Science and God

Originally posted by whodey
No plagues? Really? I don't think that vermin like you even you believe that. The better question becomes, when have their been plagues and why?

Naturally you reject the supernatural aspects of the Bible, and because of this you are willing to throw it out altogether. Why then is there the scientific acknowledgement as to the value of the book, namely ...[text shortened]... rs like Jesus are real, so it is up to us to determine if the Bible presents them in accurately.

Apologies, when I said there have been no plagues I was talking about "God induced punishments in the form of plagues". Of course there have been natural plagues.

What makes you say that Jesus was a real person?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Apologies, when I said there have been no plagues I was talking about "God induced punishments in the form of plagues". Of course there have been natural plagues.

What makes you say that Jesus was a real person?

So you scoff at the notion of God having anything to do with plagues, but only because you scoff at the notion of a God.

I scoff at the notion of there not being a God. Abiogenesis is a joke. Sure they can point to the ingredients like any retard can but cannot duplicate the creation of life nor observe it. Even the Bible says we are formed from the dust of the earth.

Originally posted by whodey
So you scoff at the notion of God having anything to do with plagues, but only because you scoff at the notion of a God.

I scoff at the notion of there not being a God. Abiogenesis is a joke. Sure they can point to the ingredients like any retard can but cannot duplicate the creation of life nor observe it. Even the Bible says we are formed from the dust of the earth.

Wait a minute! Even the bible says it?? Well, Goshdarnit, then it must be true.

Well, I primarily scoff at the notion of God having anything to do with plagues because I scoff at the notion of a God. Even if I believed in the existence of a God I would scoff at the notion of him punishing us with plagues. He creates us, gives us free will, kicks us out of paradise, let's us do awful stuff to each other but then at a certain moment decides "Okay, in this case I'm going to intervene and I'm going to do so by introducing some plagues."

Puhhhhhhhhhhleasse!

So because we are not yet capable of creating life from scratch it means that abiogenesis is a joke? Even though we've only seriously been trying for what.... 200 years?

Tell me, if abiogenesis was real, how long should it have taken us to replicate it?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Wait a minute! [b]Even the bible says it?? Well, Goshdarnit, then it must be true.

Well, I primarily scoff at the notion of God having anything to do with plagues because I scoff at the notion of a God. Even if I believed in the existence of a God I would scoff at the notion of him punishing us with plagues. He creates us, gives u ...[text shortened]... 00 years?

Tell me, if abiogenesis was real, how long should it have taken us to replicate it?[/b]

Forgive me, I though science was about observation and the scientific method.

What do I care how long it takes them to produce life in a lab? The fact is that they have not and are currently unable to do so. Science is about proving theories, not preaching them as gospel before they are proven.

Until it can be observed, I say it's no more credible than the creation theory.

The same holds true for star- and galaxyformation, quarks and the inside of planet earth I presume?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you know all this how?

By observation.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
take the criteria you use to prove santa doesnt exist and then apply it to god. works just fine.

Works fine for a handy cope out for one who makes a grandiose statement of fact with no desire to shoulder the burden of proof for it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And there is absolutely no evidence that they exist.

Thus I can say with confidence that they do not exist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
('They' meaning gods or God.)

Thus I can say with confidence that you've just proved the reason for and the mechanics of Free Will.

Erm... What?

Originally posted by whodey
Forgive me, I though science was about observation and the scientific method.

What do I care how long it takes them to produce life in a lab? The fact is that they have not and are currently unable to do so. Science is about proving theories, not preaching them as gospel before they are proven.

Until it can be observed, I say it's no more credible than the creation theory.

Um... No. This is wrong on just about every level.

Science is quite simply the study of the reality we live in.
What it is, how it works, how it came to be, and what will happen in the future.


There are many methodologies in science, and no one single 'Scientific Method'.
And these different methods are applicable to different situations and circumstances.


Science is emphatically NOT about "Proving Theories".

The basic cycle is this... [and I am simplifying here]

Based on observations of our reality...
Hypotheses are created to attempt to explain how [some portion of it] works.
Those hypotheses are used to make predictions.
Those predictions are then tested.
If the hypothesis makes bad/inaccurate predictions then it is falsified and thrown out.
And a new hypothesis is formed [often their will be many competing hypotheses]

Once a hypothesis has been tested in every way we can think of and has demonstrated that
it can pass every test without fail then it might get elevated to a theory.

However it is continually tested and re-evaluated and if it is found not to be completely accurate then
a search for a replacement starts again.


However the new hypothesis MUST give the same results as the old one wherever the old one has already
been tested and demonstrated accurate.



Creationism is not and cannot be a scientific hypothesis let alone theory because it can and does make
absolutely NO predictions.

You can't make predictions based on creationism.

And as the creator god of the bible is immensely if not infinitely complex, it has an infinitesimal a priori
probability.

Almost anything else is more likely. Even before you get evidence.

Originally posted by whodey
Forgive me, I though science was about observation and the scientific method.

What do I care how long it takes them to produce life in a lab? The fact is that they have not and are currently unable to do so. Science is about proving theories, not preaching them as gospel before they are proven.

Until it can be observed, I say it's no more credible than the creation theory.

So at the moment we have two answers to "Where did life come from?"

1. "We don't know exactly."
2. "God did it."

Now the funny thing is that at one time these were the two answers
to every question (until answered by science).

Makes you think. (or at least it should make you think!)