A Bio Genesis

@kellyjay said
Well, they are some of the many points science cannot explain. It cannot explain where everything came from, it cannot explain how life got started and so on. Yet you think time will tell, that is your equivalent to "God did it", you have FAITH believing these issues will be explained in time.

Of the two I am thinking the life issue is the hardest, even though the ...[text shortened]... k to the science if you can, Chemist should know a little about their field in science do you think?

The point is science advances. That is not faith. That is absolute fact.
The fact you and your buddies can have fun dissing all the OOL studies will hold up for only so long.

Here is the thing:
Faith does not change. As long as you have your religious faith, it will be the same today, a thousand years ago, and a thousand years from now if our civilization is around that long.

Scientific expectation takes into account we may never know all the answers.
The fact you enjoy pointing out how we are still in kindergarten just points out how much further science needs to advance to stop such counterplay.

We can and do take into account we may not learn it all and may in fact be totally wrong, and if the science of the future proves GODIDIT, so be it. I would not start a counter science project to prove that wrong if that happened.
Again, that is not 'faith', that is pragmatic reasoning.

My point about Hinds is he disses specific sciences JUST LIKE YOU DO when it suits your religious agenda. Yet at the same time you and Hinds both readily agree the science of say medicine or physics is perfectly acceptable. That is why I brought up the entirely closed mind of Hinds. You think it acceptable to dis ONE science while thinking therefore you have the right to accept all others in spite of the fact ALL modern science uses the same methods and get results because of multiple feedback paths of discovery and refutation and you must know scientists have the job of trying to prove any new theory wrong. That is one vital aspect of science you ignore. That was the main contribution of science by Karl Popper, where a theory has to be able in theory to be able to be proven wrong.
What that means is a stance like the religious story of creation cannot EVER be a science, even though religious scholars have for centuries attempted to do just that where in the modern world they write papers designed to disprove scientific facts that have been proven to be true in many labs all over the world.

But creationism as a science, promoted as such by many religious universities cannot EVER be a science, thanks to the work of Karl Popper because it can never even in theory ever be disproven.

That converts it immediately into philosophy which can be way outside the realm of science.

I can only assume you would never believe that and that is one of your problems with science and why you can in fact diss ONE science while totally accepting of all the others, like medicine or math, no problem there.

ONLY the science which purports to explain OOL.

In that regard you are EXACTLY like Hinds.

@sonhouse said
The point is science advances. That is not faith. That is absolute fact.
The fact you and your buddies can have fun dissing all the OOL studies will hold up for only so long.

Here is the thing:
Faith does not change. As long as you have your religious faith, it will be the same today, a thousand years ago, and a thousand years from now if our civilization is around t ...[text shortened]...

ONLY the science which purports to explain OOL.

In that regard you are EXACTLY like Hinds.

Then why didn't you use science to debunk the data points they were bringing up instead of the motivation mongering you were doing by attacking the motivations and religion? You have faith, you declare truth all the time that has no backing outside of your opinion, you even talk about what God is supposed to do if real as if you know.

We don't have all the answers in science, and you refuse to entertain that is real so you don't even look at the science, where it is shows itself to negate your hopeful ideas on how things could have happen!

If you cheery pick your science, are you looking at science truthfully by selecting only those things you like?

@kellyjay said
Then why didn't you use science to debunk the data points they were bringing up instead of the motivation mongering you were doing by attacking the motivations and religion? You have faith, you declare truth all the time that has no backing outside of your opinion, you even talk about what God is supposed to do if real as if you know.

We don't have all the answers in scie ...[text shortened]... ry pick your science, are you looking at science truthfully by selecting only those things you like?

Where did you go from point A to point B on that? I said several times we are in kindergarten in the science of OOL. That is SAYING we don't have answers. I just see the advancement of science and see a way forward to MAYBE in the future where they may figure it out.
Did you see the word MAYBE? That is not faith. How many times or how many ways do I have to say that to show it is not faith but just wishful expectations while fully acknowledging I could be totally wrong.
Faith does not allow failure. Faith ALWAYS wins through reason because no matter what happens in science you can ALWAYS trust your faith to be right no matter what kind of evidence comes up otherwise. THAT is the difference between faith and reason.

But I fully expect you to move the goalposts yet again and come back to try to prove I somehow HAVE to be having this 'faith' you so desperately want me to have.

So go ahead, hit me with your best shot....

@sonhouse said
Where did you go from point A to point B on that? I said several times we are in kindergarten in the science of OOL. That is SAYING we don't have answers. I just see the advancement of science and see a way forward to MAYBE in the future where they may figure it out.
Did you see the word MAYBE? That is not faith. How many times or how many ways do I have to say that to sho ...[text shortened]... ng this 'faith' you so desperately want me to have.

So go ahead, hit me with your best shot....

Faith is trusting it has to allow for failure or we would not be taking about faith but facts. If faith can’t stand up to reasoning then we can dismiss what we are putting our faith in.

Your claims about what might be understood in the future is more or less wishful thinking since there is nothing to prove otherwise you can always push off towards a distant future.

Unlike discussions about the past we can through what we learn, and see come up with viable reasons for and against ideas that are not viable.

You dismissed the chemistry discussion on the basis of ideology not science.

@kellyjay said
Faith is trusting it has to allow for failure or we would not be taking about faith but facts. If faith can’t stand up it reasoning then we can dismiss what we are putting our faith in.

Your claims about what might be understood in the future is more or less wishful thinking since there is nothing to prove otherwise you can always push off towards a distant future.

Un ...[text shortened]... that are not viable.

You dismissed the chemistry discussion on the basis of ideology not science.

What do you mean more or less wishful thinking. I already said that. I am saying the theses of the video's do not take into consideration the growth of science.
Do you deny science grows in knowledge daily? It is not faith to see that, it is observing obvious growth and it is not a stretch to see we will know more tomorrow than we do today.
Those video's deliberately neglect that fact.
There is no 'faith' involved with that no matter how you slice it.
Just like I said where I see a car coming at me from several hundred yards away, coming at me at 100 Kph, I don't need 'faith' to see if I don't get out of the way I will be road kill.

@sonhouse said
What do you mean more or less wishful thinking. I already said that. I am saying the theses of the video's do not take into consideration the growth of science.
Do you deny science grows in knowledge daily? It is not faith to see that, it is observing obvious growth and it is not a stretch to see we will know more tomorrow than we do today.
Those video's deliberately neg ...[text shortened]... ing at me at 100 Kph, I don't need 'faith' to see if I don't get out of the way I will be road kill.

The growth of science thinking we will figure it out is as I said wishful thinking. It can’t be falsified because it’s always in the future, so dismissing something grounded in reality now due to wishful thinking is not wise!

@kellyjay said
The growth of science thinking we will figure it out is as I said wishful thinking. It can’t be falsified because it’s always in the future, so dismissing something grounded in reality now due to wishful thinking is not wise!

How many times do I have to say it IS wishful thinking that we will know about OOL in the future? You don't have to keep stomping on a dead horse. That is another reason it is NOT 'faith'.
I KNOW the difference between 'faith' and wishful thinking.
I am however optimistic about the issue.
I KNOW science advances daily.

Answer me this: Do you deny that?

@sonhouse said
How many times do I have to say it IS wishful thinking that we will know about OOL in the future? You don't have to keep stomping on a dead horse. That is another reason it is NOT 'faith'.
I KNOW the difference between 'faith' and wishful thinking.
I am however optimistic about the issue.
I KNOW science advances daily.

Answer me this: Do you deny that?

Nope but I not the one refusing to look at science on what we can see today, because I am hoping that we will see more tomorrow, that is you.

@kellyjay said
Nope but I not the one refusing to look at science on what we can see today, because I am hoping that we will see more tomorrow, that is you.

So you are not denying science grows daily? But you then clearly deny any advancement of OOL studies will ever figure it out. It is you dissing the entire science of OOL, thinking you can diss them forever because your faith tells you they will forever be wrong no matter HOW much advancement commences up in time. A hundred years from now, 200, 300 or whatever. I THINK they will figure it out based not on faith but on the fact science advances and YOU refuse to admit the science of OOL will EVER be able to figure out how life could start on Earth and prove it in a lab experiment. You clearly think that can NEVER happen and THAT based on YOUR faith.

I am sure that the burning of witches 500 years ago were done because they had faith the ones being killed in that truly gruesome way were destined to go to heaven BECAUSE of the judges actions.
So how well did THAT turn out?

@sonhouse said
So you are not denying science grows daily? But you then clearly deny any advancement of OOL studies will ever figure it out. It is you dissing the entire science of OOL, thinking you can diss them forever because your faith tells you they will forever be wrong no matter HOW much advancement commences up in time. A hundred years from now, 200, 300 or whatever. I THINK they ...[text shortened]... me way were destined to go to heaven BECAUSE of the judges actions.
So how well did THAT turn out?

You can not dis science for something that your hoping it does, and if you are refusing to look at what the data is showing us today due to that hope, it isn’t science but your ideology that your living your life with.

@sonhouse said
So you are not denying science grows daily? But you then clearly deny any advancement of OOL studies will ever figure it out. It is you dissing the entire science of OOL, thinking you can diss them forever because your faith tells you they will forever be wrong no matter HOW much advancement commences up in time. A hundred years from now, 200, 300 or whatever. I THINK they ...[text shortened]... me way were destined to go to heaven BECAUSE of the judges actions.
So how well did THAT turn out?

Millions of unborn lives are being slaughtered due to definitions we either have made, or refusing to make today! This something your okay with today, not a few hundred years ago?

@kellyjay said
Millions of unborn lives are being slaughtered due to definitions we either have made, or refusing to make today! This something your okay with today, not a few hundred years ago?

This has something to do with OOL how? Why are you changing the subject? You want to talk abortion, start a thread on it.
That is another discussion.

@sonhouse said
This has something to do with OOL how? Why are you changing the subject? You want to talk abortion, start a thread on it.
That is another discussion.

You brought up burning witches due to faith hundreds of years ago due to the ideology of the day, you think we have progressed?

I suggest you view the first lecture given our conversation and his opening remarks. I doubt very seriously even you will find his approach unsatisfactory!

@kellyjay said
You brought up burning witches due to faith hundreds of years ago due to the ideology of the day, you think we have progressed?

I suggest you view the first lecture given our conversation and his opening remarks. I doubt very seriously even you will find his approach unsatisfactory!

So it's your view those two are saying we will figure out how life started and we don't need to refer to a god? God DIDN"T DOIT? You seriously expect me to believe that is their stance, a purely scientific lecture with zero religious implications?
It is easy to see they talk about what we DO know and what we DON'T know, with the emphasis on the DON'T know and thus will NEVER know since in fact GOD DID IT not a mud bank zapped by lightning and helped by minerals and UV making quadrillions of little ever more complex chemical experiments all from the elements and water and clay or ponds and lightning and UV and nothing else? Do you think I am so naive as to think they would ever say that in a CHURCH lecture?

Do you seriously think I am going to find the discussion to be about what we know about OOL, which is not much, and in conclusion folks, we will surely find out all the rest with more research?

@kellyjay said
You can not dis science for something that your hoping it does, and if you are refusing to look at what the data is showing us today due to that hope, it isn’t science but your ideology that your living your life with.

Science is a method for creating knowledge. Its fine acknowledging the unknowns, in fact that is a critical part of experimental design. Its often exploited as a weakness however. For example, scientists acknowledge there are many unknowns as they relate to our climate. Deniers like to argue that, since we don't know everything we must not know anything.

Do you have a non-YouTube based way of explaining yourself? I would like to read it. YouTube is simply a vector for conspiracy theorists and toddler ADHD.