Originally posted by @moonbusIf you want to discuss science, then discuss actual science, not beliefs based on science as if it was science.
Do you think there is some sort of indoctrination ritual to gain access to scientific evidence regarding biology, abiogenesis, and evolution, an indoctrination which involves renouncing religion? Not so. The information is available to anyone who cares to examine it, just as the fossils in every museum in the world are on display to anyone who cares to look ...[text shortened]... gious agenda, but I haven't come across one yet. If I have misrepresented you, then I apologise.
You agree that the discussion of abiogenesis is equivalent to discussing God as the source of life.
But you can't convince most people that evolution is true without abiogenesis.
Originally posted by @eladarThere is cutting-edge science awaiting confirmation (which may, of course, never come), and there is very well-established science. Paleobiology is relatively new compared to, for example, chemistry or astronomy. The one is not more or less science than the other.
If you want to discuss science, then discuss actual science, not beliefs based on science as if it was science.
You agree that the discussion of abiogenesis is equivalent to discussing God as the source of life.
But you can't convince most people that evolution is true without abiogenesis.
I do not agree that abiogenesis is equivalent to Creationism, nor that discussing the one is equivalent to discussing the other. One is based on reasoning from evidence and understanding how nature works, the other is dogma.
If one accepts that evolution proceeds without need of divine intervention to explain it, it is likely that one will seek an explanation for the origins of life without divine intervention as well. But mixed positions do have their exponents.
The Vatican position is that evolution is true and abiogenesis is not true. The Vatican position is that God started life ex nihilo and then guided evolution. That is a mish-mash of science grudgingly conceded when it was no longer possible to ignore it, and dogma. Half of one and one quarter of the other.
Originally posted by @moonbusThe belief in either is a belief.
There is cutting-edge science awaiting confirmation (which may, of course, never come), and there is very well-established science. Paleobiology is relatively new compared to, for example, chemistry or astronomy. The one is not more or less science than the other.
I do not agree that abiogenesis is equivalent to Creationism, nor that discussing the one i ...[text shortened]... hen it was no longer possible to ignore it, and dogma. Half of one and one quarter of the other.
At this point those who believe in abiogenesis would be equivalent to the Catholics and those who do not believe in abiogenesis are the protestants.
You want them to use the power of government schools to force the catholic view down people's throats.
Of course those people who disagrer desrve to be burned at the stake anyhow.
Originally posted by @eladarScience has not a problem with the various religious dogmas because the theories of reality that are based on them are not a part of the scientific inquiry. They are merely superstitions.
You need to understand the difference between known facts and theories which require belief without actually being experienced.
Belief is belief no matter what it is rooted in. The field of science has been allowed to be corrupted by belief in an effort to deny certain Christian beliefs.
As some around here like to say, it has been weaponized. Since it is your weapon, you see nothing wrong with it.
The viable scientific theories of reality do not require belief. The non-viable scientific theories of reality do not require belief. Belief is required only when a theory of reality is grounded on blind beliefs. A theory of reality that is presented as absolutely true although it is depended on blind beliefs, is not a viable scientific theory of reality.
😵
2 edits
Originally posted by @black-beetleAbiogenesis does not require belief?
Science has not a problem with the various religious dogmas because the theories of reality that are based on them are not a part of the scientific inquiry. They are merely superstitions.
The viable scientific theories of reality do not require belief. The non-viable scientific theories of reality do not require belief. Belief is required only when ...[text shortened]... true although it is depended on blind beliefs, is not a viable scientific theory of reality.
😵
Moonbus and I disagree with you.
But hey, thanks for sharing your testimony.
Originally posted by @eladarSome beliefs are grounded on evidence and reasoning based on knowledge of natural laws; other beliefs are grounded on something else. There's the crux. I suppose someone could believe in evolution or abiogenesis or heliocentricity or Maxwell's Laws because he liked the sound of the name for it, or because he fell in love with someone who believed these things and wanted to believe what his beloved believed. I would hesitate to call that a scientific belief, even if the belief were true. For a belief to be scientific, one needs to have at least a basic understanding of what science is all about what sorts of truths science can deliver.
Abiogenesis does not require belief?
Moonbus and I disagree with you.
But hey, thanks for sharing your testimony.
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusThere is no crux, just belief. Why should one belief be given position over another?
Some beliefs are grounded on evidence and reasoning based on knowledge of natural laws; other beliefs are grounded on something else. There's the crux. I suppose someone could believe in evolution or abiogenesis or heliocentricity or Maxwell's Laws because he liked the sound of the name for it, or because he fell in love with someone who believed the ...[text shortened]... ast a basic understanding of what science is all about what sorts of truths science can deliver.
Do we really need an inquisition?
The only difference between the beliefs is that one is held by the majority while the other minority. Surprise, surprise, the majprity belief is the belief espoused by the government.
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou are full of faulty assumptions, as well of yourself.
I did notice the lack of response to my post, that is you cannot change your religious based POV on creation while science can and does all the time.
Your hate of Christians makes trying to discuss anything with you a total waste of time.
Originally posted by @eladarIt has nothing to do majorities. Some beliefs are quite definitely false, no matter how many people believe them.
There is no crux, just belief. Why should one belief be given position over another?
Do we really need an inquisition?
The only difference between the beliefs is that one is held by the majority while the other minority. Surprise, surprise, the majprity belief is the belief espoused by the government.
The best way to expose false ones is to talk about them, debate them, test them, show what the grounds for them are, etc.
Originally posted by @eladarEdit: Abiogenesis does not require belief?
Abiogenesis does not require belief?
Moonbus and I disagree with you.
But hey, thanks for sharing your testimony.
No Eladar, abiogenesis does not require belief because it is simply a viable scientific theory of reality. There was not, there is not and there will never ever be belief in there, because:
-- If in the future the theory will be evaluated as accurate thanks to scientific facts and evidence, we will not cultivate the belief that the theory is scientifically validated but we will have knowledge of the fact that the theory is for the time being scientifically validated (and the theory would still remain open to falsification).
-- If in the future the theory will be evaluated as non-tenable thanks to scientific facts and evidence, we will not cultivate the belief that the theory is scientifically validated but we will have knowledge of the fact that for the time being the theory is scientifically rejected as non-viable (and the scientific community would still be open to evaluate again the theory in the light of new scientific facts and evidence that could prove the theory viable).
Edit: Moonbus and I disagree with you.
You disagree with me alright; however I know I do not disagree with Moonbus as regards the issue we are talking about.
Edit: But hey, thanks for sharing your testimony.
You are welcome😵
Originally posted by @moonbusI wonder if there were ancient greeks with your point of view concerning their scientific understanding. In a thousand years do you think it is possible that our views today will appear just as false as the Greek's appear to us today?
It has nothing to do majorities. Some beliefs are quite definitely false, no matter how many people believe them.
The best way to expose false ones is to talk about them, debate them, test them, show what the grounds for them are, etc.
Originally posted by @black-beetleThanks again for sharing your perspective about beliefs!
Edit: Abiogenesis does not require belief?
No Eladar, abiogenesis does not require belief because it is simply a viable scientific theory of reality. There was not, there is not and there will never ever be belief in there, because:
-- If in the future the theory will be evaluated as accurate thanks to scientific facts and evidence, we will not cul ...[text shortened]... e are talking about.
Edit: But hey, thanks for sharing your testimony.
You are welcome😵
Originally posted by @eladarTell me when you EVER changed your POV on creationism. It might end up being a good thing, depends on what happens to science in the next couple hundred years. You can, however, guess what my stance is.
You are full of faulty assumptions, as well of yourself.
Your hate of Christians makes trying to discuss anything with you a total waste of time.
Originally posted by @sonhouseWhy is changing a point of view always a good thing.
Tell me when you EVER changed your POV on creationism. It might end up being a good thing, depends on what happens to science in the next couple hundred years. You can, however, guess what my stance is.
If you chose the correct curtain, why switch after they reveal a zonk?
Your ideological bias is showing.