Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

O.K, I see your point. My original intent was to find out how the two systems (vegetation, animal kingdom) evolved alongside each other in a manner that permits them to support each other.

0 Replies

You still don't get it--they evolve as they have because failure to adapt to conditions is a death warrant.

EDIT: Your ability to comprehend this seems to be flawed at the outset by an assumption, a priori, that there must be a guiding principle. You seem unable to grasp that things are the way they are because of circumstance, and not intent.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

I mean, an ecosystem that is self-supporting, and perfect for us to live in.

I think I can help with an insight on perfect. Check out a billiard ball. Would you say it is perfect for playing billiards? The moron will gleefully show you the flaws he has found in microscopic examination whilst reviling you for your stupidity in claiming the perfection. Is he right? I suppose so. Is he a dork? I'm sure of that as well.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

O.K, I see your point. My original intent was to find out how the two systems (vegetation, animal kingdom) evolved alongside each other in a manner that permits them to support each other.

0 Replies

Thunder runner. I assume that you are a student interested in science. The answer to your qustion is rather complex and, in order to do it justice Im gonna give you some references (not links) They will require you to read and maybe that will ope some areas of inquiry for you.
In general, we can trace the occurences and rise of specific elements in our world by looking at isotopes in sediments. We look at early sediments to see whether there is a stable ratio of stable carbon (C12/C13) . Also we can see in the sediments that certain iron formations, rich in oxygen began appearing a bit after the time that the sediments also showed stable C isotopes. For areally good presentation read

"Continents and SUpercontinents" 2004 Chapter 12

Extraterrestrial Organic organic compounds in meteorites, 2002, Surv. in Geophysics (article by G Botta and J Bada)

The Habitat and nature of early life , 2001 Nature v 409 (article by EG Nisbet and NH Sleep)

Oxygen had to arise in the atmosphere until it reached a critical concentration and , yes plants played an important part. Cyanobacteria were the first photosynthetic species. They were later than the archeobacteria which are CH4 producing "extremophilic bacteria" They give us information about what the planet was like in the earliest life stages

The cyanobacters were fond of forming these huge hummocky shaped mats called stromatolites . So when we see stromatolite mats in an early sediment we can see that after their appearance we should be seeing oxidized deposits of iron or other economic minerals. They also indicate that the atmosphere is approaching a respiration minimum.

Youve gotta read this stuff because , Id be taking time and also, Id be presenting it from my own spin which is as a "prospector" who went to college

0 Replies

Thanks Farmerman, I'll check these out.

0 Replies

Don't just "check those out." Read and absorb the meanings of the words.

0 Replies

Wotta buncha officious asses. "Don't just check it out" indeed.

0 Replies

snoody:-

Hey man!Long time no looky see.

How ya doin'?To what do we owe this undeniable and rare pleasure?

0 Replies

snood-have you got yer shorts all twisted up again?

0 Replies

I'm with snood (and thunder) on this one.

I think thunder is making quite a big effort by thanking farmerman and agreeing to "check it out". Let's give credit where it's due huh?

You can't successfully argue that a scientific theory is rubbish unless you understand it fully, so thunder seems to be making that effort and deserves some respect for attempting to doing so.

Thunder, feel free to correct me if I'm outta order!

0 Replies

Nope, I think we're in kahoots. Wink

There are many aspects to evolution that I have trouble understanding, and once I have a better understanding, I can make better desicions on what I believe.

0 Replies

Quote:

Nobody's redefining anything. If you want to believe in God you are free to do so. It doesn't hurt science for anyone to be religious. What hurts science is if the religious want to subvert the truth to fit their faith based beliefs. That's the only area of conflict.

I totally agree. A good comment.

A scientist doesn´t bother about if god exists or not; a religious person upsets about the idea god is an illusion. Why? To defend freedom it´s to defend the truth.

Regards.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

GM-Not only has the evidence of the parallel structure of DNA in the exons very compelling for similar genes, the fact that the zones between the exons are not alike, indicating lots of winnowing during time.Mouse and man have very similar genomes for equivalent chromosomal sections , and bvery different gene structure in the introns.
This extends to the higher orders between mice and men, where similar exons are retained and much variability resides in the introns
. You are arguing for the huuuuuge statistical impossibility to throw a series of (minimally) 3 pairs of dice representing a genomic zone for every mammalian order from mouse to human and have them all come up the same.

Don't forget that in what I choose to believe, God is able to do anything He wants. He could roll those dice a million times and have them come up the same.

farmerman wrote:

Then, on top of this, we see that genomic structure for almost all exons occur and are only added onto. This is economically handled as an event in the evolutionary sequence, or else its the product of a creator who has remembered all the the sequences and is obliged to recreate them each time a new species originates through geologic time.

If the universe were created then I should think that the creator would be sophisticated enough to be able to remember the sequences used, and although I believe in a young earth, this creator could also recreate them in anyway needed as many times as desired.

farmerman wrote:

(of course then, you have to admit that species periodically go extinct and new ones would have to be "created" to supplant them).

If I take it that all species that were ever created were created at once then the creation of new species doesn't happen.

farmerman wrote:

When you consider all the special conditions that you have to have for Creation to work, you start to realize that , If all else is equal, evolution is the simplest solution to the rise of species.

I think that creation is the simpler solution if the following is accepted:
The creator is not limited by either intellect or ability.
The creator is not limited by nature as nature fits whatever form the creator chooses to give it.
Since this is the form of creator I choose to believe in, I then believe that creation is the simplest explanation.

0 Replies

Quote, "Don't forget that in what I choose to believe, God is able to do anything He wants. He could roll those dice a million times and have them come up the same." According to christians, your god is capable of doing anything it wishes. The problem is, in the "real world," we will not see any evidence of the kind of rhetoric stated above. You can use your imagination to your heart's content, but don't expect us to agree with your ridiculous notions.

0 Replies

gospelmancan2 wrote:

I think that creation is the simpler solution if the following is accepted:
The creator is not limited by either intellect or ability.
The creator is not limited by nature as nature fits whatever form the creator chooses to give it.
Since this is the form of creator I choose to believe in, I then believe that creation is the simplest explanation.

So, after careful consideration of the problem, you've come to the conclusion that it's all just poofism from a big magician in the sky. Brilliant.

0 Replies

I also believe in simplicity, but the kind of simplicity you are talking about falls into another category - entirely.

0 Replies

gospelman-all I can say is WOW, you get the " Duane Gish -HEAD IN THE SAND_DONT CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS" award.
See, by believeing the way you do, Im stuck here with all these facts and evidence that make your entire stance incorrect. Because when you argue point 1 of your clipped quotes from me, you disagree with your own points 2 and 3. At least try to understand your own inconsistancies. OR, as Ive suggested before to others, take up a book or two that doesnt start with "Holy"

0 Replies

Gospelman, a little word of advice, you shouldn't try to fight science. After all, evolution is only a theory explained through naturalism, which is completely fine. Don't be suprised when science never proves God; it can't, what transcends nature, cannot be explained by the method of operation for examining it.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Gospelman, a little word of advice, you shouldn't try to fight science. After all, evolution is only a theory explained through naturalism, which is completely fine. Don't be suprised when science never proves God; it can't, what transcends nature, cannot be explained by the method of operation for examining it.

Thanks to the unprecise nature of the English language I think there might be something in your post that may need a bit of correction. However, I'm not sure whether you intended it or whether I read the meaning wrongly.

I will, however, quickly give the definition of a theory just in case somebody else gets confused over what you meant by "evolution is only a theory".

In science, a theory is a "set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Source: http://www.answers.com/theory&r=67

That is why scientists call it a theory, bceause evidence is proving the statement "evolution is real" to be more true than its antithesis, "evolution is not real".

As for science never proving God, that does not necessarily mean God transcends nature. Sure, it could mean that. It might also mean that the people who came up with the concept of God has defined God in an implausible manner that prevents anyone from attempting to try and prove His existence.

However, seeing as you cannot prove either statement to be true, I will give both statements the benefit of a doubt.

Hm, this gives me an idea for a new topic...

0 Replies

Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know