I want to keep my current 2 quotes atm.

EvF

[Demonaura]

I'm just loving the high and mighty act here. I can't help but picture a very smug person speaking when I read your posts Chris.

[Giff]

Science is not trying to create an answer like religion it tries to find answer.

Awesome quote here Giff I think. Perhaps even worthy of a sig?

EvF

If you want to, or do you mean I should have it as a signature?

However I changed it to "to find an answer" I think that's a more correct english. If that's more correct?

Yes that's correct. I knew what you meant so TBH I didn't even notice you missing out hte word "an", I filled it in so it made sense.

Well I mean I think it's worthy of a sig. I'd add it to mine but there is no room and I want to keep my current 2 quotes atm.

EvF

I have it as my own, so I don't forget it. Pretty much explain what I feel about religion.

[Edwardo Piet]

Cool

[WebChris]

Well - well; a more group-cogitated scientific response and not from just one or two of you - and an awful lot to respond to. (Your responses to someone opening the door with guns blazing were like you dealt with someone like me before.) Not all of your theoretical views were just hip-shot one-liners. They were not as I predicted : my using trivial imagery to query your logic - (the straw man attempt) was thwarted. Nonetheless, to the purpose of this entire discussion, I (being just one) cannot prevail any further than my initial post. (All jokes aside - I agree that this is only fair.) --- Of course, we were discussing the place of Biology - its origin in a non-creationist universe. I agree that it is very difficult for religion or science to prove a negative, or a non-given: be it intelligent design or the big bang's singularity. I will respond based upon my initial post to the response that was ‘relevant’ to that post.
Tiberius wrote:
"Life isn't complex, all we are are bunches of self replicating molecules. The first "organism" was simply an arrangement of self replicating molecules that joined together. Given the number of chemical reactions that went on for billions of years, it is a simple matter of probability that the right molecules bound together. Once that happened, natural selection took place when they replicated, causing mutations, and evolution."

Warning: Your statement is riding on “Abiogenesis” (life from inanimate matter). It launches out like a floating brick and has sunk into bottomless “guessed probability” and its cousin certain impossibility. Let me suggest this design; your very own basic "self replicating molecule" with a shape that represents an obvious symbol of a very large and worldwide belief system; when stretched out, of course. > the Laminin Molecule< : just google it and let me know what you think.

[Giff]

Let me suggest this design; your very own basic "self replicating molecule" with a shape that represents an obvious symbol of a very large and worldwide belief system; when stretched out, of course. > the Laminin Molecule< : just google it and let me know what you think.

Soooo.... what belief system would this molecule represent?

[lilphil1989]

Warning: Your statement is riding on “Abiogenesis” (life from inanimate matter). It launches out like a floating brick and has sunk into bottomless “guessed probability” and its cousin certain impossibility. Let me suggest this design; your very own basic "self replicating molecule" with a shape that represents an obvious symbol of a very large and worldwide belief system; when stretched out, of course. > the Laminin Molecule< : just google it and let me know what you think.

hmm, so still no actual responses?

As for laminin, firstly, it is not self-replicating.

second, Let's assume for a minute that your god did create humanity and decided to put a very vaguely cross-shaped molecule in our organ membranes.
Why cross-shaped? At this point your man hadnt been nailed to everyones favourite plank, and the cross wouldnt mean anything.
Of course you could say that your god knew it would happen in the future, but since he was (supposedly) nailed there by humans, that kinda pisses all over the idea that your god gave humans free will...


Finally, explain to me how this is any different to me claiming that the vaguely spaghetti shaped villi in my gut are proof that we were created by the flying spaghetti monster.

.

[Tiberius]

Warning: Your statement is riding on “Abiogenesis” (life from inanimate matter). It launches out like a floating brick and has sunk into bottomless “guessed probability” and its cousin certain impossibility. Let me suggest this design; your very own basic "self replicating molecule" with a shape that represents an obvious symbol of a very large and worldwide belief system; when stretched out, of course. > the Laminin Molecule< : just google it and let me know what you think.

Erm, and why exactly is abiogenesis worthy of a "warning". It's a scientific theory that has made valid predictions and has had many aspects confirmed by experiments. Why don't you actually respond to my point rather than dismiss it without even knowing what it entails.

As for Laminim, yeah I saw that video too. The problem with this "design" is that it is so amazingly simple. I mean, think about it for more than 5 seconds. Your religious symbol is two straight lines that intersect each other, hardly very complex. Secondly, the Laminim molecule isn't a very good example of a cross in the first place. Sometimes the ends curve round and connect to each other, forming a loop. Most of the time it is never in the shape of a 2D cross (which is why you said "when stretched out"). If you really think this is evidence for your creator, why exactly do we need to modify the shape to see it? Another thing, given the simplicity of the shape (and the fact that many molecules share the shape), why don't we have molecules spelling out "God exists" or "Jesus is Lord" in our body?

Be more open-minded in future, and try a half-decent response next time. Nobody with any good scientific background seriously doubts abiogenesis or evolution, and the few scientists who do are either ignorant of the field or have religious presuppositions that prevent them from agreeing with science.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, talking of the Cross being simple...

My dad had a friend years and years and years ago (before I was born, in the 70s I think it was) - who was staring through the window one day...and it happened to be one of those windows with the frames so its all in little bits, what they called? So like little sections...like framed - so he was looking at one of these sections...and it looked like 'The Cross' and hence he was convereted...WTF??

I THINK this was also the same guy who said something like "You don't need a reason to believe...believe FIRST - THEN it works" - to paraphrase..

Might have been a different guy...but both ultra-silly anyway.

EvF

[WebChris]

>>>All of the scientific theories that all of you are pointing at the heart of this discussion are all “intentions” and “predictions” about natural phenomenons. i.e. The non-creationist universe that you all collectively assert as one big accident.

But I like ya'lls tenacity! Love it! (I'm from Arkansas - you may figure) Here is my response,
>>>Tiberius wrote, “Erm, and why exactly is abiogenesis worthy of a "warning". It's a scientific theory that has made valid predictions and has had many aspects confirmed by experiments. Why don't you actually respond to my point rather than dismiss it without even knowing what it entails.”

I challenged this (Adrian’s) view because it implied “Abiogenesis” not “Biogenesis”! Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is an obsolete theory and Louis Pasteur was no idiot! You either knew little of what I was talking about or you mistyped your response most terribly. (You tried to sell me a lie and didn’t even take a second look in your Atheist’s Theoretical Catalog.)
>We all know that life can’t generate spontaneously from inorganic or inanimate matter. (maggots don't spontaneously generate from dead meat, etc.) You should know better than this!
Although there are several, several theories that are being cooked in “science kitchens” along these lines. (How Ironic!) The question is how did the first nucleic acids arise. Nobody knows the exact sequence of chemical events that led to this. (Saying, “I don’t know,” does sound more honest, but to assert so would be scientifically arrogant and dishonest without a logical hypothesis.) Although there are several, several theories and nothing in the primordial “soup” seems to stick to the ribs, so to speak. Even the oatmeal about these Big Bang Singularities; they stubbornly pose a problem for physicists because of known physical laws that do not apply. (What a shame.)
I conclude this discussion humbly by saying in light of my initial post that; What I am the most concerned about; is this heavy dependence an atheist has on theories intended or predicted to be factual because they seem more probable to just happen from nothing. There’s got to be some kind of strange “faith” in something so elusive as these theories - that atheists use them to dishonestly excuse themselves to a lifestyle of excess and moral irresponsibility. You want to live your life your way - Fine, but don’t use science as an excuse to be immoral or even liberal.
>Holla back if you feelin' me!