Thread: The Scoreboard

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

right? I don't understand where you are going with this.

It would only be a "win" for religion if the knowledge/truth comes from personal or divine revelation (taken purely based on faith). Although I'd personally argue that even if a claim later turns out to be true it's still foolish to have believed in it just by faith.


Anyway, this scoreboard thing is stupid. I'm just passing by.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

It would only be a "win" for religion if the knowledge/truth comes from personal or divine revelation (taken purely based on faith) Although I'd personally argue that even if a claim later turns out to be true it's still foolish to have believed in it just by faith..

It seems like you're confusing the origin of the idea with what happens after that. I agree it would be stupid to claim it as unquestionable fact but it doesn't really matter where the idea comes from so long as it holds up to scrutiny after the fact. All sorts of scientists have had ideas come to them in dreams for example.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Anyway, this scoreboard thing is stupid. I'm just passing by.

I agree. I think I was extra stoned when I started this thread. At any rate, I just wanted to get that line that I quoted earlier out there. One more time:

Originally Posted by me

Biased in what way? I'm really doing my best to just stick to facts. Is dealing with facts biased in some way that I'm not aware of?

Damn I'm pleased with that. But yeah, this thread can pretty much die.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It seems like you're confusing the origin of the idea with what happens after that. I agree it would be stupid to claim it as unquestionable fact but it doesn't really matter where the idea comes from so long as it holds up to scrutiny after the fact. All sorts of scientists have had ideas come to them in dreams for example.

I said accepting the idea before it turns out to be a fact.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Oh I didn't misquote you, I took that point away as you didn't deserve to have it with that rubbish you posted about religion being 'faith' driven with no evidence. So I countered you with a factual statement Abiogenesis is 'faith' driven without any evidence whatsoever. Hence, point deducted and given to it's rightful owners Religion +1



You didn't have to I brought it up for you. You can thank me later.



Where is the evidence for the millions of missing transitional forms? Since the types of changes evolution requires to give rise to the various animal kinds over millions of years you'd think it would be expected to provide ample examples in virtually every layer of the geologic record. However this is not the case and Darwinism is left with millions of gaps. Random Mutation has not been proven to change one species to another, Genetic Drift has not been proven to change one species to another, Natural selection has not been proven to change one species to another. So what do you have in the end? 'Faith' and 'Hope' that Darwin was right, because you have no evidence and thats the bottom line.




What exactly is scientifically rational about life arising in the past from a 'primordial soup', and evolved to its present state of complexity over billions of years. I thought Scientific evidence was based off facts that can clearly been seen. We never see evidence for anything like a 'primordial soup', nor any life arising spontaneously. We only see living things reproducing after their own kinds with variation, even 'speciation' possible within each kind.

This however does shed some irony to the issue. Especially when you consider that many sceptical scientists and people like you demand that God show Himself to their measuring instruments before they will believe, yet you accept the unproven, unscientific idea of 'abiogenesis' without a qualm.



And how exactly does lifeless matter exist before the universe?



All I see is blah, blah, blah lifeless matter, blah, blah blah, Hate God.



That was actually pretty insightful as well as informative. Thanks for sharing



Well thats a huge contridiction as there is absolutely no truth that has been identified with Abiogenesis nor Darwinisim yet you conform to both of these without any 'real' verification. In the end of it all you still to deal with the fact that the idea of an accidental origin of simple life billions of years ago is not a testable scientific idea and any evidence involving historical science, one-time events that cannot be retested, is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist.



Abiogenesis is not biological evolution.



People still use the word Skeezy?



Thank you. Touche'

"So I countered you with a factual statement Abiogenesis is 'faith' driven without any evidence whatsoever. "

You "countered", or for sake of this argument, refuted my philosophy by juxtaposing a study of life to a belief in life? I think you don't understand Abiogenesis for what it is. It is a study not a claim that if you do not take as true you will burn in hell. Religion does not go as "Well...God could be the reason for existence, and could have created the earth... and he could be all powerful", it goes "God is the reason for existence, created the earth, and is all powerful". See our difference between study and belief here? When there is ambiguity and uncertainty, we investigate it. Abiogenesis is not a cult or a religion, its simply one of the many universal theories that we pursue through science. By the way what do you think that this theory derived from, no evidence....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

Notice how this is not a faith based claim. This is a research that can actually be tested, and therefore not only making in scientific, but a theory as well.

So you think religion is not faith based, lacking evidence?....



"Have faith my children!"


If you can give me some concrete evidence about God, I'll hope right on the train man. Where in the right mind would you claim there is evidence for organized religions. The whole episode has just become a suckers bet filled with people that don't want to.... dare I say, have to associate with this guy .

I've lost objectivity in our subject matter because your random assumptions and radical claims. I will just find myself repeating my other post if I continue to analytical break down what you said .

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

"So I countered you with a factual statement Abiogenesis is 'faith' driven without any evidence whatsoever. "

You "countered", or for sake of this argument, refuted my philosophy by juxtaposing a study of life to a belief in life?

So you're telling me that scientist do not 'believe' that the complexity of life as we see to day is a result of non-living matter? They are just studying it because for no apparent reason they 'assume' that this is what could have transpired? are you freaking serious man??

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

I think you don't understand Abiogenesis for what it is. It is a study not a claim that if you do not take as true you will burn in hell. Religion does not go as "Well...God could be the reason for existence, and could have created the earth... and he could be all powerful", it goes "God is the reason for existence, created the earth, and is all powerful". See our difference between study and belief here?

Explain to me how can you study something when you have no evidence or any type of observational information or data to support what you're studying? You're in denial, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that coincides with life originating from non-living matter. What we see is life reproducing from it's own kind. Study that, that's evidence, thats something you can observe, thats something you can sink your teeth into. You can try to fancy abiogenesis up all you want but you're still left with the same situation. No evidence that this has occurred and you're accepting it off FAITH, that my friend is the bottom line, no matter how you look at it.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Abiogenesis is not a cult or a religion, its simply one of the many universal theories that we pursue through science. By the way what do you think that this theory derived from, no evidence....

If there is evidence for abiogenesis, then what the heck are they studying? If there is evidence why can't it be duplicated? What are the scientist doing in the labs? Lollygagging? If there is evidence that life originated from non-living material this is big news, and it will be all over the media.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Notice how this is not a faith based claim. This is a research that can actually be tested, and therefore not only making in scientific, but a theory as well.

How can something be tested that has never been observed? I thought science was based off evidence observational evidence that can be tested. However abigenesis is not science, abiogenesis is Pseudoscience, it's the stuff that dreams are made out of.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

So you think religion is not faith based, lacking evidence?....

Not sure whats so funny I never said religion wasn't faith based lacking evidence. Im fully aware that I have no evidence to present for the existence of my God. However what Im trying to explain to you is this, you're in the same boat. You're belief in abiogenesis is lacking evidence and you believe off nothing but faith.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

If you can give me some concrete evidence about God, I'll hope right on the train man. Where in the right mind would you claim there is evidence for organized religions. The whole episode has just become a suckers bet filled with people that don't want to.... dare I say, have to associate with this guy .

You're an Atheist, why are you asking for evidence for God? If you don't believe he exist? I'm not asking you to hop aboard to Christianity, what you do with your life is on you. It's obvious that my beliefs are on faith, I'm not denying this, however its not up to me to produce anything regarding my beliefs because I can attest that they are strictly faith driven. You on the other hand must produce evidence to support that non-living material can create living material, you're claiming that you are not faith driven but you haven't proved anything, every last one of your post is nothing but blah blah blah hate religion blah blah blah Hate God. Where is the evidence that supports non-living matter creating living matter? I'm actually getting tired of asking you this.

Oh and I was curious about this question you avoided, want to try to explain this one to me?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And how exactly does lifeless matter exist before the universe?

I put it in bold just in case you missed it previously.

So you're telling me that scientist do not 'believe' that the complexity of life as we see to day is a result of non-living matter? They are just studying it because for no apparent reason they 'assume' that this is what could have transpired? are you freaking serious man??

Well, considering that a) Life has not existed forever and that b) it did not start out complex and that c) it is made up of basic substances which are, in turn, made up of the known elements which are all found on earth, we can conclude that life, somehow, emerged from the universe and was not zapped into existence as-is.

Also, I have to point out a flaw in your argument against evolution: The environment is constantly changing, and as a result, many species may go extinct. How, if there are only a finite amount of species, has the earth maintained a population over its 4 billion year existence? Eventually life will die out then, since it can't change to suit its evironment according to you.

95 99% of all species that ever lived on earth have gone extinct. Does that put it into perspective?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So you're telling me that scientist do not 'believe' that the complexity of life as we see to day is a result of non-living matter? They are just studying it because for no apparent reason they 'assume' that this is what could have transpired? are you freaking serious man??



Explain to me how can you study something when you have no evidence or any type of observational information or data to support what you're studying? You're in denial, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that coincides with life originating from non-living matter. What we see is life reproducing from it's own kind. Study that, that's evidence, thats something you can observe, thats something you can sink your teeth into. You can try to fancy abiogenesis up all you want but you're still left with the same situation. No evidence that this has occurred and you're accepting it off FAITH, that my friend is the bottom line, no matter how you look at it.



If there is evidence for abiogenesis, then what the heck are they studying? If there is evidence why can't it be duplicated? What are the scientist doing in the labs? Lollygagging? If there is evidence that life originated from non-living material this is big news, and it will be all over the media.




How can something be tested that has never been observed? I thought science was based off evidence observational evidence that can be tested. However abigenesis is not science, abiogenesis is Pseudoscience, it's the stuff that dreams are made out of.



Not sure whats so funny I never said religion wasn't faith based lacking evidence. Im fully aware that I have no evidence to present for the existence of my God. However what Im trying to explain to you is this, you're in the same boat. You're belief in abiogenesis is lacking evidence and you believe off nothing but faith.



You're an Atheist, why are you asking for evidence for God? If you don't believe he exist? I'm not asking you to hop aboard to Christianity, what you do with your life is on you. It's obvious that my beliefs are on faith, I'm not denying this, however its not up to me to produce anything regarding my beliefs because I can attest that they are strictly faith driven. You on the other hand must produce evidence to support that non-living material can create living material, you're claiming that you are not faith driven but you haven't proved anything, every last one of your post is nothing but blah blah blah hate religion blah blah blah Hate God. Where is the evidence that supports non-living matter creating living matter? I'm actually getting tired of asking you this.

Oh and I was curious about this question you avoided, want to try to explain this one to me?



I put it in bold just in case you missed it previously.

Question: "How exactly does lifeless matter exist before the universe?"

The claim of abiogenesis would be that lifeless matter was at one point it's own universe. Then from this universe of building blocks, so to speak, it created another universe of essentially less complex matter, i.e subatomic particles, etc... then a long chain rule of spontaneous creation brings us to where we are. The evidence for the hypothesis of this has been preformed in many experiments of similar respect, for example some with amino acids; I will let you do the research for how this theory originated if you have a vested interest, good question. Of course we are coming closer to experiments with a closer respect to this theory as science continues, a positive look at this huge photon accelerator may yield some viable information .

If you are even more interested about science of gensis oriented nature, watch the video that philsopherstoned put up, was a very healthy investment of time .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuRxR...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Its usually pretty easy to tell who studies the world for the sake of knowledge and understanding, and who does it for the sake of intelligent sounding self centered justification of wishy-washy 'spirtuality' based on who doesn't want to keep score.

If you want truth, keeping score sorts it out from trash. It's also called testing your hypothesis.

You keep using science as if is some faction. Is is 1 method of understanding the world. For someone who is anti religion due to dogma, you seem to have this understanding that science is in and of itself the 1 and only way to understand the world.


Wronged me in particular? Not one that I can think of. Two of my best friends in the world are lesbians and they should be married and want to be married. If one of them got hurt seriously, they wouldn't want their family making those decisions, they would want their lover doing it. Rightfully so. They can't get married because of cultural attitudes that can be traced with not much effort and very little imagination to an interpretation of the bible that you have to do gymnastics to avoid admitting condemns homosexuality. That we know of, most of the ancient cultures had no problem with it.


You can condemn something using different standpoints. I could use science to condemn homosexuality. Homosexuality is a genetic defect that prevents an organism from successfully reproducing within a specie. I can show it scientifically since each man and woman has 23 sex chromosomes in the form of sperm and egg, when together, produce an offspring. The sperm and eggs of a homosexual becomes useless as well as the shape and function of their gender reproductive organs. Pleasure from sex, is not separate from reproduction, but rather an evolutionary mechanism to encourage reproduction and thus increase the population.

If you want to use morals as your base against religion couldn't I just say that use of science has done a decent job in increasing the destruction of wars? Not to mention the use of science has also made global warming possible? Note I mentioned the USE OF SCIENCE NOT SCIENCE AS A FACTION.

"lifeless matter"

Lolwut

I guess I missed too many chemistry classes, because I was under the impression that life is made of the same kind of matter as the rest of the Universe.

Originally Posted by ZenMan12

You keep using science as if is some faction. Is is 1 method of understanding the world. For someone who is anti religion due to dogma, you seem to have this understanding that science is in and of itself the 1 and only way to understand the world.

I don't think that it is the one and only way to understand the world. I think that it is the one and only way that we know of to understand the world where it is applicable. You should try reading my posts instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to sound enlightened. What other way is there to understand the physical world?

Originally Posted by ZenMan12

You can condemn something using different standpoints. I could use science to condemn homosexuality. Homosexuality is a genetic defect that prevents an organism from successfully reproducing within a specie. I can show it scientifically since each man and woman has 23 sex chromosomes in the form of sperm and egg, when together, produce an offspring. The sperm and eggs of a homosexual becomes useless as well as the shape and function of their gender reproductive organs. Pleasure from sex, is not separate from reproduction, but rather an evolutionary mechanism to encourage reproduction and thus increase the population.

That isn't using science to condemn homosexuality, that is using a philosophy that is poorly based upon a poor understanding of science to do so. Gays can care for younger siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews and thus help to ensure that their genes are continued thus fitting the phenomenon into a darwinian framework and invalidating your weak and cliche 'philosophizing'.

Originally Posted by ZenMan12

If you want to use morals as your base against religion couldn't I just say that use of science has done a decent job in increasing the destruction of wars? Not to mention the use of science has also made global warming possible? Note I mentioned the USE OF SCIENCE NOT SCIENCE AS A FACTION.

I'm not using morals as a base for my argument against religion, as I don't have an argument against religion. I am using it as a base for my argument againsts a particular set of religions. As far as your 'point' goes one could make that argument but then one could remember that that is the application of science to wars and not science itself. You seem to be missing a very simple point, so i'll yell: SCIENCE IS MORALLY NEUTRAL AND DEALS WITH INCREASING UNDERSTANDING AND NOT DRAWING MORAL CONCLUSIONS FROM DOING SO! Does that clear things up for you?

Thank you, please come again.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I don't think that it is the one and only way to understand the world. I think that it is the one and only way that we know of to understand the world where it is applicable. You should try reading my posts instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to sound enlightened. What other way is there to understand the physical world?



That isn't using science to condemn homosexuality, that is using a philosophy that is poorly based upon a poor understanding of science to do so. Gays can care for younger siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews and thus help to ensure that their genes are continued thus fitting the phenomenon into a darwinian framework and invalidating your weak and cliche 'philosophizing'.




I'm not using morals as a base for my argument against religion, as I don't have an argument against religion. I am using it as a base for my argument againsts a particular set of religions. As far as your 'point' goes one could make that argument but then one could remember that that is the application of science to wars and not science itself. You seem to be missing a very simple point, so i'll yell: SCIENCE IS MORALLY NEUTRAL AND DEALS WITH INCREASING UNDERSTANDING AND NOT DRAWING MORAL CONCLUSIONS FROM DOING SO! Does that clear things up for you?

Thank you, please come again.

Oh I hit a touchy subject when I was just trying to have fun. Wow you'll yell over the computer, doesn't that make you look like a retard. Yelling by typing...Well, I can't hear you loud enough. I'm trying to sound enlightened over a computer? Was that a scientific evaluation?

It isn't philosophy dumbass when sperm connect to an egg...it is biology. Just like when men have insufficient sperm count levels it is considered by the scientific community to be something wrong. It is comparable to other people who have higher levels of sperm count. The same goes for biology of homosexuals. Science is morally neutral but since we know it is used by humans it becomes an moral issue.

But I'm done with these discussions, you have posted so many of these threads on this subforum expecting everyone to go on your boat. I did have fun. I'm not religious but I'll will tell you to suck it.

whatever dude. The point had been explained to you more times than once and you didn't get it. It's natural to set up strawmen when in an argument but when you do so, at least admit it and move on to the real argument. Otherwise you're just being stupid and deserve what you get. Sorry if that's harsh.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

whatever dude. The point had been explained to you more times than once and you didn't get it. It's natural to set up strawmen when in an argument but when you do so, at least admit it and move on to the real argument. Otherwise you're just being stupid and deserve what you get. Sorry if that's harsh.

The classic "whatever dude" scenario. I.e.. giving up a hope in what you thought was a conversation with a human being with at least a grain of intellectual capacity. Sorry you had to invest so much time into so little gain, mathematically it hurts to see little to no output come from so much input. The pain THE PAIN!