Proud of those Mormons. There will be an official response. I suspect it will be worded in a 'we love the sinner just not the sin' way and will reiterate families as requiring a man and woman ( and will avoid references to how the lds church used to claim that monogamy was the cause of moral decline and that polygamy was the celestial model ) ;'p.s. don't protest in public or else.'
Posts by Qcmbr
-
48300 Mormons March in Utah Gay Pride Parade, Implications for Closet Jehovah's Witnesses
by Scott77 inwhat are implication from this article for the watchtower jehovah's witnesses lgbt members who are still in closet?.
june 3, 2012 9:31 pmprint text 300 mormons march in utah gay pride parademormons building bridges marches in the annual gay pride parade through downtown salt lake city, sunday, june 3, 2012.
(ap photo/the salt lake tribune, scott sommerdorf).
-
-
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Qcmbr
What I love about this thread is how several people had access to sensible information and none of the answers resorted to magic, mythical paradises or invisible beings who are returning 'soon' to kill or eternally torture most of mankind. I so freakin enjoy not being bound by faith or any god. Thanks for all the info presented.
-
39
Deep breath, and...
by AGuest injumping [back] in... for a sec.... greetings to you all, the household of god, israel... those who go with... and all others here!
the greatest of love and peace to you all!.
i'm just sticking my head in to say (because several have asked and it's not fair of me to make them have to answer for me, so):.
-
-
Qcmbr
Oh crap.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Qcmbr
Night all.
-
239
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
by dark angle injust want to share this amazing debate!
caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.
as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.
-
-
Qcmbr
Maybe we can draw a threshold at replicative ability. Life copies itself. While there may be an argument that matter interacts with its surroundings seeking vibrational harmony it might be a stretch to say that atoms beget atoms?
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Qcmbr
I think SS has a fair point. It is not fair to assert something without backing it up with evidence. Abiogenesis is a pig because it's clearly not a statistically common occurrence under current conditions or at least we don't know yet how to start life ( one of the problems of only just - relatively speeking - inventing the tools to peer inside the cell) . Abiogenesis doesn't yet have a working model so no one can directly say what specific chemical reactions occurred and being a historical event with no human observers it is also impossible to verify if our abiogenesis matches what actually happened. We also haven't got a working unifies theory tying all physics together but one day we probably will. I am happy not to use abiogenesis as an argument though I personally would be stunned if it wasn't a natural process being that all we have ever worked out has been simple physics and chemistry. Again it is never magic.
Ipad autofckitup in evidence.
-
170
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream inscientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
-
-
Qcmbr
Some basic evidence - please forgive my lack of links and garbled interpretation here - leaving a page on my iPad erases everything I've written so this will simply be some things I have read that I am regurgitating badly.
1/ The earliest fossils show simple life forms and as the fossil record progresses through time we see complexity increasing as mutations and information multiply so giving rise to larger life forms. We can wind the clock backwards and point to times when there was no life on earth. In between the no life, earliest fossil records of life something occurred. There are several possible options: life was randomly seeded from other planets on meteoroids, abiogenesis occurred or a life form engineered simple life forms. What is not an option is that magic occurred. Since our planet is constantly seeding bacteria onto other planets within our solar system and with some notable unknown possibles (like Europa) it is clear that bacterial seeding faces massive challenges since we haven't got abundant manifestations of life on nearby planetary bodies.
2/ Self organising systems occur spontaneously when energy gradients operate upon molecules. Under certain circumstances and chemical recipes complex molecules observed within living cells form. We can observe mud in solution forming tiny bubbles with osmotic properties including the all critical electrical gradient ( as salts leach out or in - cant remember the direction ) an electrical imbalance occurs like a battery. Within the mud bubbles complex chemistry can occur which shows similarities to cell functionality. Apols again for not having the link but it was in the New Scientist mag.
3/ RNA shows many of the characteristics of DNA but critically can express proteins without the extra catalysts observed when DNA does so. RNA is an excellent precursor to DNA as a self replicating chemical system.
4/ Viruses show how replicating systems can exist without the full capabilities of more recognisable life. The very first replicating system, if abiogenesis was how it occurred here, would not be recognisable as life today but would have more in common with viral life than our cells. New abiogenetic systems might occur all the time but are unsuccessful in a world teeming with far more evolved life forms.
5/ New mathematical models show that simple information sets can contain the rules for more complex supersets, in short certain mathematical rules allow mandate increasing complex sets from an initial starting simple set. This is exciting because while we observe the complex deriving from the simple all the time in our human designed world the mathematical rules recently discovered show select circumstances where non intelligent information can drive to complexity simply because it must. BBC news report plus others.
-
97
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
Qcmbr
Ok s&g - sheesh.
The utterly amazing experimentation process produces incredible results when compared with the asinine, stupid and largely arse in the buttcheek assumptions that superstition conjures up. The bodacious laws that the scientific method has allowed us to discover have doubled lifespans in the last 150 years, yehaw, and have given us tools that enhance our intellect and knowledge base. One is most disappointed to find that despite the awesomeness that is science people would rather trust in gastric movements and talking to their duvet ( while paying a modest price to the priest ) than ditch the mythic crapulence and stand magnificent in the wonder that is google.
-
239
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
by dark angle injust want to share this amazing debate!
caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.
as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.
-
-
Qcmbr
Twitch - I'm actually coming round to the idea that science can definitively disprove any and all gods one attribute at a time. I was thinking this through for my former belief. Every single thing I thought was a proof of Mormon jesus had a much better scientific solution that either made the bearded one superfluous to the equation or at worst the mistake. The key to applying science is the definition that the believer believes in. We give believers way too much latitude to lazily point to the sky and say that a god is out there. Once we focus on what believers actually are saying it rapidly is revealed to be either utterly wrong ( global flood - all animals in tiny wooden boat ), not logical ( followed through to conclusion it fails ) , not even wrong ( like life = energy, love = Christ) or unknown ( the believer doesn't really know what they believe in when they are asked to clarify it.) Where a believer can actually make a concrete statement ( rare) then we can see if science has a better explanation for that. Not been disappointed yet.
-
97
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 ini have to admit that i do find it very very hard to believe there is no 'god' or higher intelligent power or cosmic force of some kind behind it all.
at the very last a non-personal einstein or spinoza version of god.
the articles here on this website sum up most of my reasons for belief: ww.godevidence.com/category/evidence.
-
-
Qcmbr
S & G does that incorrect logic appeal to you because it gives your belief somewhere to hide from scientific enquiry?
Science is a means to test hypothetical assumptions about an observed phenomenon. It works by proposing a physical law and then defining what would refute that law ( for laymen we call them tests .) The strength of the hypothetical law rests upon the strength of the tests applied to it. The more rigorous and thorough the tests the more likely that the law is correct or a good approximation of what is happening. Where there are observed deviations to the law the tests are expanded and the law refined. As evidence accumulates laws are expanded, replaced or confirmed. Science is not a subject of belief it is shown by empirical evidence to be the best and most effective manner of explaining the universe and all that we observe. It is self proving. There may well be better ways to examine the universe but so far no one has proven them however, it is absolutely certain that it is not faith which over tens of thousands of years has not produced a single useful testable law but has been proven utterly wrong on every single assumption it has made with regards to health, physics, biology, maths, cosmology, geology, gravity, social science, genetics, conception, knowledge, truth and on the ability of animals to converse.