A Bio Genesis

@kellyjay said

I bet you disagree, given your agenda.

What exactly are you implying is our 'agenda'? An 'agenda' to try and do what, exactly? Piss off theist? (that's not a serious suggestion).
I ask because I honestly don't know what you think this exact 'agenda' of ours is.
(In contrast, it's obvious what yours is; push your religion).
The only relevant 'agenda' I am aware of having here is satisfying my own personal curiosity for the truth and completely irrespectively of whether I find that truth to be pleasant or unpleasant. I don't want there to be no god and what I want to be true has nothing to do with what I come to believe to be true. If I make what I believe to be true whatever I want to be true, like you do, then I probably believe there is a god since I assume that means greater chance there is an afterlife and why on earth would I not want an afterlife but rather just die instead? -I don't. That's just one example of a very unpleasant truth I came to believe probably true not because I want to believe it but rather in spite of wanting it to be false. I just go wherever logic/evidence (Occam's razor in this case) points.

Similarly, I don't 'want' evolution and/or biogenesis and/or old Earth and/or big bang to be true. So that absence of 'want' has nothing to do with my assessment on whether those things are true, and, although I have no reason to 'want' any of those things to be false either, that also has nothing to do with my assessment on whether those things are true. Again, its only about the logic/evidence and not the want.

@humy said
What exactly are you implying is our 'agenda'? An 'agenda' to try and do what, exactly? Piss off theist? (that's not a serious suggestion).
I ask because I honestly don't know what you think this exact 'agenda' of ours is.
(In contrast, it's obvious what yours is; push your religion).
The only relevant 'agenda' I am aware of having here is satisfying my own personal curiosity ...[text shortened]... essment on whether those things are true. Again, its only about the logic/evidence and not the want.

I have beliefs I agree, where we disagree is so do you.

I put together this OP to discuss the chemistry and look at your thread here. If you were really data driven not agenda driven the chemistry would be the topic not life after death. The chemistry is something both of us can say is central to reality! It must reflect whatever is true about our beliefs. My beliefs are either backed up by it, or it shows my beliefs are in error. It is just a brute fact, one you chose to ignore. You ignored it because someone who talks to his beliefs about it don't line up with yours. You could be a pastor attacking a person for false doctrine the way you act. If truth through science was really what you cared about seeing any idea challenged should be acceptable, if the idea or theory stands to challenges its good, if not its bad.

@kellyjay said
I have beliefs I agree, where we disagree is so do you.

I put together this OP to discuss the chemistry and look at your thread here. If you were really data driven not agenda driven the chemistry would be the topic not life after death. The chemistry is something both of us can say is central to reality! It must reflect whatever is true about our beliefs. My beliefs are ...[text shortened]... hallenged should be acceptable, if the idea or theory stands to challenges its good, if not its bad.

I asked you what do you think is our 'agenda'.

@humy said
I asked you what do you think is our 'agenda'.

To protect the faith!

@kellyjay said
To protect the faith!

There you go again, conflating science and religion as if they were on the same footing. It wasn't faith that generated penicillin, it wasn't faith that invented the transistor, it wasn't faith that invented the telescope. It was people thinking through scientific problems. Just a bit different than a preacher telling the same story for 2000 years and will tell the same story a thousand years from now while science continues to advance and that is not faith talking that is simple observation.

@kellyjay said
To protect the faith!

"faith" in what?

@humy
His POV is scientists have 'faith' there will be new science. I showed him conclusively that is not the case, we EXPECT science to advance not based of faith but based on past performance and reading journals showing new developments in science literally every day.
No faith involved.

@sonhouse said
There you go again, conflating science and religion as if they were on the same footing. It wasn't faith that generated penicillin, it wasn't faith that invented the transistor, it wasn't faith that invented the telescope. It was people thinking through scientific problems. Just a bit different than a preacher telling the same story for 2000 years and will tell the same stor ...[text shortened]... rom now while science continues to advance and that is not faith talking that is simple observation.

I'm speaking about mankind not just science. If it were just science's data, theories, hypothesis, opinions, world views we all would be sticking to just the data, facts, opinions and so on of those being expressed, instead of motivational mongering!

You conflated chemistry with science and religion by going after someone's bias not the data. Faith is something we rely on and trust, so when we trust the data it is a matter of faith in its validity. You trust what people tell you occurred millions and billions of years ago, no one, not even the so called experts have been around that long, but people take their words for what they think occurred, as near or as actual factual statements.

That is faith, that is not observation, observation can only occur with what can actually be observed, example; that chemistry lecture! Nothing he said about chemistry cannot be observed, and the one thing off the top of my head that was said about chemistry and the past, it was that chemistry always reacts and behaves the same way, under the same conditions today as it would in the past.

Your objections were not from observation, they were about what YOU BELIEVE occurred in the past (faith) and equally another thing equally unobservable what has not happen yet, but something you believe will (faith). So if you want to stop conflating your beliefs with science before you object to another doing it, please do so yourself.

@sonhouse said
@humy
His POV is scientists have 'faith' there will be new science. I showed him conclusively that is not the case, we EXPECT science to advance not based of faith but based on past performance and reading journals showing new developments in science literally every day.
No faith involved.

Do you know what occurred millions of years ago on this planet? I'm asking do you know, or do you believe?

@kellyjay said
Do you know what occurred millions of years ago on this planet? I'm asking do you know, or do you believe?

More importantly, did false dichotomies exist back then?

@wildgrass said
More importantly, did false dichotomies exist back then?

I readily admit that if Darwinian Evolutionary is proven wrong that does NOTHING to prove creation. What I'm saying is that if the complaint is about someone's faith, it should be noted that we are creatures of faith. We cannot prove what really happen billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago. We cannot even prove what happen last night sometimes.

@kellyjay said
I readily admit that if Darwinian Evolutionary is proven wrong that does NOTHING to prove creation. What I'm saying is that if the complaint is about someone's faith, it should be noted that we are creatures of faith. We cannot prove what really happen billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago. We cannot even prove what happen last night sometimes.

So for you the universe could have been created last Thursday fully formed with all the fossils in the ground a billion years old just to fool us a billion years later.
Why would a god go to that much trouble?
Why not just accept the idea the same god you worship could have done the universe with a wave of its hands or whatever it has and that was 14 odd billion years ago, said god tilted the universe in favor of life, molecules of life just happen to be around for Earth to develop life on its own but still with this god going POOF and the big bang happened to its specifications, where it knew exactly what to do to make sure life developed.
Why can you not accept THAT theology?

@sonhouse said
So for you the universe could have been created last Thursday fully formed with all the fossils in the ground a billion years old just to fool us a billion years later.
Why would a god go to that much trouble?
Why not just accept the idea the same god you worship could have done the universe with a wave of its hands or whatever it has and that was 14 odd billion years ago ...[text shortened]... where it knew exactly what to do to make sure life developed.
Why can you not accept THAT theology?

No, are you saying its either your way or last Thursday? Why would God go through the trouble of billions of years if He could do it in a week? You seem to forget, for me as for you, we share the same mystery and limitations! Laying claim that you know what happen millions, or billions of years ago is faith for you. It isn't something that was observable, any more than my watching God create the universe. Your theology is based on the faith that those that claim they know, are actually in the know, and not just blowing wind with all of the available evidence at their disposal.

@kellyjay said
Why would God go through the trouble of billions of years if He could do it in a week?

Do you know why God does anything? Its not like he's rushing to get to another meeting on time. What's a billion years to an immortal concept?

@kellyjay said
No, are you saying its either your way or last Thursday? Why would God go through the trouble of billions of years if He could do it in a week? You seem to forget, for me as for you, we share the same mystery and limitations! Laying claim that you know what happen millions, or billions of years ago is faith for you. It isn't something that was observable, any more than my wa ...[text shortened]... ctually in the know, and not just blowing wind with all of the available evidence at their disposal.

So you posit your god does things the most efficient way for things to happen. If that is the case why would your god have killed all land animals on Earth except those in the Ark just to kill some bad egg humans when you know good and well an efficient god would just go poof and bad humans are gone, no need to create a world wide catastrophe, So why would you say this god would be efficient in one aspect but doggedly obstinate in another event? Sounds like you and the rest of the religious crowd just put man made aspects on your god and everyone has faith those man made specs are true.