(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by S.A.M., Jul 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    No. Accordign to abiogenesis there were complicated biochemical processes going on that produced life.

    Which is the closest estimate, in your opinion, of the age of the Earth:

    (a) 7,000 years.
    (b) 10,000 years.
    (c) 100,000 years.
    (d) 1 million years.
    (e) 100 million years.
    (f) 1 billion years.
    (g) 4.5 billion years.


    Well, now Fraggle Rocker has provided you with the answer.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    thank you.
    i'm not really interested in "words" or "explanations" or "possibilities".
    i want the lab results.
    if you are talking about the fruitflies then this doesn't demonstrate anything other than a fruitfly turning into a different variety of fruitfly.
    it doesn't demonstrate a fruitfly turning into something different like a tree or man or whale.
    what is there to rebut?
    biogenesis states "life comes from life".
    as far as i know there has been no lab test presented in this thread that says anything different.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i have repeated asked for the lab results that demonstrate the claims made in this thread.
    so far such lab results are mysteriously missing.

    the lab results i specifically asked for are:
    biogenesis is wrong.
    the lab results that demonstrate one lifeform turning into another, different, lifeform.
    please, no tests that says fruitflies turn into a different variety of fruitfly.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it must be pointed out that science is completely baffled at how these processes produced life.

    i can only say for sure the earth is over 6,000 to 7,000 years old.
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    And that is a classic instance of trolling: saying the same wrong thing over and over again. If you were a scientist, a precocious science student, or merely a well-educated layman like most of us, then you would be familiar with the steps in the scientific method. Controlled experiments are not a required step in the testing of a hypothesis and its eventual rejection or acceptance. There are many other types of experiments.

    Controlled experimentation is both possible and common in physics and chemistry, and much of their canon was indeed developed by that method. But it plays a much smaller role in the other sciences. Much of biology is limited to field experiments or even natural experiments. Geology and paleontology make do with observational studies. And, as the textbooks say, "We leave it as an exercise for the reader" to discover the kinds of experiments that support astronomy, the oldest of sciences.

    The study of evolution clearly falls into this category since--like astronomy--the timeframes involved preclude direct observation of most of the key processes, except at the extreme micro level where the definition of species is a little blurry.

    If this information is startlingly new to you then you're embarrassing yourself by participating in discussions that are beyond your level of education. If you're familiar with these points but reject them, then since your assertion contradicts a fundamental principle of science it is by defintion extraordinary and the Rule of Laplace is hereby invoked: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

    You are hereby directed to cease all posting of this assertion until you provide evidence to support it. Specifically: Explain why you believe that laboratory results are essential before a hypothesis earns acceptance. Failure to heed this request would be trolling, a violation of the forum rules and grounds for banning.
    The definition of "species" becomes more vague with every new discovery in genetics. Even "genus" has begun to blur. In my day a genus was a group of species that could interbreed, even if only by AI. Today we have species within the same genus that cannot hybridize, and species in two different genera that can.

    The point at which two animals (or plants or fungi or members of the other kingdoms) with different DNA are no longer varieties, populations or subspecies of the same species isn't even clearly defined. It's one of those things that occurs on astronomical or geological timelines: Except at the extreme micro level no one will ever live long enough to watch it happen. The fastest speciation of a large organism that I'm aware of (which isn't saying much but it's a good illustration of the problem) was the polar bear, which took approximately 100,000 years. Even if that evolution had just happened (which it didn't, it happened during an ice age about 100,000 years previously), science and scientists didn't exist to observe it. Maybe the next time.
    It must also be pointed out that your use of the word "completely" is hyperbolic. Scientists were gathering tantalizing little pieces of that puzzle when I was working on Science Fair projects fifty years ago.

    Science historians call the 19th century the Century of Chemistry and the 20th the Century of Physics. It's anticipated that this will be the Century of Biology. Perhaps you younger people will live to see abiogenesis cracked. If not, then I suspect it will be a long time before an alternative origin of life is understood, since that will veer into the realm of Cosmology, where physics, mathematics and philosophy merge into a muddle.
    Is this because you're waiting for a laboratory experiment to support the canonical theory of the origin of the Earth?

    I think a three-day banning would give you some time to fill the embarrassing holes in your knowledge of science. I'll discuss it with the Moderator of this subforum.
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Not according to this:

    What evidence?
    You tell me, you're the one with the evidence.
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i'll ask you the same question i asked skinwalker long ago, a question that irked him so much he essentially told me to "shut the fuck up":
    what would it take to convince you your mother is a murderer?
    the state produces reams stating she did but cannot prove any of it.
    would that convince you fraggle?

    biogenesis stands dude whether you like it or not. end of story.
  11. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Seeing as this is clearly not leopold's first brush with the staff of SciForums, I second the move to revoke his privileges to use this site. His stubborn ignorance is a blight on this forum, making rational discussion impossible.
  12. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    The director of the Human Genome Project Dr. Francis Collins believes that science is INCOMPATIBLE with atheism.

    He spells it out in his book: The Language of God


    1. The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

    3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.

    4. Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.

    5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.

    6. Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God.
  13. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    None of those points speak to the assertion that science and atheism are "incompatible." They are the premises for a theistic view of evolution. Did you bother to read them at any point between the copy and the paste?
  14. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    I read the whole book....highly recommended even for atheists.
  15. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Cool, so do you mind illuminating how that says anything at all about science and atheism being incompatible?
  16. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Yes, he goes on at great length in the book about why the universe as presently observed could not have been generated by RANDOM processes.

    So that as a scientist (he does have a degree in physics as well as medicine), one cannot accept any explanation devoid of an intelligent organizing principle...which he calls God.
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    At what point does he start ?
  18. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    What kind of point?
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Well, he has to have a starting point, considering the events that formed the universe, from which he starts reasoning.
    Sorry, if this is a bit incoherent.. I'm very tired.
  20. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    I believe he starts with universal constants, rather than speculating on time sequences, and then moves on to biology.
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    So he starts somewhere in the middle of things..
    That's not going to work, obviously.

    Alright, I'm going to have to get some sleep. I'll check back here later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Not in the middle of a time sequence, no.
  23. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    I see. So apparently, to Dr. Collins, his six premises are sufficient to establish the existence of God in a "scientific" sense. (I should first point out that science is very explicit about its inability to consider supernatural explanations for natural phenomena -- but let's humor Dr. Collins for a moment.)

    That is frankly ridiculous. These premises are a joke. Let's examine them.
    This is, of course, utterly circular, assuming the very thing that it sets out to prove.
    This is laughable. It seems to me that a universe which was "precisely tuned for life" would contain a lot more life! If our universe represents the perfect environment for life, I shudder to think of what the most inhospitable universe would look like.
    Sure, it's possible. Lots of things are possible, but that's hardly a reason to take them seriously. This point tells us nothing.
    This is akin to preaching. Ironically, the beliefs of many religions (including Christianity) fly completely in the face of this assumption. Anyway, if we accept the particular spiritual beliefs of this particular man, then sure, this would make sense. But then again, if we were inclined to simply accept this man's spiritual beliefs, this whole discussion would be a moot point.
    This is misguided to the point of being completely untrue. There is no human trait that eludes an evolutionary explanation -- and even if there were, this certainly would not point to any sort of spiritual nature! This point fails on both empirical and logical grounds.

    Perhaps the saddest part of Dr. Collins's whole case is that even if (for argument's sake) we accept all six of his premises, this would still be incredibly lackluster evidence for a divine creator. As someone who purports to bring a scientific attitude to bear on the question of theism, Dr. Collins should be ashamed for practicing such shoddy "science."
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page