By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - This is why I don't like debating religion

timmah on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Alara317 said:
timmah said:


Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level.

Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all.

Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point)

RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists.

Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter.

You are aware that they've come very close to recreating albiogenesis in a lab, right?  That's where they put all the stuff theorized to be swimming the ocean diring the formative years of our planet, and expose it to the equivalent of volcanic and electric activity to make the proteins and acids combine in such a way to make rudimentary forms of life.  

Look it up, kinda devastating to the creationst's case. 

Yeah I've told him about the Miller-Urey experiment. He seems to think just because it proves that amino acids form without influence from anyone, and form based purely upon the conditions provided, that it does not refute intelligent design. lol

Proving something can happen does not prove that something else did not. Again, they produced the building blocks for life, there is still no solid scientific proof or explanation on how non-living matter became living matter. Just look at this quote from the Wikipedia page about Abiogenesis:

"From organic molecules to protocells

The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

It's all about hypotheses, postulations, models, and ideas, so don't act like it's some concretely proven fact when there are many, many hypothesis and no concrete answers. The problem is that you come across like you have some proven fact to back up your worldview, while the scientific community has nothing but theories in reality, then turn that around to insinuate that anybody who does not share your views is basically stupid.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:
I never said 'if we can't do it, it's not possible', that would be a logical fallacy. My point was that if we can't do it on purpose, it's highly improbable it would happen on its own. I would also say, if we can do it in the lab, that doesn't mean that's how it happened with 100% certainty. My broader point is that none of this is even close to concrete, there are multiple theories about how life could have sprung up out of the early oceans, and we've been able to synthesize certain components of life in the lab (but not prove how those parts could become a living whole on their own), but none of that proves or disproves that life came from non-life, just as none of it proves or dis-proves the existence of God or intelligent design. The fact that there are so many theories even within the Abiogenesis crowd that it's obvious the scientific evidence we have is very muddy and subjective based on how you look at it. You don't have to be stupid to believe in Intelligent design, just as you don't have to be stupid to believe a different theory on how abiogenesis may have happened if indeed it did.

I guess I get tired of the assumption that anybody who believes in God or Intelligent design is somehow a dolt that lives under a rock and hates science (not saying you believe that, but many people do). I can see the same data you can, but as happens even in the scientific community, we can both come to different conclusions without either of us being stupid.

You go ahead and rely on intelligent design, and the rest of us will rely on the best possible answer based upon observation and experimentation. The difference is we aren't relying on some belief. We're reliant on results.



timmah on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
I never said 'if we can't do it, it's not possible', that would be a logical fallacy. My point was that if we can't do it on purpose, it's highly improbable it would happen on its own. I would also say, if we can do it in the lab, that doesn't mean that's how it happened with 100% certainty. My broader point is that none of this is even close to concrete, there are multiple theories about how life could have sprung up out of the early oceans, and we've been able to synthesize certain components of life in the lab (but not prove how those parts could become a living whole on their own), but none of that proves or disproves that life came from non-life, just as none of it proves or dis-proves the existence of God or intelligent design. The fact that there are so many theories even within the Abiogenesis crowd that it's obvious the scientific evidence we have is very muddy and subjective based on how you look at it. You don't have to be stupid to believe in Intelligent design, just as you don't have to be stupid to believe a different theory on how abiogenesis may have happened if indeed it did.

I guess I get tired of the assumption that anybody who believes in God or Intelligent design is somehow a dolt that lives under a rock and hates science (not saying you believe that, but many people do). I can see the same data you can, but as happens even in the scientific community, we can both come to different conclusions without either of us being stupid.

You go ahead and rely on intelligent design, and the rest of us will rely on the best possible answer based upon observation and experimentation. The difference is we aren't relying on some belief. We're reliant on results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Please tell me which of the hypothesis in the above article is the 'best possible answer' based on observation and experimentation. If you can, you're smarter than 99% of the scientific community. You can certainly tell me your personal opinion, but none of these is a concrete, provable answer to bridge that gap from non-life to life. Could somebody just come out and acknowledge that Science does not have a solid answer to this question??



dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Please tell me which of the hypothesis in the above article is the 'best possible answer' based on observation and experimentation. If you can, you're smarter than 99% of the scientific community. You can certainly tell me your personal opinion, but none of these is a concrete, provable answer to bridge that gap from non-life to life. Could somebody just come out and acknowledge that Science does not have a solid answer to this question??

Abiogenesis is the overlaying theory. It is the consensus of the scientific community. Within abiogenesis there are competing components, but abiogenesis itself is what you really should have asked for. 

This article sums up my feelings about intelligent design:

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node47.html



timmah on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Please tell me which of the hypothesis in the above article is the 'best possible answer' based on observation and experimentation. If you can, you're smarter than 99% of the scientific community. You can certainly tell me your personal opinion, but none of these is a concrete, provable answer to bridge that gap from non-life to life. Could somebody just come out and acknowledge that Science does not have a solid answer to this question??

Abiogenesis is the overlaying theory. It is the consensus of the scientific community. Within abiogenesis there are competing components, but abiogenesis itself is what you really should have asked for. 

This article sums up my feelings about intelligent design:

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node47.html

My point was that Abiogenesis may be an accepted theory, but there is not one single, provable fact within that theory. And that article is the biggest load derogatory crap I've seen in a while, and does not accurately portray the arguments of ID proponents.

EDIT: I'd certainly go so far as to say that God cannot be proven by Science, nor can Intelligent Design be 'proven'. On the other hand, the theories above can't be proven either, so the assertion that people who believe in ID are stupid is not a fair conclusion. Articles like the one above just go to show the level of condescending hate that some people have towards conflicting viewpoints. I simply don't share that type of hatred or condescention towards your views.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:
My point was that Abiogenesis may be an accepted theory, but there is not one single, provable fact within that theory. And that article is the biggest load derogatory crap I've seen in a while, and does not accurately portray the arguments of ID proponents.

EDIT: I'd certainly go so far as to say that God cannot be proven by Science, nor can Intelligent Design be 'proven'. On the other hand, the theories above can't be proven either, so the assertion that people who believe in ID are stupid is not a fair conclusion. Articles like the one above just go to show the level of condescending hate that some people have towards conflicting viewpoints. I simply don't share that type of hatred or condescention towards your views.

Well, we know that complex things can come from simple ones given the Miller-Urey experiment. Bonds between elements form amino acids. There's a fact. Abiogensis can in fact be proven or disproven. It lays out a few possible transitions from organic matter to life. These are testable. God isn't. Neither is ID. That nullifies their relevance entirely to Science.

I wholeheartedly agree that ID is just religious nonsense in an attempt to validate theism.



timmah on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
My point was that Abiogenesis may be an accepted theory, but there is not one single, provable fact within that theory. And that article is the biggest load derogatory crap I've seen in a while, and does not accurately portray the arguments of ID proponents.

EDIT: I'd certainly go so far as to say that God cannot be proven by Science, nor can Intelligent Design be 'proven'. On the other hand, the theories above can't be proven either, so the assertion that people who believe in ID are stupid is not a fair conclusion. Articles like the one above just go to show the level of condescending hate that some people have towards conflicting viewpoints. I simply don't share that type of hatred or condescention towards your views.

Well, we know that complex things can come from simple ones given the Miller-Urey experiment. Bonds between elements form amino acids. There's a fact. Abiogensis can in fact be proven or disproven. It lays out a few possible transitions from organic matter to life. These are testable. God isn't. Neither is ID. That nullifies their relevance entirely to Science.

I wholeheartedly agree that ID is just religious nonsense in an attempt to validate theism.

That's not what I said at all, and you're twisting my words, as well as being condescending in the process. I've been trying to say that we can disagree and have a civil discussion without assuming that the other is 'stupid' or calling somebody's views 'nonsense', and apparently that is impossible with you. I apprecieate the people who have tried to have a meaningful discussion, you're not one of them.



dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
Well, we know that complex things can come from simple ones given the Miller-Urey experiment. Bonds between elements form amino acids. There's a fact. Abiogensis can in fact be proven or disproven. It lays out a few possible transitions from organic matter to life. These are testable. God isn't. Neither is ID. That nullifies their relevance entirely to Science.

I wholeheartedly agree that ID is just religious nonsense in an attempt to validate theism.

That's not what I said at all, and you're twisting my words, as well as being condescending in the process. I've been trying to say that we can disagree and have a civil discussion without assuming that the other is 'stupid' or calling somebody's views 'nonsense', and apparently that is impossible with you. I apprecieate the people who have tried to have a meaningful discussion, you're not one of them.

I meant I agreed with the author of that source I provided. ID has absolutely no scientific basis so why would you use it in parallel with a true scientific theory? I apologize if it seems condescending, I do it without noticing. That source was absolutely condescending though.

As to meaningful discussion, you've sought to tear down every bit of abiogenesis while perpetuating ID with absolutely no evidence or verification. Just your own suppositions. That isn't meaningful at all...



timmah on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
Well, we know that complex things can come from simple ones given the Miller-Urey experiment. Bonds between elements form amino acids. There's a fact. Abiogensis can in fact be proven or disproven. It lays out a few possible transitions from organic matter to life. These are testable. God isn't. Neither is ID. That nullifies their relevance entirely to Science.

I wholeheartedly agree that ID is just religious nonsense in an attempt to validate theism.

That's not what I said at all, and you're twisting my words, as well as being condescending in the process. I've been trying to say that we can disagree and have a civil discussion without assuming that the other is 'stupid' or calling somebody's views 'nonsense', and apparently that is impossible with you. I apprecieate the people who have tried to have a meaningful discussion, you're not one of them.

I meant I agreed with the author of that source I provided. ID has absolutely no scientific basis so why would you use it in parallel with a true scientific theory? I apologize if it seems condescending, I do it without noticing. That source was absolutely condescending though.

As to meaningful discussion, you've sought to tear down every bit of abiogenesis while perpetuating ID with absolutely no evidence or verification. Just your own suppositions. That isn't meaningful at all...

My mistake, I thought you were referring directly to what I said. In that case, disregard that part. Carry on.

I'm merely pointing to the big problem that I see with abiogenesis, which is not being able to bridge the gap between non-life and life. So many people act like it's a proven fact, when it's simply not.



KungKras on 19 December 2012
timmah said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Please tell me which of the hypothesis in the above article is the 'best possible answer' based on observation and experimentation. If you can, you're smarter than 99% of the scientific community. You can certainly tell me your personal opinion, but none of these is a concrete, provable answer to bridge that gap from non-life to life. Could somebody just come out and acknowledge that Science does not have a solid answer to this question??

If you're pointing to the murkiness of our knowledge about how life emerged and using that to give credibility to ID, isn't that just the good old god of the gaps argument? It was used about lightning, human reproduction, mental disease, you name it. How much are you willing to bet that such an argument will be on the wrong side of history yet again?



I LOVE ICELAND!