Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Anyway let's talk about Light. I understand that Creationism insists that the laws of physics are different now than they once were. I understand, to us, that sounds scientifically blasphemous. However, the evolutionary theory insists that the laws are now as they have always been. And if by following these laws life was able to form, why has it not done it again? If the laws remain constant, and the laws and the earth at the time allowed life to form, then something in the Laws of Physics must have changed that makes it impossible for life to form synthetically or by natural processes again. If the Laws of Physics were the same at that time, then the same things that were physically possible at that time would be physically possible today. But apparently, they're not. 4.5 billion years and it never happened twice, not by nature or by our influence and intelligence.

This is why I say, in my opinion, the concept of life forming by natural processes defies the evolutionary theory.

About that analogy you consider extraneous, or a "hyperbole". Maybe it's my opinion about how it made me feel, and you don't have to agree with it. You're hypocritically telling me that it's okay to be culturally insensitive, and then blaming me for showing you how insensitive it is by comparing it to something else that is indisputably culturally insensitive.

We have no reason to think evolution has stopped. Evolution is something that happens over extremely long periods of times, its not something we can directly perceive over a single lifetime. Evolution is happening, all around us, all the time. We simply don't live enough to visually perceive it. Worth noting, we have seen evolution occur in laboratories over microorganisms.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

We have no reason to think evolution has stopped. Evolution is something that happens over extremely long periods of times, its not something we can directly perceive over a single lifetime. Evolution is happening, all around us, all the time. We simply don't live enough to visually perceive it. Worth noting, we have seen evolution occur in laboratories over microorganisms.

I understand that. I was not referring to natural selection and evolution. I was referring to the Precambrian era and the origins of the first cells.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I understand that. I was not referring to natural selection and evolution. I was referring to the Precambrian era and the origins of the first cells.

I am confused then, what exactly is it that hasn't happened twice since then? Are you suggesting new cells haven't been formed since then? Or that laws of physics have to be different then than they are now? Neither really makes much sense to me.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I am confused then, what exactly is it that hasn't happened twice since then? Are you suggesting new cells haven't been formed since then? Or that laws of physics have to be different then than they are now? Neither really makes much sense to me.

As I said "If the Laws of Physics were the same at that time, then the same things that were physically possible at that time would be physically possible today." However scientists have discovered that it is impossible for life to form even with human interaction. It is undeniable that life began. Evolutionary theory in anti-creator belief suggest that there was not a creator. This means that the natural laws that allowed life to begin without a creator billions of years ago, would still be in effect today. However, there is no evidence that between life's beginning and now that it has begun again. And scientists understand that it is impossible to create a living cell by hand. If nature isn't doing it, and intelligent life forms can't, but it is undeniable that it happened, then it can be inferred that the natural laws that allowed life to begin have changed.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

That is exactly what I read about the appendix. I apologize for not wording it correctly. It doesn't seem like you study beliefs you don't identify with to their core either. If I have no reason to believe in human evolution why should I look for anything more than a reason to believe in it?

So when you argue about it, you don't look like you're a misinformed ignoramus. If you don't understand evolution at all, then you have no right to argue for it or against it. I also identify with the cores of beliefs, and it seems the main core is to pray to God and make him feel powerful.

Crusades? Jesus said love your brother and God said do justice but love mercy. The bible does not promote war. That actually supports my argument that injustice is not the spawn of religion, but the inhumanities of humans. Religion just helped them justify it.

I am well aware of this, as well as religion playing a part in society not being so full of immoral bastards. However, religion would have caused less strife because there'd be less to fight over or kill over.

For some reason both of you think the only evidence I have is the bible. The bible is not the basis of any physical evidence I have, but of the mental interpretation i'm using.

Because you have provided no evidence that is found outside the Bible.

How many scriptures have I quoted? Quote me one. Please. I even refrained from posting an argument because I would have used scripture. Come on, Romans? No. Genesis? I referred to it with a hypothetical argument that the ideas developed seem too coincidentally interpretable as correlating with current scientific theory. I never said, The bible says it so it must be true. A lot of books say a lot of things. Wonder why I'm not islamic or Jewish? Because I believe in the bible for more than the fact that it exists.

At least two, from what I've seen. And now, you're saying that anything said in the Bible is true? Or do you believe in the moralistic code that it has? Explain more on the last sentence.

Just shows how seriously you're taking this argument. Still comparing me to your stereotype of what you think a Creationist should be. That alone is insulting. Furthermore, what evidence have you used besides insulting my ideas and telling me the opposite of what I typed. The best I've heard so far was about light.

You have not provided any good counter. Nor does it seem you really read my post, or if you do, you interpret it differently.

I proposed the idea that blaming religion for people hindering the growth of science is a very short-sighted way of thinking. If we all rose out of the neolithic era as atheists would science really be that much more advanced? Like saying death will stop if we get rid of guns. Then we find out the in the United States suicide rates were already at 10.8 while homicide rates were at 6 per every 100,000 people.

It is not short-sighted when history is full of people hindering the growth of science because their findings contradicted the Bible, after the Church and monarch forced the Bible to be taken literally.

I'm sure science would be more advanced because people would be less close minded and be more open to change without fear of God smiting them to Hell for defying him. You cannot compare those two at all, especially when a lot of people don't understand the arguments behind the guns, both for and against.

^Oh look at that. Evidence to support and argument and it's not from the bible. Whaaaaaaaaat? I didn't know creationists could do that!

What evidence? You haven't supported anything. Guns make it easier to kill people, while people were/are against science because of religion.

Want the source? Right here

What? Creationists actually research things before they say them?

You just proved you didn't when you said you don't research evolution. So, you don't really research things before you say them.

And so? How is that related to the topic at hand? Does not change the fact that people have hindered science in the name of God or religion, and there have been news about how parents refused to get treatment for their kids because they kept thinking prayers and God and Jesus would heal the kids.

You just researched one thing, and it was to support your point, not to learn more and counter.

Sorry if I'm not like those creationists. You're actually going to have to try to convince me.

No, you're like most diehard Creationists I have come across. They refuse to take anything as fact, twist what others say, and not understand anything about the other side. You don't seem to know the hypocrisy behind Creationists who claim that A must have created B, so Big Bang couldn't have happened, but go on to say God always existed.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

As I said "If the Laws of Physics were the same at that time, then the same things that were physically possible at that time would be physically possible today." However scientists have discovered that it is impossible for life to form even with human interaction. It is undeniable that life began. Evolutionary theory in anti-creator belief suggest that there was not a creator. This means that the natural laws that allowed life to begin without a creator billions of years ago, would still be in effect today. However, there is no evidence that between life's beginning and now that it has begun again. And scientists understand that it is impossible to create a living cell by hand. If nature isn't doing it, and intelligent life forms can't, but it is undeniable that it happened, then it can be inferred that the natural laws that allowed life to begin have changed.

When have scientist discovered that? I doubt there is any credible science behind that notion. Of course, there are only hypothesis on the matter however the lack of understanding on the matter is not evidence that it cannot happen. That said, proper science does not suggest there isn't a creator. A creator would be irrelevant because to begin with you would need to prove there is such creator with all the rigor science requires. And of course, such a thing cannot be done. The theory of evolution not needing a creator to work is not evidence against a creator. Nowhere in it is a creator mentioned, implied or denied. Its simply not relevant because evidence on the subject and testability is non existent. Also, on the matter on making cells, the actual notion of the scientific community is not that cells cannot be made but rather that it is not technologically feasible yet (and even then some pretty hardcore stuff has already been made not too recently).

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

M3J

1. I never said anything about human evolution in the first place. You asked me what I knew and I assumed it was about the popular misconception that creationists think evolution says we came from the monkeys we see today. I don't know why you think that developed a rhetorical strategy. None of my arguments related to human evolution. I denied it because of it's foundation, which I didn't agree with.

I know what it is, I have researched it, just not religiously. How about you research Haldane's Dilemma or the fossil record of human evolution? Let's talk about how mathematically, there was not enough time for the plethora of genetic differences to form between Homo-sapiens and ancient apes. Let's talk about all the fake skulls they made.

2. If that's what you believe then okay.

3. I have provided no evidence in the bible....

4. Quote them. And then I will consider explaining the last sentence.

5. Trying to use me to excuse yourself? Really?

6. It sounds like you have a personal hatred of religion in general. I can't help you there.

7. I'm not just going to repeat myself for you.

8. I really don't care what other creationists have done. Have I labeled you? Stop labeling me.

When have scientist discovered that? I doubt there is any credible science behind that notion. Of course, there are only hypothesis on the matter however the lack of understanding on the matter is not evidence that it cannot happen. That said, proper science does not suggest there isn't a creator. A creator would be irrelevant because to begin with you would need to prove there is such creator with all the rigor science requires. And of course, such a thing cannot be done. The theory of evolution not needing a creator to work is not evidence against a creator. Nowhere in it is a creator mentioned, implied or denied. Its simply not relevant because evidence on the subject and testability is non existent. Also, on the matter on making cells, the actual notion of the scientific community is not that cells cannot be made but rather that it is not technologically feasible yet (and even then some pretty hardcore stuff has already been made not too recently).

That statement was not made to prove the existence of a creator, but to help portray why I do not believe in the evolutionary theory. That was the premise of my very first post. But you don't have to believe me, you can research it on your own. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm simply defending myself.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

That statement was not made to prove the existence of a creator, but to help portray why I do not believe in the evolutionary theory. That was the premise of my very first post. But you don't have to believe me, you can research it on your own. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm simply defending myself.

Which statement exactly are you talking about? missed something here... As for your first post, it is somewhat disturbing on many angles. Luckily 5 seconds on wikipedia address this points (I admit I am too lazy to look for better sources but then again wikipedia is actually very reliable nowadays, specially for the simple stuff). To begin with the very experiment you describe did not yield just a few aminoacids, it produced more than 20. For another, the notion that the experiment used elements not available on earth at the time is kinda unfounded. It is true that the conditions of the earth are thought to be different from the experiment in question however using models which are more approximate only yield more diverse molecules. And even then, the experiment itself only proves that organic compounds can appear on their own, it is not the end-all of the situation. Realistically speaking there isn't even a proper model for how life began which is by no means a demerit to science. Its simply more to research on and build on.

As for the genesis bit, to begin with there are plenty of religions with similar believes. Well, that is not entirely relevant though... But what is important is that the genesis is pretty ambiguous if not taken literally. You can basically fit any theory or hypothesis into it if you squint enough. You can literally do the same with pretty much any other religious view on the origin of life, the universe and everything. Well, not necessarily all but quite a few, both current and extinct, pre and post JC.

Also, who exactly are you talking about here?

What I mean is Darwin compared his observations to observations present. Creationists compare our observations to the record of someone who was there. It is not an nonfactual, irrational hypnosis.I'd say the cup is half full.

Worth noting, I loled at "irrational hypnosis". It sounds kinda funny (not that I am saying that the mistake takes anything from your post).

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

1. I never said anything about human evolution in the first place. You asked me what I knew and I assumed it was about the popular misconception that creationists think evolution says we came from the monkeys we see today. I don't know why you think that developed a rhetorical strategy. None of my arguments related to human evolution. I denied it because of it's foundation, which I didn't agree with.

It's not a popular misconception if nearly all Creationists I have come across or have observed say that.

I know what it is, I have researched it, just not religiously. How about you research Haldane's Dilemma or the fossil record of human evolution? Let's talk about how mathematically, there was not enough time for the plethora of genetic differences to form between Homo-sapiens and ancient apes. Let's talk about all the fake skulls they made.

Again, show me your sources. Fake skulls? Not enough time for genetic differences? There was plenty of time for the genetic differences, especially when any member of the homo line could have their genes mutated, mate with another member with mutated genes, and produce an offspring that inherited those mutated genes.

5. Trying to use me to excuse yourself? Really?

Nope.

6. It sounds like you have a personal hatred of religion in general. I can't help you there.

I do not have personal hatred of religion, as I have defended it in the past. However, it is a fact that religion has hindered the growth of science and society in general. People prefer to latch on to their archaic thoughts and beliefs (as long as it doesn't hurt their goals or desires) than move on and change with the time, something that the current Pope is finally doing.

If religions had more people like the Pope, then I believe the world would be better off regardless of religion.

8. I really don't care what other creationists have done. Have I labeled you? Stop labeling me.

You seem to have, yes. You said you're not like other Creationists, and I replied with a counter and provided reasons why. If I had not, you probably would have asked me what makes you the same.

Or you would have twisted something. Who knows?

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

How exactly are scientists supposed to exactly replicate the conditions of Precambrian Earth? Especially when we're not even fully aware of them?

Saying that the creation of life not happening again...first off, that's not even 100% provable. You do know that Earth isn't the only planet in the Universe, right?

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Despite not fully aware of how the conditions were, we came pretty close and managed to create an "amino acid."

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Which statement exactly are you talking about? missed something here... As for your first post, it is somewhat disturbing on many angles. Luckily 5 seconds on wikipedia address this points (I admit I am too lazy to look for better sources but then again wikipedia is actually very reliable nowadays, specially for the simple stuff). To begin with the very experiment you describe did not yield just a few aminoacids, it produced more than 20. For another, the notion that the experiment used elements not available on earth at the time is kinda unfounded. It is true that the conditions of the earth are thought to be different from the experiment in question however using models which are more approximate only yield more diverse molecules. And even then, the experiment itself only proves that organic compounds can appear on their own, it is not the end-all of the situation. Realistically speaking there isn't even a proper model for how life began which is by no means a demerit to science. Its simply more to research on and build on.

As for the genesis bit, to begin with there are plenty of religions with similar believes. Well, that is not entirely relevant though... But what is important is that the genesis is pretty ambiguous if not taken literally. You can basically fit any theory or hypothesis into it if you squint enough. You can literally do the same with pretty much any other religious view on the origin of life, the universe and everything. Well, not necessarily all but quite a few, both current and extinct, pre and post JC.

Also, who exactly are you talking about here?

Worth noting, I loled at "irrational hypnosis". It sounds kinda funny (not that I am saying that the mistake takes anything from your post).

Indeed I admit to some hyperbole in those examples. I don't want to say any more, but there are definitely certain aspects of Christianity that set it aside from other religions that I understand are very similar in various ways. When I say someone who was there I refer to the witnesses and gospels who wrote the bible. Not to say they were there to witness the beginnings of life, but that they do bear witness to the events that occurred millennia ago, however much may have been lies, I believe, are still up for debate. Genesis does have a lot of ambiguity, but it's also definitely insightful to wonder why the author used the words he chose to communicate the themes of Genesis.

Mind I'm not trying to use the bible to support the bible but

The creationist community is beginning to accept the flood story (Noah's Ark) to be fabricated by early Catholics. It was written after another, similar flood story and they needed to convince the people to fear god. They made up christmas, it's certainly up for questioning. On top of that there's no form evidence that could even be interpreted into supporting it scientifically. Since it's so unorthodox to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe in many still accept it as fact. A firm hold is Jesus testified that the bible was perfect, however there is not even any scripture to support that Jesus himself is all-knowing. Even Revelations says Jesus does not know when the world will end. Religiously and scientifically, thematic influence of early Catholics on the bible is still up for questioning.
----
I was just trying to reiterate the adjectives used by the maker of the topic. It is a redundant statement. Please excuse my grammar.


M3J

Unbiased-Haldane's Dilemma
Non-creationist - Haldane's Dilemma
Creationist - Haldane's Dilemma
Human Evolution Fraud
God and Science
Idea Center

 

[z.5]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

As I said "If the Laws of Physics were the same at that time, then the same things that were physically possible at that time would be physically possible today." However scientists have discovered that it is impossible for life to form even with human interaction.

I do not believe that scientists have discovered this.
Although the results can be (and often are) massively overhyped - the work by Craig Venter is a good start on the route to show that (depending on your take on what life actually is [MRSNERG anyone?]) life can indeed be created in the lab.
If you are talking about creating multicellular lifeforms all the way from 'primordial earth' conditions - as in the Urey–Miller experiment - then the earth has had billions of years for life to occur. You may dismiss the formation of complex organic molecules from simpler ones, however the formation of life is a continuous process of billions of years (it really was unlikely to have even single-celled organisms form in the short timespan [of 50+ years] since people began such experiments).

This means that the natural laws that allowed life to begin without a creator billions of years ago, would still be in effect today. However, there is no evidence that between life's beginning and now that it has begun again.

But why wouldn't they still be in effect today?
If you are talking solely about the earth then there are numerous reasons why 'life may not have begun again'.
For example:
- The earth is not in the same state as it was in when life begun.
- The earth is already massively populated by life
- 'New life' may be forming still, from scratch, but it will be single-cellular lifeforms which may be easily overlooked.

And scientists understand that it is impossible to create a living cell by hand.

Please tell people like Craig Venter that.

If nature isn't doing it, and intelligent life forms can't, but it is undeniable that it happened, then it can be inferred that the natural laws that allowed life to begin have changed.

I do not believe you can prove the first - not even on this planet (let alone the countless other planets in this galaxy).
As to the 2nd, we have only recently (even 100 years is pretty recent scientifically speaking) begun trying - there is no reason to think we would get it right first time or we would have all the knowledge currently required to do so.
With those both impossible to prove statements discarded, you have no reason to be able to infer that anything has changed, or will change, from when life started on this planet all the way to when it finally ends.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

From what I have read, Haldane's Dilemma is just lack of understanding and an attempt to discredit evolution. There are countless of different factors to take into account, and it does not seem like the "theory" even takes a second to consider most of them. I have mentioned one or two different factors, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. It seems the theory was made under the assumption that there were very few humans and ancestors of humans alive, less than 12.

I want credible sources talking about fossils being fake (they credit only one source), not a source from a site that looks like it was sloppily made using Geocities as a host. Besides, the evolution theory has far more proof than Creationism, I have yet to see a good proof from Creationists that doesn't ultimately come down to "faith."

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Indeed I admit to some hyperbole in those examples. I don't want to say any more, but there are definitely certain aspects of Christianity that set it aside from other religions that I understand are very similar in various ways. When I say someone who was there I refer to the witnesses and gospels who wrote the bible. Not to say they were there to witness the beginnings of life, but that they do bear witness to the events that occurred millennia ago, however much may have been lies, I believe, are still up for debate. Genesis does have a lot of ambiguity, but it's also definitely insightful to wonder why the author used the words he chose to communicate the themes of Genesis.

Mind I'm not trying to use the bible to support the bible but

The creationist community is beginning to accept the flood story (Noah's Ark) to be fabricated by early Catholics. It was written after another, similar flood story and they needed to convince the people to fear god. They made up christmas, it's certainly up for questioning. On top of that there's no form evidence that could even be interpreted into supporting it scientifically. Since it's so unorthodox to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe in many still accept it as fact. A firm hold is Jesus testified that the bible was perfect, however there is not even any scripture to support that Jesus himself is all-knowing. Even Revelations says Jesus does not know when the world will end. Religiously and scientifically, thematic influence of early Catholics on the bible is still up for questioning.
----
I was just trying to reiterate the adjectives used by the maker of the topic. It is a redundant statement. Please excuse my grammar.


M3J

Unbiased-Haldane's Dilemma
Non-creationist - Haldane's Dilemma
Creationist - Haldane's Dilemma
Human Evolution Fraud
God and Science
Idea Center

I feel like you changed topics a bit. My point was about Christianity somehow fitting specially well into scientific theories. Setting aside the issues with picking only scientific theories which fit your point, the core issue is that the genesis really does not fit any better than any other given religion. And even then, taking that stance from a religious perspective is just wrong because you are validating religion with science. Basically, disprove a scientific theory or get a better model and then suddenly the supposed connection to real science is affected. Unless of course it still fits because the whole thing was made to fit to begin with since the bible is not really a detailed instruction book. Jesus never testified the bible was perfect either. He wasn't even around when it was written.

Halndanes dillema is a non issue here, no real science backs up creationist claims regarding that. In essence, creationist claims on the matter are bad science and bad religion, take your pick. As usual, 5 seconds in wikipedia deal with that.

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.

As for the rest of the sites, obviously pundits with an agenda spreading misinformation and misunderstanding how science works. Seriously, they even have missing link stuff there...

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

From my observance, Creationists are unable to argue without using flimsy theories and evidence and show that they do not really understand scientific theories and stick to bad theories that support them.

No one has ever been able to provide a decent proof why Creationism is valid or counter why evolution does not work. Wasn't there an old Bible that was revised with the inclusion of Jesus after his time? Old Testament to New Testament? If the Bible is indeed true, then why alter it?

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

The start and end of the situation with creationism, young earth creationist and every plausible variation is that their believes don't meet the basic requirement to be considered science. They work as if science was a faith or perhaps even worst, opinions, when the fact of the matter is that science is a process, a methodology to gather information.

Well, if we go by Christian faith good old Jesus resurrected at the third day and a month or so later he ascended to heaven. At no point was there ever said he took the time to revised the bible. The bible has two parts, the old (before christ) and new testament. Each of them is basically a collection of many books. If we go by faith the new testament was written by apostoles although from a purely historic perspective there is some doubt about that (though I don't have much knowledge on the matter, the subject has always confused me a bit).

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Right now I really want to detach myself from being represented as a Creationist, only because when I called myself that I was not aware how strong the stereotypes of a creationist were. Instead, consider me one who does not believe the theory of evolution is a viable model of origins.

--------------
Science is still learning
First of all, it's oxymoronic to use the concept that you don't know everything as a rhetorical strategy in a debate. Only statistics show that science is still growing. If you place so much doubt in what science has already discovered, how can you come to a conclusion? A hypothesis is made to be doubted, the results of an experiment after hundreds of trials and revisions are to be considered fact. Meaning it is not subject to doubt. You're giving the impression that science's destiny to discover more could one day even disprove the law of gravity. While that might be statistically true, it does not support your argument. It's bad Logos

There are 3 basic forms of rhetoric: Logos, meaning logical evidence, ethos, meaning credibility, and pathos, meaning emotional and social evidence. You're not going to convince anybody if you have to destroy your own credibility to prove a point. To doubt the facts discovered by scientists that you have used in your argument, not because you have any reason to believe they are wrong, but because scientists are still learning, will only be interpreted as you saying that you don't even believe in your argument either. It's bad Ethos

I understand where you're coming from. But see how weird it is when I say, "well maybe not all of the bible is true." But does that really support creationism?
---------------
Venter
I believe from what I've read that synthetic biology isn't much different from genetic engineering which deals with already living cells. I have no reason to believe it is revival or creation. (In other words, they change the DNA and the DNA forces the body to make changes).

The scientific community may not have written a detailed declaration or accepted a law that life can not be created, but among many biologists the concept of life being created or forming on its own is impossible.

News Source

---------------
Jesus.

John 10:35
Matthew 5:17
Matthew 4:4
If you really care you can look them up. But there is scripture saying Jesus believed the old testament was true.
---------------
Atheist claim is that life began without intelligent interference. Apparently that claim is as testable as you think a creator is. If it can't be tested then it can't be fact right?

Urey created amino acids. It's like saying if you throw the pieces of a cellphone into a mixing bowl and that eventually it will eventually be put together into a fully functioning cellphone if you mix it around long enough. That is an understatement of how impossible it is for life to form. There is no "scientists will figure out a way". It's not possible.

In other words it can be tested with the same principles in the watchmaker argument, and the same principles that supported Darwin's theories and the same principles of the Scientific Method. Apparently it's not fact.

I'm going to assume like everything else I've said you'll say "where's your evidence". Well you can perform the Scientific Method on it yourself.

Hypothesis: Complex Machinery can be formed by constantly, unintelligently, mixing its pieces in a controlled environment.

Experimental Procedure:
1. Detach every non-chemically bound piece of a graphing calculator.
2. Put them in a bowl
3. With some instrument. Mix the material around same as you would to dissolve sugar in water, for any specific amount of time you see fit to stop.
4. At the end of each trial try to solve for the square root of 3961 using only that graphing calculator.

Independent Variable: The amount of time mixing
Dependent Variable: The given answer to the equation.

Just for fun. Record how long it takes to reassemble and reactivate the calculator using expert instructions, and then try to solve for the square root of 3961.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design starting to sound like a field of science yet?

You see where my idea comes from? That the laws of physics must have changed. If evolution is true to its foundation, this would mean the laws of physics are today as they have always been. If at one point the laws of physics allowed life to form (Which must be true since life did form) then it would be physically possible for life to do it again. Right now, the scientific method shows, that the concept is not possible given our current laws of physics.

If gravity takes effect in 2014, then we believe it will take effect in 2015. Because it is a tested fact. To say that life could have been created by natural processes then, but the scientific method shows it can't now, defies present day scientific theory.
---------------
@kkck

I really don't think Wikipedia holds more credibility and unbias than those websites. I will admit I did not find them using scholar.google.com
---------------
Referring to different, hardly even discovered, planets isn't much different than filling in the blanks saying "God did it".

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Well, if we go by Christian faith good old Jesus resurrected at the third day and a month or so later he ascended to heaven. At no point was there ever said he took the time to revised the bible. The bible has two parts, the old (before christ) and new testament. Each of them is basically a collection of many books. If we go by faith the new testament was written by apostoles although from a purely historic perspective there is some doubt about that (though I don't have much knowledge on the matter, the subject has always confused me a bit).

It isn't just a collection of different books. If you refer to the Old Testament specifically, the stories aren't even about the same god. There's no historical evidence of the God of the Israelites, Yahweh, having influence in the region during the time the Bible claims. However, there is more than enough evidence of Babylonian and Canaanite polytheism's influence, both with the Enuma Elish, and the Canaanite deities, El Elyon, Ashera, and Baal. The Biblical accounts of creation didn't even appear until around 950 BCE. There's evidence that the biblical figures, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were in fact, polytheists, and the Bible was edited to remove this fact. It wasn't until the "discovery" of the book of Deuteronomy, that the deity was consolidated as Yahweh. And it wasn't until Second Isaiah that Genesis I was written, a newer version of the Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation myth), and all references to other Gods were removed and redacted from the books written until that point. Mainly by saying that the names of these gods were only different names for Yahweh, and also attributing the Babylonian story of Marduk and his feats to Yahweh.

This explanation also makes a lot more sense when people demonstrate the difference in the Old Testament God from the New Testament God, and the inconsistency of the former.

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ----------

Referring to different, hardly even discovered, planets isn't much different than filling in the blanks saying "God did it".

Not really. The notion of one of the seemingly 100 billion Earth-like planets, in the Milky Way Galaxy alone harboring some form of life is a matter of math and probability. "God did it" isn't.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Not really. The notion of one of the seemingly 100 billion Earth-like planets, in the Milky Way Galaxy alone harboring some form of life is a matter of math and probability. "God did it" isn't.

100 billion earth like planets? You do realize the conditions that have to be met to sustain life right?

First of all, live has to exist for life to survive. I.E. Oxygen.
Planet must be the correct size.
Planet must be able to maintain all 3 states of water
Planet must have the correct star
Planet must be the correct distance from the star
Planet must have a moon
Planet must contain the elements necessary to develop the building blocks of life.
the list goes on. It's the little things that can eradicate life.

When I researched the mathematical probability of planets that could sustain life in the entire universe it was optimistically 10.