Posts by Mr. Majestic

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Mr. Majestic

Oops! I don't know what happened there. The comment referred to was my post No. 775

56

Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou in

a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Honestly Burn, it would really not be fair to talk about gravity on this thread. I would be more than happy to comment on a thread specifically about that topic matter another time. But this thread is not to do with gravity. I used it as an example.

But now keeping the thread on topic, how about a comment on the quote below:-

I don’t see that it is a bad objection Burn. The conditions of the lab would have to be perfect to initiate this experiment in the first place. To find those factors in the universe with all of the elements for life to begin would be quite a task. In fact, even if you put a single cell experiment into the earths environment now, it would die, and you can’t get anymore of a perfect environment for life to thrive than the earth as it is.

The work involved to bring about the perfect conditions would be quite an undertaking, and the fact that they have not yet worked out how to recreate that first accident shows the odds of probability. If they were to recreate life, with all of the work that would be needed and the perfect environment that they would have to ‘create’, and then they turn around and claim that it ‘just happened by chance’ I think that a lot of people would see the flaw in that claim…??

This was the point I was making..

56

Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou in

a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Mr. Majestic

Well I will have to counter in my disagreement with you on gravity as I don’t see that it explains things perfectly at all. But like I said, that is for another tread at an other time….

And to stay more on topic, the theory of Evolution is one helluva solid theory. You're not going to see it be replaced by anythign radically different. Remember, the theory of Evolution contains proven facts of Evolution: genetic change over time. A new theory that explains the diversity of life would have to contain that fact, so it's not going to be something radically different from Evolution as we know it.

Just to say that I have not made reference to the theory of evolution at all in my posts. My responses are to do with the ‘first cause’.

56

Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou in

a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Mr. Majestic

Thanks for the tip drwtsn32. This is a much better system.

Would love to answer some of your points about gravity, but it would be totally off topic if I posted it here. But I would love to debate with you more over that subject.

But just to say that I brought up the topic of Gravity because most people think that gravitational theory is a proven, which you will know that there is no theory of gravity that works universally (not even close), therefore the current theory cannot claim to be ‘truth’, and my problem is that people think that it is a ‘proven’ theory and hold science in high esteem as they used to believe the bible really was the word of god….. People have way too much faith in these things…. The question is in 2000 years will any of the now ‘proven theories’ of science exist at all…??

56

Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou in

a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Mr. Majestic

I don't think this is a very good objection.

I don’t see that it is a bad objection Burn. The conditions of the lab would have to be perfect to initiate this experiment in the first place. To find those factors in the universe with all of the elements for life to begin would be quite a task. In fact, even if you put a single cell experiment into the earths environment now, it would die, and you can’t get anymore of a perfect environment for life to thrive than the earth as it is.

The work involved to bring about the perfect conditions would be quite an undertaking, and the fact that they have not yet worked out how to recreate that first accident shows the odds of probability. If they were to recreate life, with all of the work that would be needed and the perfect environment that they would have to ‘create’, and then they turn around and claim that it ‘just happened by chance’ I think that a lot of people would see the flaw in that claim…??

This was the point I was making..

56

Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou in

a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Mr. Majestic

If the process can be duplicated in a lab environment, and it is a plausible environment that could have existed somewhere, then it would explain how it would have happened. Besides, what is "proof" to you? I wasn't walking around 3 billion years ago seeing what was happening. Duplicating a likely scenario is the closest we will ever get to proof on this one I think.

The obvious counter argument against anything that is created in a lab is that it was in fact ‘created’. There was no ‘chance’ involved in the equation but was fabricated by man, proving that life has to be created by something. I am not going to argue that point (because I really don’t buy into any creation belief that I have heard of either) because of the fact that there must be a chance somewhere in the vastness of space and time that could have brought about the circumstances that could have initiated the perfect conditions to bring about the first process of evolution, although I will say that I do have great problems with the theory of gradualism. So I would be very excited to hear of an experiment in which science could achieve the recreation of the first accident.

But overlooking all of the work that would go into such an experiment to make the first causation of life, the only true way to prove without doubt that it truly was the ‘first cause’ would then be to leave it on its own, without further assistance, and see if it would survive and evolve, and even then there would be questions to answer. It would obviously take millions of year to prove it without a doubt, but if this process started and died then the whole experiment would be called into question and the theory would be ultimately flawed.

So I really do hope that science can actually achieve the first part of the process of the abiogenesis hypothesis because then it would go a long way to prove if life happened by chance and subsequently brought about the process of evolution.

Thanks for the reference to you thread Burn. I will be sure to check that out….

Can someone explain to me how we now do a quote box please..

56

Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou in

a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Mr. Majestic

You can’t prove that life came from inanimate matter

I think we will someday. We haven't completely figured out the process by which the simplest organisms resulted from the self-assembly of molecules--but I think that is what happened.

BTS

I admire your faith Burn but is this ‘proof’ going to be as good as all the other so called proof that science comes up with…?? If it is then you can just put it in the bullshit category subject to change when the theoretical dogma is proved untrue, and even then science will not concede defeat just like its religious counterparts.But really they have not 'proved' very much at all...

Don’t fall into the trap that something is proved just because someone else says that it is. Like I said, science has as much bullshit in it as religion does. Be careful not to be duped a second time my friend…

56

Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?

by nicolaou in

a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.

for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.

i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.

Mr. Majestic

I love these debates because they end up proving fuck all to no one. There is no such thing as truth in regards to the question if there is a creator or not. You can’t prove that life came from inanimate matter, and you can’t prove that god or some higher (or not so higher) being started the whole process either. So how is one more provable or logical..??

Every theory (pure guesses mostly, subject to huge change over the history of science) is ultimately flawed and fails when you follow the trail of logic to the obvious conclusion. Life created by a ‘god’ doesn’t seem to make sense, but at the moment it is a scientific fact that only life can bring about life.

What gets me is how some people can come from being fooled by a religious perspective and then fall into the same trap with regards to science. Science is so full of bullshit it could easily be compared to the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and is promoted with just as much confidence and dogma despite the flaws. A lot of so called scientific truth is pure fabrication. Everyone believes in gravity right..?? Then why do gravitational models fail in the universal structure…??? It’s all bullshit. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, none of it is provable, ( you can’t see it but we know it’s there…now where have I heard that bullshit before..??) but we are told they are there. But these things were made up by people the same way that god was made up by people.

If we have been duped before how come we can’t see that we are being duped again…?? So who is to say that there isn’t a creator, but he is not all powerful, and the only way that he could bring about his creative plans was to do things slowly and in sequence. Perhaps he doesn’t have the strength to do it all at once and needs a few million years to make something. Or maybe even that thought is just a load of bullshit along with the rest of the theories that are promoted as truth….. Who really knows for sure at the end of the day..

Just a test post to see if everything works on this new site……