Quantcast
This is why I don't like debating religion

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

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!

Around the Network
timmah said:
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.

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.



KungKras 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??

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?

You missed my point. Having a gap between non-life and life does not in itself prove God exists, that wasn't my intention (as I've said before, you cannot prove God exists, nor can you disprove He exists). I was attempting to make the point that Science does not have a concrete and provable answer as to the origin of life either. People seem to think that on the origin of life, Science has some concrete, magic bullet, it simply doesn't.



Alara317 said:
timmah said:
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.

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?



timmah said:
KungKras 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??

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?

You missed my point. Having a gap between non-life and life does not in itself prove God exists, that wasn't my intention (as I've said before, you cannot prove God exists, nor can you disprove He exists). I was attempting to make the point that Science does not have a concrete and provable answer as to the origin of life either. People seem to think that on the origin of life, Science has some concrete, magic bullet, it simply doesn't.

Science doesn't yet have all the pieces of the puzzle if that's what you mean. But what we do have are some pretty good pointers towards where the answer might lie. Religion doesn't have those pointers in the same way because the bible (or any other holy book) doesn't prove or point to anything in the real world other than "this is what christians belive" (and some historical perspectives about the roman and east roman empires).



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network

Timmah, why do you think ID is the most probable explanation? And do you really think ID is how life came to be?



KungKras said:
timmah said:
KungKras 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??

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?

You missed my point. Having a gap between non-life and life does not in itself prove God exists, that wasn't my intention (as I've said before, you cannot prove God exists, nor can you disprove He exists). I was attempting to make the point that Science does not have a concrete and provable answer as to the origin of life either. People seem to think that on the origin of life, Science has some concrete, magic bullet, it simply doesn't.

Science doesn't yet have all the pieces of the puzzle if that's what you mean. But what we do have are some pretty good pointers towards where the answer might lie. Religion doesn't have those pointers in the same way because the bible (or any other holy book) doesn't prove or point to anything in the real world other than "this is what christians belive" (and some historical perspectives about the roman and east roman empires).

That's a fair enough argument. By the same token, my faith doesn't come from something I read in a book (Bible or otherwise), it comes from deeply personal experiences in my life that have changed who I am in a hugely positive way. Also, I see those pointers differently then you, and like I've said before, you can't argue somebody into faith, and you're certainly not going to argue me out of my faith.



timmah said:
Alara317 said:

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  



timmah said:
KungKras said:

Science doesn't yet have all the pieces of the puzzle if that's what you mean. But what we do have are some pretty good pointers towards where the answer might lie. Religion doesn't have those pointers in the same way because the bible (or any other holy book) doesn't prove or point to anything in the real world other than "this is what christians belive" (and some historical perspectives about the roman and east roman empires).

That's a fair enough argument. By the same token, my faith doesn't come from something I read in a book (Bible or otherwise), it comes from deeply personal experiences in my life that have changed who I am in a hugely positive way. Also, I see those pointers differently then you, and like I've said before, you can't argue somebody into faith, and you're certainly not going to argue me out of my faith.

Fair enough. But you also have to realize that people of every faith all over the world profess to these personal experiences, so while they may matter a lot to you, they are not credible if you use them to try and get others to join your position.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Alara317 said:
Immortal said:
You have a very limited scope. Religions aren't limited to the specific strain of Christianity you're talking about. Even after this, the arguments people from this specific strain of Christianity make or can make are far more varied than you've considered in the OP. Also, your whole concept of proof and scientific evidence can be rather easily invalidated using many of these. The "science needs faith" argument, unfortunately for you, has a lot of merit when used in the right context.
Nevertheless, you're being a lot less arrogant, condescending and annoying than most atheists. Plus, it looks like you're actually trying to get somewhere rather than blindly mocking religion. So full points for effort!

how am I being limited or narrow? the point I was trying to make is that you shouldn't use religious arguments in soemthing that isn't a religious debate, and explained in 8 steps why they have no place outside of church.  It's all very scientific.  

Based on your asserion that "Science needs faith", I'd posit that you don't really 'get' science or the scientific method.  

I do appreciate your effort as well but i kinda agreee with Immortal that you take a very narrow view towards the religion. Also you make use of the word "they" to prove your point and that's impossibble to do when a faith like Christianity has so many doctrines it's almost impossible to come up with a valid argument that everyone agrees with. SO referencing you 8 steps:

1. & 2. http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm , O.k. look at this website on the Leviticus 18:22 which is the main argument against gay marriage if you look at all the versions except the newly created 2007 NLT version you will notice that none of these verses says homosexuality exactly. How you interpret the verse determines what you get out of it. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Personally when i read this I get that one should not sleep with a man as one does with a woman. In other words when reading it as is, in other words it's ok to be gay, lesbian or straight. I think the issue my view are those who chose to sleep with both men and women.

3. Personally I don't get what you were getting at here so i have no comment.

4.5.6.7. Considering how many translations there are from the bible and they fact that most of us don't speak hebrew, specifically ancient hebrew it's impossible to recieve the exact same text that original writers have written so it's no surprise that there is so many doctines of the same faith. The main difference between each doctrine is how that group people choose to interpret the bible. Every Christian will tell you that the bible was written by God and I still believe  that. Everyone will tell you that God used certain individuals to write his message for us all. I believe that this text is the specific text we were suppose to read and comprehend but overtime I believe the text has been changed here and there mainly due to translation issues, missing pages, and most importantly man's fault in trying to impose on sacred text. 

8. So my issue here is why isn't there a place for both God and science. You can have both it's not all or none.

Honestly i appreciate your argument and you brought up some interesting points.  I still feel that you're out for blood instead of looking for enlilghtenment, forgive me if i'm wrong. But you are like most athiest i know and is just looking for proof, and i just can't provide you that proof. It's just something I know, in my heart is true. I know that might not be enough for you or other people but unfortunately there is no scientific proof neither I or someone else can provide to prove at this point, to prove God's exsistence. It's called faith for a reason, there are some things of this world we will never understand but it doesn't mean that it's not real or true. So in my closing argument i just want to say that you have the right to believe in what you want to believe and have your associated arguments, but you should also be open to hear other arguments as well and if someone wants to make ridiculous claims by stating their faith then ignore it, it's not worth getting worked up over something so minimal. So i wish you the best luck in your journey in finding a faith or lack thereof.