Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

But to claim that because religion sucks...it is impossible for gods to exist...is as absurd as the claim that religions explain REALITY.

I believe religion originally developed from neolithic man's attempts to understand nature. They lived in a world without most of the knowledge that we today take for granted, and without that knowledge I think it was only natural for them to theorize anthropomorphic causes for the things they observed. Such a behavior is basically the Scientific Process but without the restriction to Naturalism as a baseline.

Over time, the simpler and naturalistic explanations began to prove more functional and accurate than the supernatural explanations until the process was codified into a Scientific Methodology which produced the highest level of functionality and accuracy. But by then the Supernatural structures had already codified into religions which were producing a cultural functionality of group cohesion and hierarchical control for the "priests" in various forms. After that, religion was self-perpetuating and self-refining toward those goals.

Quote:

But to claim that because religion sucks...it is impossible for gods to exist...is as absurd as the claim that religions explain REALITY.

Frank, where did I ever claim that religion "sucks" (Ibelieve that is your characterization not mine)
You are unsucessfylly combining two arguments. In this thread I refer to the story of Gilgamesh. I dont connect it to the scientific knowledge that god cannot exist.
Lets try to stay focused, and to use your term, not blather!

But to claim that because religion is “first to recocile mans fear and realization that he would eventually die and provide a comforting reason that life would continue after death and that it was in the hands of an all powerful being ,or it was out of our control, and later as a way for other men to control the masses”…it is impossible for gods to exist...is as absurd as the claim that religions explain REALITY.

I have to confess that I really can't. The only possible explanation for the creation of the construct of the Big Bang is for the Science to convince the population that it is the only omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent presence in the Universe that can possibly exist. Everything else is without any significance, for it doesn't matter that the fake construct of the Big Bang, based on even more fake assumptions, all of them presented as top design scientific theory, is in absolute contradiction with any and all the laws of physics, and mathematics, and math logic, etc.
This is nothing. This is not so important. It doesn't matter – for the only thing that matters is that 'the Big Bang' must go on.

you are being a real hard head. The theory of evolution is not about origin, its about changes. Try not to miss the entire point.

Whatever point you try to make about cosmology does NOT affect anything re: evolution.

no, youre confusing "c) with the big bang.

point to me such an "essential contradiction" in evolution.

ALL evidence in evolution is from several different disciplines coalescing on single points.

Ive not discussed cosmology because its not my field.
When you try to talk evolution, your in my court.

theory of the evolution pretends to have covered the origin.

The theory of the Big Bang claims that it has discovered the evolution of the stars

The species cannot appear without the bio-code.

How did you come to know that the collected evidences from the history of life on the Earth belong to the evolution

I haven't known that evolution is part of the geology ... I have always thought that it belongs to the biological sciences.

The evolution cannot create brand new biocode for new species, hence evolution cannot create new species as it claims.

you are being a real hard head. The theory of evolution is not about origin, its about changes. Try not to miss the entire point.

Oh comon now Frank...do you think it's fair to put my qoute into the center of yours?
Again, two seperate issues. The first is a commentary on the rip off of the story of Gilgamesh by those who wrote the tora and the other a scientific explanation as to the impossibility of gods existance.
Both are obvious to the informed open mind. Both seperately logical. And while I fail to see why you are bent on combining the two arguements, I find neither losing any logic by doing so, albeit a little disjointed in reference to this thread. But hey, whatever tickles your fancy...cheers!

John, you are making the claim that because religion has many defects (and religion does have MANY defects)...it is impossible for a god to exist.

Quote:

John, you are making the claim that because religion has many defects (and religion does have MANY defects)...it is impossible for a god to exist.

Frank, incorrectly posting what I have said and then arguing the point as if it were true is beneath you.
Put the joint down and back away from the baggie.
I said god is an impossibility because of the emperical evidence which I have seen. NOWHERE did I say it was because the religion has many defects.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND THAT IN ONE OF MY POSTS.

The purpose of religion is 2 fold: first to recocile mans fear and realization that he would eventually die and provide a comforting reason that life would continue after death and that it was in the hands of an all powerful being ,or it was out of our control, and later as a way for other men to control the masses.

Frank...you didnt come up with a quote from me that says I believe that god is an impossibility because religion has defects.
The quote you did post does not answer my request...not even a little.
I leave it to others to decide...
DID FRANK RISE TO MY CHALLENGE???

no it doesn't, in fact it specifically states that it does not.

1. A series of chemical reactions occurred in the sky and in the sea.

2. They met and formed amino acids.

3. The amino acids developed ways to propagate themselves.

4. They became proteins - and then the first cells.

5. The cells eventually united with each other forming an organism.

6. The organism, a water dweller, eventually adapts to land because of a change in the atmosphere and in the salt content of the seawater.

7. The land dweller eventually through millions of eons, became the primitive ancestor of the majority of present-day oxygen breathing animals.

8. This primitive ancestor had lots of offsprings - some eventually became a dog, some a cat, others a rat, and a few, an ape.

9. This ape, according to scientists, eventually became them (and they say, us).

In short, the Theory of Evolution explains that a series of changes or mutations occurred from one generation.

that are transmitted on toward the next generation, such that these changes accumulate over time and the successive waves of generations differ considerably from their ancestors (origins).

They say that both man and gorilla evolved from an ape-like creature just 150,000 years ago and that we are in the process of further "evolving".

It a theiry that explains some facts . It has NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE.

"Biocodes" are youre invention.

Evolution has many disciplines involved.

Ive read a few of DAwkins early stuff and "MT Improbable" and "The Greatest Show". Hes a popular writer like David Quammen

You should try to read some real science about origins and the "genesis experiments".

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

The geologists have been the ones whove first discovered the actual places on the planet and the associated geochemistry with foundations of life. Geos chem and Biogeochemistry are closely associated ...

AS I said, its an interdisciplinary ubject.

... besides the fact that youre a confessed Creationit who needs to establish a theistic control over everything humans do

you seem to try to jump all over the place with no basic focus in mind.

3. RE: DNA & proteins
Evolution cannot create brand new types of aminoacids (besides the 20 already in use).

Prof. Dawkins is not simply 'popular writer', but a Professor for Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

The constrained number of combinations for one trait within one and the same species (like for example black, brown, blond or red hair) are not brand new genetic code. Brand new genetic code it to have hair that will grow up anew (after becoming boldface). {I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS EJACULATION ABOUT BOLDFACE IS EVEN ABOUT}

Nobody is denying that, but(an) interdisciplinary subject does not necessarily mean (a)leading subject in a set of disciplines

but this does not impede me from assuming creation as one of the possible explanations (unlike some other people who claim 'the best' on the grounds of one instance only).