Religion is Bullsh*t, Get over it, and support science.

it is hypocritical imo. let me explain

firstly you are correct it is not fact. Its not even a theory in reality. in fact scientology makes more sense

secondly again you are correct life must have come from somewhere, but what abiogenesis proves is that the bearded guy concept is more likely. and we know that the bearded guy concept is not true, its just something that has come out of christianity in trying to give features etc to a creator.

thirdly, the only thing abiogenesis does 'prove' is the notion of something being created, at random, from nothing. so proving what we know about the creator from religious text

you talk of logic, yet nothing is more illogical than abiogenesis

In fact I would go as far as saying that the creator concept has stood the test of time, whilst all other theories/assertions have fallen by the wayside.
I personally would include evolution, as some people understand it, in that category. there is new research/evidence that will imo blow it out of the water

 

abiogenisis believes that basically nothing exploded and became everything, and that is logical to you?

FYI i have answered what i believe in regards to the creator, earlier in the thread. I dont know about his creation, but believe he created us. He was behind the big bang if you like

the somethng out of nothing argument is an athiest one, where the hypocrisy comes in is that on one hand they argue that something cannot come from nothing, then argue the opposite for things like matter.

Imo the creator concept has stood the test of time, the evidence is there in many forms some choose not to accept it.
everything else has been a fad, tht over time disappeared.

i would welcome your idea of logic and evolution.

in my view evolution explains how we developed to where we are now, but has never and does not explain creation. it actually struggles elsewhere too.

to quote charlie darwin from his book on page 217, Charlie said, “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd.” Charlie very much was confused about the human eyeball because it is so complex. He said, “How could this thing have evolved by chance?”
He then goes on to say if it were proven....... but never did

 

So, is God real or not then?

 

TFWNN, have you ever read "Darwin's Black Box"? It's a fascinating argument by a scientist against macroevolution, stating examples of irreducibly complex systems. For example, how can blood clotting have evolved when every part of it must be exactly as it is function correctly. It's an interesting argument, and also picks up on your eye example. Whilst evolutionists can cite the fact that it takes thousands of years for evolution, so it cannot be observed, and an eye simply developed from a single photosensitive cell ([NSFW]A single photosensitive cell is produced my mutation, as it allows the organism to tell night from day, it is advantageous. A duplication to 2 photosensitive cells allows the organism to detect a gradient, and therefore move to light or shade as needed. The more photosensitive cells, the more of an advantage this is. Having the cells in a small recess offers an advantage, as it fine tunes this, until you have a very deep well filled with photosensitive cells, similar to a modern eye. A lens and iris were later developments to help focus light.[/NSFW], they cannot provide a theory for the biochemistry needed to develop this system. Also, when the first photosensitive cells were created, how could the organism know how to use it beneficially? Freckles on a human might provide some advantage, but we haven't discovered how to use them yet, so no advantage is conferred.

As a scientist I read this book with interest. Whilst I still believe in evolution, and there is very,very strong evidence from the fossil record and computer simulations, I'm not entirely sure whether I am satisfied with the biochemical development side to evolution. Very, very little science has been published on this, but when a group can provide a feasible biochemical pathway, even just to explain a simple step in development (still a mammoth achievement), my faith in evolution will be restored. In this void, I'm not turning to a creator, and part of this is due to an old, old argument, about the flaws in design [NSFW]in the case of the eye, this is the fact that the nerves run over the retina, not behind it, at a detriment to the image[/NSFW], and partly because there is limited scientific evidence for a creator.

Abiogenesis, is, if you like, sciences best guess at life without a creator. And no, it hasn't been simulated in a lab yet, (although I did see something not so long ago in new scientist about an attempt at metal based life in a modified Miller-Urey experiment which was interesting) because timescales, the amount of material,etc, are hard to replicate, and whilst complex organic molecules have been produced, I don't believe DNA or RNA have self assembled in these experiments. I would like to see someone draw out a potential pathway, using just Miller-Urey conditions, by which RNA, or a protein, or something else biologically active that can be produced by a series of chemical reactions, and then estimate likelihood of this occurring. Until then abiogenesis theory has little to bridge the gap between complex organic molecules and life, and even then its just a theoretical route.

 

At last. An articulate and well reasoned argument, succinctly expressed and backed up with evidence. Well done.

 

Let's put it this way. Who (or what) do you turn to when you're really in the brown stuff? When friends and family can't help you, and neither can Frankie Dettori, you'd be mad not to take a punt on the Czar of the Heavens, Spirit of Nature, Universal Consciousness, or whatever. Might not exist, granted, but surely worth a try when all else has clearly failed.

 

Please, what the **** have you just written?

 

and how did life begin?

was it the 'big bang'?

basically 'nothing exploded and became everything'

I know waht you are saying though however as I have posted before, it, abiogenesis, is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it".
Aristotle

 

you sir have restored my faith (no pun intended).

I have heard and read bit about 'darwins black box' by Michael Behe. although most scientists are critical of it in my experience, i think some of his points are interesting.
for me particularly th epoint of that most scientists accept evolution based on authority. This is my argument too. religion is seen as 'unprovable' yet what is accepted is more so imo.

Now you say you dont turn to a creator, i can accept that too. I do (others do) why do (as evidenced on here) some refuse to accept that?
they resort to abuse, name calling etc

 

How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to his existence.

The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

 

for the last time, i DO NOT believe some bearded guy in the sky created life out of nothing bla bla bla.
that is what christainity has lead some people to believe

there are 2 points here

1. athiests 'rubbish' the existence of god due to lack of proof, yet accept abiogenesis when there is not even a shred of proof. so hypocricy

2. (In anutshell), i believe in a creator, as nothing can be created without one. I dont know enough about the creator to answer some questions. What i do know is that when something is created, there is usually a 'manual' if you will, as to how the creation works etc. I believe the creator has sent down prophets/wisemen (whatever you want to call them) and texts. The quran is one such text. the miracles/information/challenge etc within it are a testimony to it being 'divine'.

now you may disgree, and that is ok. and you may laugh, and you may say no. what you cant avoid is that this (and i havr been economical) has more 'proof' to it than abiogenesis. abiogenesis is not even a theory

 

again i believe that this is due to youre understanding of god. ie the bearded guy

science does not 'deny' a creator. it tries to explain what that creator is/was. big bang, evolution, abiogenesis are all 'models' of creation/creators if you will

the only thing, as it stands, that science has proven without a shadow of a doubt is that everything needs a 'creator'

and if a scientist did/does create something, he would be a creator

 

no i am saying athiests are using abiogenesis as a way of describing how things began. I am saying science is NOT saying this, as there is NO proof

th hypocricy lies with the ATHIESTS

I have always asserted that scientists have eliminated models of god, but not god

and remember scientists have/do believe in god. people like aristotle were arguably scientists, but also religious and 'proved' the existence of god

Its a shame you read things to suit your argument

 

the fella i was discussing/arguing with was mocking religion as unproven, yet follows something that is even less proven. that is the point

 

i am tempted to ask how you know why he stopped responding

however, that is not the point/issue here. The point is/was that his explanation contradicts all he was arguing. abiogenesis is even more ludicrous than his views on religion.

as i said to him, to him his way, to me mine. that however was not acceptable. and we went around the houses

eg moore and embroyology, how he said the quran decribed it in detail. his peers, who agreed with him as i posted. etc etc

And if you read back this was my argument of athiesm. basically they mock people who believe/have religion and ask for 'proof' yet either offer no proof or offer something that most scientists say is unproveable

 

again i refer you to my early comments.

I said it on numerous occassions that athiesm as the belief in no god/s, i have no issue with

but one explanation of athiesm, and one i agree with, is that people refer to themselves as athiest but are actually anti god

see strong athiesm and weak athiesm

I also suggested that in my experience, most athiests i had met had a problem with christianity specifically catholocism.

i did also suggest that the word athiesm means NO GOD. A meaning NO and theos meaning god

 

not true. being anti god because of catholocism doesnt mean lack of belief in god/s. it means lack of belief in that particular model

are budhists athiests?

 

and imo most 'athiests' are not athiest but anti god - that has been my premise from the beginning

athiests, as in no deity etc, get on with it, no problem

so called athiests, mocking religion, arguing for proof of bearded bloke (sorry couldnt resist) not athiest but anti god

 

in case you argue i have highlighted my earlier comment