Why does science always upstage God?

[Huggy Bear]

My question to you is how can you make any judgements on something you haven't even watched?

Well, suppose I told you there were fairies at the bottom of my garden.  Really.  All you need to do is drive out to Berkeley and see them for yourself.  Are you coming?

UFO's, bigfoot, gods, fairies .. I'm just not interested.  An imagination is a wonderful thing, confusing that with empirical data?  Not so much.

Driving 1000+ and watching a 3 and a half minute video aren't even remotely the same thing.

---

What are you talking about? What defines faith is fact that one DOESN'T KNOW. It's funny how you guys don't know until you get backed into a corner, you NEVER lead with it. It took 8 pages for someone to admit the 'don't know.

There are many things to which science does present an answer that one can rely upon with a high level of certainty. Other questions, not so much. Science isn't about declaring that you always know or always don't know: it's about knowing when you know and knowing when you don't. So one wouldn't necessarily lead by saying they don't know something if they do, but perhaps on page 8 if they realize they have a knowledge deficit then they will. Does that make sense?

The Bible doesn't need self correcting because it isn't wrong, which is why I challenged any of you to debunk it scientifically and none of you could do it.

Off the top of my head: isn't Adam and Eve a bible story? That there makes ZERO sense from a genetics front. You need more than 2 organisms to establish a population, or else it would be extremely inbred.

*Emphasis mine*
That is discussed in the aforementioned thread.

[Whateverist]

Well, suppose I told you there were fairies at the bottom of my garden.  Really.  All you need to do is drive out to Berkeley and see them for yourself.  Are you coming?

UFO's, bigfoot, gods, fairies .. I'm just not interested.  An imagination is a wonderful thing, confusing that with empirical data?  Not so much.

Driving 1000+ and watching a 3 and a half minute video aren't even remotely the same thing.

---

There are many things to which science does present an answer that one can rely upon with a high level of certainty. Other questions, not so much. Science isn't about declaring that you always know or always don't know: it's about knowing when you know and knowing when you don't. So one wouldn't necessarily lead by saying they don't know something if they do, but perhaps on page 8 if they realize they have a knowledge deficit then they will. Does that make sense?



Off the top of my head: isn't Adam and Eve a bible story? That there makes ZERO sense from a genetics front. You need more than 2 organisms to establish a population, or else it would be extremely inbred.

That is discussed in the aforementioned thread.

But what is absurd on the face of it doesn't deserve serious consideration. This is obviously aimed at a fringe target of which I am not a member.

[Amarok]

Driving 1000+ and watching a 3 and a half minute video aren't even remotely the same thing.

Yes it is if both claims are equally absurd .

---

The Bible doesn't need self correcting because it isn't wrong, which is why I challenged any of you to debunk it scientifically and none of you could do it.

the bible does not need to be debunked . It's a pile of unsupported claims .

---

What are you talking about? What defines faith is fact that one DOESN'T KNOW. It's funny how you guys don't know until you get backed into a corner, you NEVER lead with it. It took 8 pages for someone to admit the 'don't know.

I never claim to know absolutely on provisionally on evidence . And you have back no one into anything fool . Thou i'm sure you deluded enough to think you have . As for the notion the bible does not need to self correct itself . Your right it simply develops new excuses to remain relevant. Science is a good method of improving and expanding a house . The bible is a imaginary invisible house that fits the imagineers imagining .

---

I haven't actually watched the video (because, you know, life is short with no after life), but whatever it may show I don't know how you can be so sure it isn't contrived.  You know advertisers on commercials put white coats on actors who play scientists, right?  I don't know why you buy the 'reporter' being legitimate.  Oh well, that's all the time I can make available for something this trivial.  Carry on.

You might also note the he has failed other times. Lost the support of the very media outlet that reported this. First accepted and then ran away from a controlled test which he himself helped design. And is widely regarded as a quack by other UFO quacks .

---

Few people read peer-reviewed journals. They're generally expensive, and frequently require quite a bit of education in the covered field just to understand the material. How many journals do you subscribe to? How frequently do you read more than an abstract - if even that? Do you actually get your science knowledge from popular sites and mass media?

I read a lot of journals and am suspect of pop media's coverage of science . But that is not remotely equal to blindly accepting the bible . So you can take the particular anti science shit that Scott Walker and his ilk plopped into your empty skull and screw off.

[GUBU]

You Athiests are hilarious, I've been on these forums for five years defending every aspect of my belief, because you consider it irrational to believe in something without any evidence,  yet when it's pointed out that you do the exact same thing it's all of the sudden a game of "gotcha"?

Nay,  it's call pointing out the hypocrisy / double standard you hold when subjected to your OWN line of reasoning.

One question about abiogenesis and you guys collapse like a house of cards.

Stick to atheism because it's clear none of you can cut it as a thiest

Why do you believe abiogenesis is a problem for atheists?

Because evolution is such a problem for his idea of god. Darwin pretty much put the final nail into the coffin of the abrahamic concept of god, removing the last major area for which he could be shoehorned into.

Modern fundies have latched onto the idea that as science can't prove how life started then by extension evolution is wrong therefore yhwh exists, QED? What they don't realise is the main reason we don't have a specific abiogenesis story is because we have too many plausible routes, not too few.

[Amarok]

Which is silly . even if abiogenesis were disproven tomorrow . It does not challenge evolution in the slightest. Also huggy can't seem to tell the difference between accepting a scientifically accepted idea like Abiogenesis in a scientific fashion . And conflating it with his religious fairytales . Oh and asserting somehow he's knocked down a house of cards when he has not even scratched the paint of the reinforced armored bunker that is evolution .

But what implausible about chemistry producing a different form of chemistry. As all life is in fact chemistry.

---

The strongest theoretical justification for Abiogenesis. Is the simple fact the life is made up and sustained by inorganic matter and chemistry. Thus it's wholly reasonable to hypothesize that life  may have emerged from inorganic chemistry through multiple stages . Now were is the evidence we were poofed into existence by a magic incantation from dirt  . 

    

---

That is discussed in the aforementioned thread.

Actually you never addressed this . It remains a fact that any population born of only two creatures would suffer massive amounts of genetic defects . Which is why incest is dangerous .

[Huggy Bear]

Why do you believe abiogenesis is a problem for atheists?

Because evolution is such a problem for his idea of god. Darwin pretty much put the final nail into the coffin of the abrahamic concept of god, removing the last major area for which he could be shoehorned into.

Modern fundies have latched onto the idea that as science can't prove how life started then by extension evolution is wrong therefore yhwh exists, QED?  What they don't realise is the main reason we don't have a specific abiogenesis story is because we have too many plausible routes, not too few.

What does evolution have to do with how life began?

[Amarok]

But one final thing will say to my fellow unbelievers . Even if Abiogenesis could be reproduced in a lab (i don't think it can as i think it would require the conditions of an entire  primordial planet) Creationist like huggy will just move the goalpost . 

If it's produced in the lab they will just insist a living thing has to make it . And demand it be shown in nature . 

If it ever were shown in nature ( i don't believe a modern earth can do it ) Then they will just insist it was the result of there magic man .

[Abaddon_ire]

Because evolution is such a problem for his idea of god. Darwin pretty much put the final nail into the coffin of the abrahamic concept of god, removing the last major area for which he could be shoehorned into.

Modern fundies have latched onto the idea that as science can't prove how life started then by extension evolution is wrong therefore yhwh exists, QED?  What they don't realise is the main reason we don't have a specific abiogenesis story is because we have too many plausible routes, not too few.

What does evolution have to do with how life began?

Nothing at all. Christian fundies claim the one depends on the other, however.

I guess that is just one more thing of which you are unaware.

[Amarok]

All though it is a serious blow to theism . Unless you believe in a trickster god . An idiot god .Or and incredibly cruel god.

[Brian37]

How do police investigate a traffic accident even though they didn't see it? CLUES!

It is the same principle as using a tape measure, except in the case of age, it is using the measurement of the speed of light and the time it travels. That allows us to look back in time.

FYI when you see the sun in the sky, you are looking into the past. It takes time for a photon to leave the sun and reach our planet. Knowing the age of the universe is simply using more data points at longer distances.

The same way cops can determine the cause of an accident through measuring where the impact happened, weight of the vehicles involved and where they end up tells them the speed.

"You were not there" Is a very childish ignorant argument and utter bullshit.

If Homicide investigators thought like that, we'd never catch murderers. 

OH AND  we also have COSMIC BACKGROUND MICROWAVE RADIATION, on top of being able to measure the speed of light.

CLUES can be misinterpreted, you act as if homicide investigators are never wrong.


https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu...verse.html

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

I'll ask you the same question...

which is it?

OMG are you dense!

IT CAN BE BOTH, just like simple middle school math. Draw a finite line, and you can STILL have an infinite number of integers BETWEEN those points.

GROW UP, we are not going to fall for the childish god of the gaps garbage.


"AH HA, you don't know so therefor ALLAH!" "AH HA, you don't know so therefor Vishnu". 

OH WHAT, now that doesn't work for you? 

We are finite and the universe doesn't need us or care about us nor is it a product of a factory boss. I am sorry that bothers you but that is your baggage not ours. That was then this is now. Your fictional sky hero is not needed to explain anything. Saying "you don't know everything" does not require clinging to old mythology, otherwise Thor really does explain lightening.

A super cognition IS NOT REQUIRED to explain shit. The only thing making such claims prove  is your wishful thinking and gullibility.