Tweet
Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie
Have a good night folks!
Originally posted by mandarb11
View Post
Ok science and the supernatural......the two do not mix, as we should all know by know. Science is based upon the 5 senses or extensions of the 5 senses (ie a telescope, microscope, etc). With what sense can one validate a god? Empiricism is the hallmark of science (and remember science is just a method of acquiring knowledge) which means we can independently test any idea and everyone will come up with the same results. Again does not work with the supernatural. Creationists that try to use science to prove the supernatural do not understand what science is! Read any book by Dawkins, he is the leading evolutionary biologist and he specifically addresses creationist's attempts at science.
So lets break this down as this is a huge topic.
First off the onus is on the person trying to prove an idea not on a person to disprove an idea. If I said that our good friend superman (who is ascribed to have supernatural powers) was responsible for the creation of all things in the universe would it be reasonable for me to say to you, "prove to me that is not the case". That is essentially what you have done. You must supply scientific or otherwise, information to support the existence of a god.
With all due respect I have presented information pertaining to many disciplines of science, mathmatics, and philosophy. If you disagree thats fine but I am not just presenting ideas. My arguement is based off of facts, and more importantly scientific laws.
What evidence have you produced that proves a god? the only one is pascals law of biogenesis, which I have already addressed is not only archaic but too simplistic. It does not address the simple life forms, it is in contention of advanced life forms only, in other words we cannot just pull a chicken out of thin air!
I disagree about this law being archaic. You yourself referenced an experiment conducted in 1953. I have documentation of a study done in
1981. The same has resulted in all of them. They have produced nothing. The Law of Biogenesis is just what it states-a Law. It reads in the test book, Life: An Introdution to Biology, "there is no series doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell" (p144)
This is an exert from Science Digest, "A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals "(p. 36, emp. added).
The Law of Biognesis is as much a Law today as back when Pastuer discovered it. With that being said, in order for life to exist, someone that is not subject to the laws had to create it. It can not spontaneously generate.
To address the origins of life I must first ask do you acknowledge evolution? If you believe that evolution occurred but that the source of everything is a god, then we can go from there or do you ascribe to special creation where everything on this earth was made just the way it is today.
This is a whole new can of worms. I believe in microevolution, or "adaptive variatioin" would better describe it.
I now you asked about why there are no new species in a previous post, but i ask you this, do you really think that all the species we have discovered (dinosaurs to mammals) could have existed all together? If not then you must acknowledge that each creature is an later development over much earlier species. If you understand the natural world you must know that there are ecological niches that cannot be occupied by multiple creatures at the same time, ie and lion and a T-rex could not compete against oneanother for food.
Now you mentioned how early man (interesting that you acknowledge a form of man that does not exist today) and their cave paintings, in all the cave paintings ever discovered they all have to do with everyday life, hunting (all the different animals) and the natural world. There are no "pictures' of a god or gods (and remember all the earliest ideas of religion we know of were all pantheistic!). now with neanderthals we have discovered grave sites where the bodies have flower petals strewn over the body and a few possessions put in the grave, again it just shows that they had a reverence for the person, not an acknowledgement of a god. I would argue though that all humans as soon as we achieved consciousness, needed answers to the world, life and death etc and without developing science at the time religion filled the gaps nicely.
Worship is a human instinct. No matter where people have travelled, there has never been a tribe so degraded that it didn't worship something. Even Voltaire is reported as praying in an Alpine storm. I go back to, the more we find out through science, the more evidence points to a Creator. (and just because I use "early man" doesn't mean I am talking of a type of man that doesn't exist today. I can speak of the early Scalleywag's that came over from Ireland but it doesn't mean their type has died out. I can go back to a post from Klash where he used "Created" but it doesn't mean he believes in a Creator.)
It is interesting to note that the earliest religious icon we have found is what have become known as the "mother earth" icon. A very plump naked woman, usually depicting large breasts and open legs, a symbol of fertility (one of the earliest types of religion in an agrarian society). The earliest religions we know about are nothing like the religions that exist today. Study the history of religion sometime and you will find that the Judeo-Christian idea of a god is the culmination of many older cultures ideas! We won't get into that right now though.
Another topic another time.
Now you ask me how intelligent life came about.....how would I or anyone else know. Fist off what is intelligence? We humans consider ourselves intelligent compared to an ant yet look at how irrational we are, that is not a hallmark of intelligence. It seems that all your arguements keep coming back to the premise that if we cannot explain something then its only reasonable explaination is god! I like superman personally but you can use god if you like! lol
Superman works too, if you want to admit He's real...LOL. What I am saying is that since we have a scientific LAW stating life can not spontaneously generate then all the fingers point to a Creator that is not restricted by that LAW. Was I there? Of course not. Was I there when OJ killed Nicole? Thankfully not, but we all know he did it. The evidence allows us to draw that conclussion.
Lastly I just wanted to address the fact that you mentioned you are a Christian. Believing in a god and being a Christian are two different things. We could have been debating a Jew for all we know, as the existence of the theistic god and the beleif that a god/man came into being are completely distinct from one another. Here is the interesting thing, Christians love to mention faith as the cornerstone of their beliefs, but if one is questioning how things came into being is that going against the faith that it was god and god alone that does everything? Sorry I just need some clarification on that, I know if I said I had faith in a god and that is all I need is that faith then why would I "keep looking". I applaud you personally, one should never stop looking for the answers but I have heard this many times and am trying to understand what is seeminly a contradiction!
Its funny you bring that up. As a Christian I live by the Bible. In the Bible I Thessalonians 5:21 says, "test all things, keep what is good." I believe this applies here. As I have stated previously I believe the more I learn, the more I understand the more I am in awe of His creation. The complexity of it all, the intricate nature of things, the delicate balance of how everything works so neatly amazes me. One might say its a cop out to say, "Oh well, God did it", and I agree to some extent. I want to know HOW God did it. So I would say its not a contradiction at all, I am just using the inquisitive mind and limited intelligence (very llimited most times...LOL) He gave me.
On a different level, I feel like it is my responsiblity as a Christian to be able to make an intelligent case for God when given the oppurtunity. This thread would have stopped somewhere around post 60 if my arguement was, "youre going to hell if you don't believe". What would that have accomplished? If you don't believe in God at the end of all this I don't want it to be because I didn't present the very best case I was capable of presenting. In my opinion God deserves that from me and all other Christians as well. They get the craziest nutjobs they can find whenever they need to talk about God on CNN and MSNBC. He needs some rational people out there.
So lets break this down as this is a huge topic.
First off the onus is on the person trying to prove an idea not on a person to disprove an idea. If I said that our good friend superman (who is ascribed to have supernatural powers) was responsible for the creation of all things in the universe would it be reasonable for me to say to you, "prove to me that is not the case". That is essentially what you have done. You must supply scientific or otherwise, information to support the existence of a god.
With all due respect I have presented information pertaining to many disciplines of science, mathmatics, and philosophy. If you disagree thats fine but I am not just presenting ideas. My arguement is based off of facts, and more importantly scientific laws.
What evidence have you produced that proves a god? the only one is pascals law of biogenesis, which I have already addressed is not only archaic but too simplistic. It does not address the simple life forms, it is in contention of advanced life forms only, in other words we cannot just pull a chicken out of thin air!
I disagree about this law being archaic. You yourself referenced an experiment conducted in 1953. I have documentation of a study done in
1981. The same has resulted in all of them. They have produced nothing. The Law of Biogenesis is just what it states-a Law. It reads in the test book, Life: An Introdution to Biology, "there is no series doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell" (p144)
This is an exert from Science Digest, "A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals "(p. 36, emp. added).
The Law of Biognesis is as much a Law today as back when Pastuer discovered it. With that being said, in order for life to exist, someone that is not subject to the laws had to create it. It can not spontaneously generate.
To address the origins of life I must first ask do you acknowledge evolution? If you believe that evolution occurred but that the source of everything is a god, then we can go from there or do you ascribe to special creation where everything on this earth was made just the way it is today.
This is a whole new can of worms. I believe in microevolution, or "adaptive variatioin" would better describe it.
I now you asked about why there are no new species in a previous post, but i ask you this, do you really think that all the species we have discovered (dinosaurs to mammals) could have existed all together? If not then you must acknowledge that each creature is an later development over much earlier species. If you understand the natural world you must know that there are ecological niches that cannot be occupied by multiple creatures at the same time, ie and lion and a T-rex could not compete against oneanother for food.
Now you mentioned how early man (interesting that you acknowledge a form of man that does not exist today) and their cave paintings, in all the cave paintings ever discovered they all have to do with everyday life, hunting (all the different animals) and the natural world. There are no "pictures' of a god or gods (and remember all the earliest ideas of religion we know of were all pantheistic!). now with neanderthals we have discovered grave sites where the bodies have flower petals strewn over the body and a few possessions put in the grave, again it just shows that they had a reverence for the person, not an acknowledgement of a god. I would argue though that all humans as soon as we achieved consciousness, needed answers to the world, life and death etc and without developing science at the time religion filled the gaps nicely.
Worship is a human instinct. No matter where people have travelled, there has never been a tribe so degraded that it didn't worship something. Even Voltaire is reported as praying in an Alpine storm. I go back to, the more we find out through science, the more evidence points to a Creator. (and just because I use "early man" doesn't mean I am talking of a type of man that doesn't exist today. I can speak of the early Scalleywag's that came over from Ireland but it doesn't mean their type has died out. I can go back to a post from Klash where he used "Created" but it doesn't mean he believes in a Creator.)
It is interesting to note that the earliest religious icon we have found is what have become known as the "mother earth" icon. A very plump naked woman, usually depicting large breasts and open legs, a symbol of fertility (one of the earliest types of religion in an agrarian society). The earliest religions we know about are nothing like the religions that exist today. Study the history of religion sometime and you will find that the Judeo-Christian idea of a god is the culmination of many older cultures ideas! We won't get into that right now though.
Another topic another time.
Now you ask me how intelligent life came about.....how would I or anyone else know. Fist off what is intelligence? We humans consider ourselves intelligent compared to an ant yet look at how irrational we are, that is not a hallmark of intelligence. It seems that all your arguements keep coming back to the premise that if we cannot explain something then its only reasonable explaination is god! I like superman personally but you can use god if you like! lol
Superman works too, if you want to admit He's real...LOL. What I am saying is that since we have a scientific LAW stating life can not spontaneously generate then all the fingers point to a Creator that is not restricted by that LAW. Was I there? Of course not. Was I there when OJ killed Nicole? Thankfully not, but we all know he did it. The evidence allows us to draw that conclussion.
Lastly I just wanted to address the fact that you mentioned you are a Christian. Believing in a god and being a Christian are two different things. We could have been debating a Jew for all we know, as the existence of the theistic god and the beleif that a god/man came into being are completely distinct from one another. Here is the interesting thing, Christians love to mention faith as the cornerstone of their beliefs, but if one is questioning how things came into being is that going against the faith that it was god and god alone that does everything? Sorry I just need some clarification on that, I know if I said I had faith in a god and that is all I need is that faith then why would I "keep looking". I applaud you personally, one should never stop looking for the answers but I have heard this many times and am trying to understand what is seeminly a contradiction!
Its funny you bring that up. As a Christian I live by the Bible. In the Bible I Thessalonians 5:21 says, "test all things, keep what is good." I believe this applies here. As I have stated previously I believe the more I learn, the more I understand the more I am in awe of His creation. The complexity of it all, the intricate nature of things, the delicate balance of how everything works so neatly amazes me. One might say its a cop out to say, "Oh well, God did it", and I agree to some extent. I want to know HOW God did it. So I would say its not a contradiction at all, I am just using the inquisitive mind and limited intelligence (very llimited most times...LOL) He gave me.
On a different level, I feel like it is my responsiblity as a Christian to be able to make an intelligent case for God when given the oppurtunity. This thread would have stopped somewhere around post 60 if my arguement was, "youre going to hell if you don't believe". What would that have accomplished? If you don't believe in God at the end of all this I don't want it to be because I didn't present the very best case I was capable of presenting. In my opinion God deserves that from me and all other Christians as well. They get the craziest nutjobs they can find whenever they need to talk about God on CNN and MSNBC. He needs some rational people out there.
Comment