Common misconceptions

[crowTrobot]

The Big Bang is a theory that explains the origin of the universe.

common misconception

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Let's get this straight hoojacks...

Let's.

You want to discredit creation because you believe that you cannot set the theory on principles that explains "observable natural phenomena".

I'm not out to discredit creationism. I simply want to know how the "theory of creation" is similar to the scientific theory that SPD gave details about. How is it that the idea that the universe was created with the snap of magical fingers at all like a set of principles that explain observable natural phenomena? The theory of creationism is nothing more than a hunch -- the layman's version of the word "theory." There's no science in it.

Yet abiogenesis has never been observed, which is the foundation of evolution.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I think this has been pointed out so I won't get into it.

However, even as controversial as abiogenesis is as a model for how life started on Earth, it still outclasses the "theory of creation" a thousand times. Abiogenesis has the results of actual science behind its rationale.

As the saying goes... Cut the head off the snake and the entire thing dies.

Your snake = life existed by chance and evolved naturally.

Your snake head = abiogenesis

Since you want to discredit creation based on the concept that it must be observed naturally, would also discredit abiogenesis in the same regard.

So are you saying that abiogenesis and creation are not "scientific"?

Again, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. And again, the currently accepted "primordial soup" model of abiogenesis has real science that point in that direction. It's not a slam dunk, as the theory of evolution is, but it's nowhere near the realm of conjecture and willful ignorance that creationism inhabits.

Personally I don't argue that evolution did not exist, but I just argue how genesis could have been the snake head. Add a creator and the entire evolution concept can be valid.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. So I'll ask again:

How is the "theory of creation" like a scientific theory?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Nothing would be lost. Our culture has adapted.

What does THAT mean? If you mean the majority of people misuse it, how is that "adaptation"?

 

[julius]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. So I'll ask again:

How is the "theory of creation" like a scientific theory?

They both contain the word "theory".

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I'd never hear the term "abiogenesis" before. But looking it up led me to this, which is fascinating.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I'd never hear the term "abiogenesis" before. But looking it up led me to this, which is fascinating.

science!

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not out to discredit creationism. I simply want to know how the "theory of creation" is similar to the scientific theory that SPD gave details about. How is it that the idea that the universe was created with the snap of magical fingers at all like a set of principles that explain observable natural phenomena? The theory of creationism is nothing more than a hunch -- the layman's version of the word "theory." There's no science in it.

Easy... God created singularity and commanded it to expand.

No different than splitting an atom and creating tremendous amounts of energy. Now go back to 1887 and try and explain that to their modern scientists and they would most likely run you off laughing. Yet here we are!

What you consider magical may not be as magical as you think. With technology evolving so rapidly in the last hundred years, man may have the power to bend space and time itself. How natural is that?! Lmao

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I think this has been pointed out so I won't get into it.

I have pointed out clearly that I believe in evolution. I argue only how it started. You say something that never been physically observed "abiogenesis" seems more logical, but that don't mean shit. You clearly pointed out in order for something to follow in line with spd classification it must be observed. You made a dig that creation hasn't as some mock. Then I use abiogenesis and you defend it, even though I used your same argument against you.

Double standard anyone? Lol

However, even as controversial as abiogenesis is as a model for how life started on Earth, it still outclasses the "theory of creation" a thousand times. Abiogenesis has the results of actual science behind its rationale.

Only your opinion. So we can keep that out of a rational debate shall we?

Again, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. And again, the currently accepted "primordial soup" model of abiogenesis has real science that point in that direction. It's not a slam dunk, as the theory of evolution is, but it's nowhere near the realm of conjecture and willful ignorance that creationism inhabits.

Ignoring abiogenesis because you now understand it destroys your argument is laughable.

As I said, let's both agree on evolution. It was either made by a conscious being or "God" or happened naturally right?

So what do you believe?

I'm not sure what you're arguing. So I'll ask again:

How is the "theory of creation" like a scientific theory?

As I already explained. The same way abiogenesis is explained. Using philosophy...

 

[magnifier661]

I'd never hear the term "abiogenesis" before. But looking it up led me to this, which is fascinating.

Yes I know of this method. The amazing thing was that man could not create life without life. So testing the theory of abiogenesis failed in this regard.

Go figure...

 

[magnifier661]

science!

That proved so far that life cannot be created from non life...

Interesting observation huh?!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That proved so far that life cannot be created from non life...

Interesting observation huh?!

How do you know that god is life? That's what you're saying right? God created life. So god must be life? How do you know? That's a huge assumption you're making.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Yes I know of this method.

[video=youtube;Nqc2ftj1F94]

The amazing thing was that man could not create life without life.

As usual, your, shall we say, inventive use of the English language has me confused. Are you saying that the experiment was tainted? Or are you saying that the experiment was carried out by humans, who are themselves alive?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

How do you know that god is life? That's what you're saying right? God created life. So god must be life? How do you know? That's a huge assumption you're making.

Better yet: if God is alive, then creation hasn't shown how you get life in the first place. So it's not even an attempt at an explanation.

 

[magnifier661]

How do you know that god is life? That's what you're saying right? God created life. So god must be life? How do you know? That's a huge assumption you're making.

Exactly! As much as an assumption as one that believes that life can exist without creation from "non-life" right?

Both sides are making assumption they cannot observe correct?

 

[magnifier661]

[video=youtube;Nqc2ftj1F94]



As usual, your, shall we say, inventive use of the English language has me confused. Are you saying that the experiment was tainted? Or are you saying that the experiment was carried out by humans, who are themselves alive?

You should read the page more carefully... Amino acids were formed but no DNA "the code".

You are confused... Knowledge is the first step of recovery.

 

[magnifier661]

Better yet: if God is alive, then creation hasn't shown how you get life in the first place. So it's not even an attempt at an explanation.

Actually no... Theist believe God is eternal, not bound by the laws of nature" therefor isn't bound by natural laws.

And many believe God was outside this known universe, again explaining that he or she or them aren't bound by the laws either.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is commonly assumed to be an apple,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-312 and is widely depicted as such in Western art. However, the Bible does not identify what type of fruit it is. The original Hebrew texts mention only tree and fruit. Early Latin translations use the word mali, which can be taken to mean both "evil" and "apple". German and French artists commonly depict the fruit as an apple from the 12th century onwards, and John Milton's Areopagitica from 1644 explicitly mentions the fruit as an apple.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-313 Jewish scholars have suggested that the fruit could have been a grape, a fig, wheat, an apricot or an etrog

 

[magnifier661]

The forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is commonly assumed to be an apple,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-312 and is widely depicted as such in Western art. However, the Bible does not identify what type of fruit it is. The original Hebrew texts mention only tree and fruit. Early Latin translations use the word mali, which can be taken to mean both "evil" and "apple". German and French artists commonly depict the fruit as an apple from the 12th century onwards, and John Milton's Areopagitica from 1644 explicitly mentions the fruit as an apple.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-313 Jewish scholars have suggested that the fruit could have been a grape, a fig, wheat, an apricot or an etrog

I tend to think of it used as a metaphor. Maybe the forbidden fruit isn't anything physical?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

You are confused... Knowledge is the first step of recovery.

Not necessarily. You can be ignorant without being confused (and vice versa). Another distinction that is getting lost.

Incidentally, how did God come to be alive?

 

[magnifier661]

Not necessarily. You can be ignorant without being confused (and vice versa). Another distinction that is getting lost.

Incidentally, how did God come to be alive?

He always existed...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is commonly assumed to be an apple,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-312 and is widely depicted as such in Western art. However, the Bible does not identify what type of fruit it is. The original Hebrew texts mention only tree and fruit. Early Latin translations use the word mali, which can be taken to mean both "evil" and "apple". German and French artists commonly depict the fruit as an apple from the 12th century onwards, and John Milton's Areopagitica from 1644 explicitly mentions the fruit as an apple.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-313 Jewish scholars have suggested that the fruit could have been a grape, a fig, wheat, an apricot or an etrog

It's obviously a Mango. Nothing else would be tempting enough.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

He always existed...

Why?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The universe is a boy god's brine shrimp.

We're sitting forgotten in the back of his closet.

 

[magnifier661]

Why?

That's a good question. That will be one of my first questions I ask him when I go to heaven.

But here is the naturalist dilemma. If the universe or singularity always existed "eternal", then it always was expanded, it would return to singularity or diffuse to nothingness right now.

If the universe had no consciousness, then everything happened. Time wouldn't be a factor to something eternal.

Think about that for a minute.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

That's a good question. That will be one of my first questions I ask him when I go to heaven.

That's an awfully big assumption. And why wait that long? Are you saying that you don't know whether or not God's always been around? Don't you feel the need to achieve certainty, or at least find an explanation?

But here is the naturalist dilemma. If the universe or singularity always existed "eternal", then it always was expanded, it would return to singularity or diffuse to nothingness right now.

No, that's not a dilemma, that's a word salad.

If the universe had no consciousness, then everything happened. Time wouldn't be a factor to something eternal.

I firmly believe that there is a neurochemical that gives one the feeling that one is having deep thoughts without actually being connected with any actually cogent thoughts. This is why people taking LSD stare at things. Mags is one of the lucky few who can manufacture this chemical without needing to ingest anything.

Think about that for a minute.

There would need to be a "that".

 

[magnifier661]

That's an awfully big assumption. And why wait that long? Are you saying that you don't know whether or not God's always been around? Don't you feel the need to achieve certainty, or at least find an explanation?

It's no bigger of an assumption that singularity always existed. Or that abiogenesis happened even though it has never been observed.

I think that my conscience must leave the boundaries of this natural universe to understand why God exists. Just as a man can't describe love until they've already experienced it.

No, that's not a dilemma, that's a word salad.

Maybe you think it's a word salad, but it's a logical word salad. If the universe had no conscious beginning, then why exist? Why wouldn't the universe already expand or contract? Why even exist? And since the universe created time, then everything already happened. Anything that had or will happened has happened.

If you don't understand then I'm sorry if I'm not making it clear enough for you.

I firmly believe that there is a neurochemical that gives one the feeling that one is having deep thoughts without actually being connected with any actually cogent thoughts. This is why people taking LSD stare at things. Mags is one of the lucky few who can manufacture this chemical without needing to ingest anything.

Interesting... So you think you need LSD or other neuro chemicals to have deep thoughts? I think many neuro scientist disagree.

http://understandsomething.wordpress.com/tag/neuro-pathways/

There would need to be a "that".

Exactly my point. Why is there a universe if there was no conscious start?

The fundamental question is why does anything exist?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Easy... God created singularity and commanded it to expand.

That doesn't come close to answering my question. Saying "God did it" isn't similar to a theory based on scientific observation.

No different than splitting an atom and creating tremendous amounts of energy. Now go back to 1887 and try and explain that to their modern scientists and they would most likely run you off laughing. Yet here we are!

What you consider magical may not be as magical as you think. With technology evolving so rapidly in the last hundred years, man may have the power to bend space and time itself. How natural is that?! Lmao

I don't know where you're going with this line of "reasoning."

I have pointed out clearly that I believe in evolution. I argue only how it started. You say something that never been physically observed "abiogenesis" seems more logical, but that don't mean shit.

I would argue it does mean shit. Like I said, abiogenesis is a hypothesis that actual scientists doing actual science using the scientific method have developed. It's still a hypothesis, but there is logic behind it.

You're trying to elevate the idea that "God did it" to the level of a scientific theory. I'm sorry, but there's no science in "God did it." None. It's not comparable.

You clearly pointed out in order for something to follow in line with spd classification it must be observed.

No, that's not what I said. What needs to be observed is the phenomena that the scientific theory is explaining. Really, the theory isn't a thing at all, it's just a way for humans to codify natural processes that they observe.

Let's look at the criteria for a scientific theory again: "a set of principles used to explain observable natural phenomena." I could see how one might think that is vague. You could argue that "God did it" is indeed a set of principles. Fortunately, there are more specific criteria:

Let's ask Wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

That last part is pretty important. "God did it" is not the scientific method, and cannot be confirmed via any means.

You made a dig that creation hasn't as some mock. Then I use abiogenesis and you defend it, even though I used your same argument against you.

Double standard anyone? Lol

I defended the hypothesis of abiogenesis from being compared to the idea of creationism. All I'm saying here is that abiogenesis (and every other scientific hypothesis and theory) has science behind it. Creationism doesn't.

Only your opinion. So we can keep that out of a rational debate shall we?

Yes, I will try to keep subjective words like "outclass" out of this perfect rational debate.

However, the scientific base on which abiogenesis has been developed is not my opinion; it's fact.

Ignoring abiogenesis because you now understand it destroys your argument is laughable.

I'm not ignoring abiogenesis. We've been talking about it this whole time. I just said it doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution. My argument has most certainly not been destroyed. I'm curious if you realize what I'm arguing.

As I said, let's both agree on evolution. It was either made by a conscious being or "God" or happened naturally right?

So what do you believe?

Yes, we agree that evolution happens.

What I believe doesn't matter, because that's not what I'm trying to argue about. You keep trying to pull me into a different argument than the one I foolishly started.

You can believe whatever you want, and that is super cool. I'm not here to tell you your beliefs are wrong. All I want to do is point out that the theory of creation is not a scientific theory. Is that so hard to accept?

As I already explained. The same way abiogenesis is explained. Using philosophy...

Philosophy is not science. Abiogenesis is explained through science, not philosophy.

 

[magnifier661]

That doesn't come close to answering my question. Saying "God did it" isn't similar to a theory based on scientific observation.

Well this isn't about you is it? You are swaying from our argument. You say that creation is not valid because it hasn't been observed remember?

So trying to discredit "yeah but it doesn't work for me, therefor it's not valid" is only your opinion. What it doesn't do is validate that abiogenesis is anymore scientific than creation using your earlier argument

I would argue it does mean shit. Like I said, abiogenesis is a hypothesis that actual scientists doing actual science using the scientific method have developed. It's still a hypothesis, but there is logic behind it.

Yes like a creationist explaining "God did it" like you mock. They are both philosophical arguments right now.

You're trying to elevate the idea that "God did it" to the level of a scientific theory. I'm sorry, but there's no science in "God did it." None. It's not comparable.

If you want to debate about evidence about God's existence being scientific, there is already another thread.

But I would suggest you get back to our debate. You clearly mocked creation because it has not been observed. But you then realized abiogenesis has not been observed and are trying to debate which side is more logical. All using your opinion.

Clearly you missed the boat that both sides are missing that "observation" you freely used without realizing your belief hasn't been observed either.

No, that's not what I said. What needs to be observed is the phenomena that the scientific theory is explaining. Really, the theory isn't a thing at all, it's just a way for humans to codify natural processes that they observe.

There is no need to back peddle here brother.

Let's look at the criteria for a scientific theory again: "a set of principles used to explain observable natural phenomena." I could see how one might think that is vague. You could argue that "God did it" is indeed a set of principles. Fortunately, there are more specific criteria:

Let's ask Wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

That last part is pretty important. "God did it" is not the scientific method, and cannot be confirmed via any means.

Again we aren't debating what is more logical. We are debating that creation can use the same method of abiogenesis. You keep trying to derail the root of our debate.

I defended the hypothesis of abiogenesis from being compared to the idea of creationism. All I'm saying here is that abiogenesis (and every other scientific hypothesis and theory) has science behind it. Creationism doesn't.

Only your opinion... But there are many creation scientist that disagree. There is even an "atheist" scientist I talked to that quoted this...

Only the crustiest and most curmudgeonly of "atheists" claim to be able to rule out the possibility of God entirely.

That is your peer and he is actually a physicist and atheist.

Yes, I will try to keep subjective words like "outclass" out of this perfect rational debate.

However, the scientific base on which abiogenesis has been developed is not my opinion; it's fact.

And this is where your credibility is flawed. I doubt there is a single respected scientist on this planet that would agree with your statement.

I'm not ignoring abiogenesis. We've been talking about it this whole time. I just said it doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution. My argument has most certainly not been destroyed. I'm curious if you realize what I'm arguing.

Really? Well show me where abiogenesis has been observed naturally?

What I believe doesn't matter, because that's not what I'm trying to argue about. You keep trying to pull me into a different argument than the one I foolishly started.

You can believe whatever you want, and that is super cool. I'm not here to tell you your beliefs are wrong. All I want to do is point out that the theory of creation is not a scientific theory. Is that so hard to accept?

Well I'm not saying abiogenesis is anymore right or wrong than creationism. You are.

I am clearly discrediting your argument that creation is not scientific, yet think abiogenesis is.

Philosophy is not science. Abiogenesis is explained through science, not philosophy.

Dawkins disagrees.

Or you can read this

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/is-philosophy-a-science/45795

It is a tool for science bro.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The fundamental question is why does anything exist?

Now this is philosophy.

By asking "why," you're ascribing meaning to nature. "Meaning" is a human invention; it is an entirely subjective product of our consciousness. Mother nature doesn't care about our philosophical meanderings. The universe moves on with or without us.

What is beyond the veil of our observational abilities is unknown. The astounding advance of technology has led us to some pretty deep understanding of the universe in a short period of time. The further we stretch our observational abilities, the more we discover and the fewer questions are left to philosophy.

Since the invention of the telescope, we have documented and understood realm after realm once probed only by philosophy. Over and over again, each level of understanding we have gained has taught us one central thing: Everything obeys the laws of nature. And over and over again, what we have discovered in each new layer of nature we uncover is entirely unlike what any philosophy had once preached. Humans love to make meaning where there is none.

So here we are, up against the limits of our observational abilities once more.

What makes the most sense in this situation:

a. Predicting that what is beyond the our current limit of understanding will follow the fundamental laws of nature, or
b. Assuming that what is beyond that our current limit of understanding will not follow the fundamental laws of nature.

 

[magnifier661]

Now this is philosophy.

By asking "why," you're ascribing meaning to nature. "Meaning" is a human invention; it is an entirely subjective product of our consciousness. Mother nature doesn't care about our philosophical meanderings. The universe moves on with or without us.

What is beyond the veil of our observational abilities is unknown. The astounding advance of technology has led us to some pretty deep understanding of the universe in a short period of time. The further we stretch our observational abilities, the more we discover and the fewer questions are left to philosophy.

Since the invention of the telescope, we have documented and understood realm after realm once probed only by philosophy. Over and over again, each level of understanding we have gained has taught us one central thing: Everything obeys the laws of nature. And over and over again, what we have discovered in each new layer of nature we uncover is entirely unlike what any philosophy had once preached. Humans love to make meaning where there is none.

So here we are, up against the limits of our observational abilities once more.

What makes the most sense in this situation:

a. Predicting that what is beyond the our current limit of understanding will follow the fundamental laws of nature, or
b. Assuming that what is beyond that our current limit of understanding will not follow the fundamental laws of nature.

This is a dangerous slippery slope brother. The reason is clearly this...

If nature holds no discrimination, then why wouldn't hilter's mass genocide be warranted? Like you suggested, army ants don't care if you are human, they will eat you just the same. What does it matter if we deployed all our bombs and wipe out life on this planet? It wouldn't matter to the grand scheme of the universe right?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Well this isn't about you is it? You are swaying from our argument. You say that creation is not valid because it hasn't been observed remember?

So trying to discredit "yeah but it doesn't work for me, therefor it's not valid" is only your opinion. What it doesn't do is validate that abiogenesis is anymore scientific than creation using your earlier argument




Yes like a creationist explaining "God did it" like you mock. They are both philosophical arguments right now.



If you want to debate about evidence about God's existence being scientific, there is already another thread.

But I would suggest you get back to our debate. You clearly mocked creation because it has not been observed. But you then realized abiogenesis has not been observed and are trying to debate which side is more logical. All using your opinion.

Clearly you missed the boat that both sides are missing that "observation" you freely used without realizing your belief hasn't been observed either.




There is no need to back peddle here brother.



Again we aren't debating what is more logical. We are debating that creation can use the same method of abiogenesis. You keep trying to derail the root of our debate.





Only your opinion... But there are many creation scientist that disagree. There is even an "atheist" scientist I talked to that quoted this...



That is your peer and he is actually a physicist and atheist.




And this is where your credibility is flawed. I doubt there is a single respected scientist on this planet that would agree with your statement.





Really? Well show me where abiogenesis has been observed naturally?



Well I'm not saying abiogenesis is anymore right or wrong than creationism. You are.

I am clearly discrediting your argument that creation is not scientific, yet think abiogenesis is.





Dawkins disagrees.

Or you can read this

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/is-philosophy-a-science/45795

It is a tool for science bro.

Okay, so I would love to keep this up all day, but I'm afraid this is going nowhere.

Please go back and look at the original posts that started this conversation. You handed me an argument I wasn't making and then ran with it. I even told you that I wasn't arguing what you said I was arguing and I tried to get back to what my original and only question was, but you wouldn't let me.