International opinions: USA on science!

Irrelevant to the comment made to you. Pasteur showed that the aerobic prokaryotes we call bacteria didn't arise from sterile broth. He showed nothing at all about conditions on the Earth of 3.5 billion years ago.

My feelings aren't hurt, I have a thick skin for such from many years of living around creationists. My point is that you are making blatantly biased statements without regard for others, probably not even realizing how biased and uncaring they are. Religion is a personal {study\trail\growth} issue. Deists are just honest in stating that it is their personal belief, and that they are not beholden to any other person's or group of people's version(s). Deist in general do not believe in any "revealed" message and that god is essentially unknowable, in some versions even that god is {gone\dead\become else}. Because it was designed to. That is the best way to design a robust system -- it adapts to changes, meets new challenges, overcomes obstacles the way no static designed system can.It is designed to become more than it started out to be -- and it is still happening. There is no reason to think we are a final result -- or even near final (we may be too limited a life-form to amount to more than a rock - 3rd from the sun - hugging organism). My faith is that what we see is what is in fact there, that what we understand is but a fraction of what we will understand, given time and dedication to learning instead of navel gazing (ie - watching TV ... and the like) How many different kinds of religions have you studied, not just read about, but actually considered the value of? I've lived in some pretty "bible-belt" areas, and even there I would not say that most are creationist so much as misinformed and don't "understand the Word beyond a Sunday school level understanding, like Noah and Jonah" having ignored most of what was taught in school and having an almost pathological tendency to avoid reality to the point of not going more than 10 miles from where they were born so they can think they live in paradise. I'd say they were honest in their beliefs but short on facts.I've known many christian evolutionists (some of my best friends? ) and felt that they were honest in their beliefs and pretty long on facts. I've also known some atheists that couldn't find a fact if it was in front of them.I think were talking two factors that are perpendicular -- level of faith and level of knowledge -- and that define a "space" populated by everybody. Let's be clear that we are talking about PhD's in the field in question, so we have mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers and biologists that have PhD's and are creationists -- yes it happens, so?We are talking about proportions in the science fields versus proportions in the general population. The general population is uneducated, even in America (some because the choose to be, some because the can't help it and some because they did not have a good opportunity to be).You're thesis is that atheists gravitate to evolution: The point is that you need to compare all sciences to say that this happens more with evolution than with other sciences. What you may be seeing is a natural gravitation of {atheists\agnostics\deists\theists} towards finding more information about the universe -- so they are the ones that pursue a higher education. Horsepucky. Evolution does not rule out god nor does it make it any less possible. This is a logical fallacy on the order of all {A} is {B}, {B} exists, therefore {A}. If the shoe fits wear it - with pride. I didn't say that only creationists like to wallow in ignorance, but the general public -- the fans of Jerry Springer and other numbskull catering TV shows. To begin with you mean omniscience not omnipotence, but I don't need to assume either for there to be a god that created the universe. --{he\her\it} just needs to have sufficient ability and knowledge to accomplish the task.Think of a god that can predict everything and that has the ability to make anything happen, thus it has the ability to make something happen that it can't predict. The problem is not in my faith, but in the terms that have been invented to make more of something than needs to be.Think of a 99.9999999999...% omniscient and 99.9999999999...% omnipotent god -- what is the most logical thing they are going to do, given living forever and the like? Knowing all is boring. Why do anything when you know the outcome before you do it? How much more tantalizing to play with tweaking, maximizing {uncertainty\unpredictability\chaos} than to play endless navel gazing solitaire games when you know where all the cards are even before they are dealt and always know how it will end.The universe is chaotic. I kind of like "prodful" - a "happy accident" eh? But this is where you were supposed to do the "Oh, hang on, let me turn the other cheek" bit, but it also ties in to my opening statement whereby your personal biases and beliefs flavor the way you see things -- you may believe you are not "obstinate closed minded arrogant prideful" and ignorant, but that isn't necessarily true.I know I have biases -- probably the biggest is about willful ignorance, intentional misrepresentations and the like. Doesn't mean I'm not guilty of them either.Think of it as a "prodful" comment.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You are presupposing that there has to a first cause. I have never brought up the FSM. For a list of related bogus claims that creationists make, see Creationist claims about Pasteur and Spontaneous Generation For a scientific answer to those claims, see Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negativeBy the way, in case you haven't noticed, we are way off topic for the current thread. That would take us even further off topic. But you could start a suitable thread defending the argument, and I am sure you will quickly see it demolished.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I didn't have time this morning to respond to your question.We can measure mass, energy, distance, and time and make observations, predictions etc. These four qualities or quantities are related and also philosophically they make sense to us as essentials for the discription of the universe.Just as essential is our self awareness that we are aware of our "selves" in a space time with matter energy. But is this fifth quality, "consciousness" a fundamental or emergent property of the universe?Does consciousness have a fundamental role in the universe in the same way that space/time mass/energy do? Or is it just one of many phenomena that emerge like wetness or self replication?lfen

It's inversely proportional to entropy. As matter becomes more disorganized, thought becomes more organized. It's due to the conservation of organization (a conservation that is well known in all bureaucracies).Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Everybody worships something.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

There have been several attempts to quantify probability using a plethora of variables. Though the numbers differ from each scientist and mathematician, the number of zero's attached still speaks loudly of its improbability. To help aggrandize the enormity of such an improbability that life originated completely at random, 10^50 is considered absolute zero, in which we might as well say that its impossible.Naturalism

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

How is it irrelevant if evolution cannot even get started without spontaneous generation? Given the fact that the man codified an immutable law, such as the Law of Biogenesis, I'd say that his studies are more than ample proof that life could not have arisen by mere chance even under the controlled conditions. But again, this fails to address the fact that for anything at all to exist, whether it be subatomic particles, a compound chemical "soup," or energy, was still required of something, at some point, to be eternal.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

If you want to support Craig's Kalam argument start a thread on it. I'll have fun showing the serious problems in it.Pasteur's experiment is irrelevant to abiogenesis (and supports evolution). Whatever Pasteur's personal opinions were doesn't change the facts.Ad your "allaboutphilosophy.org" site, it is badly misnamed. THe fact that it uses a creationist MD as it's main source ofr this section should tell you something !

Immutable? Really? So might I ask your definition of "life" here? And let's make sure we really can classify everything into "non-life" and "life", given that an "immutable" barrier separates the two. No it does not, not in the limited sense of eternal you are using. But then again, it is quite possible that the universe is eternal (in your sense), so it does not matter either way.God can create an eternal universe and he can create a non-eternal universe (as far as we are aware). An eternal universe can exist without God and so can a non-eternal universe (as far as we are aware).

Really?First, define 'worship'.I don't 'worship' anything in the standard definitions of the word. Maybe you are using a non-standard meaning?

You are trying to say that 10 ^ 50 to 1 against is very low odds, I think. So say that, don't make us say it for you. Or else say that 10 ^ -50 ( ten to the negative 50th) is a very low number. Stop saying nonsense, take 5 minutes to learn the notation and why we use powers of ten and how negative powers fit in or else step away from the abacus altogether. When the cripple says "Well, everyone needs some kind of crutch", who is he talking to? Who is he talking about? Most of your posts tell me more about you than they do about the subject, and that's not a good thing.Because you are weak, everyone must be weak. Because tacos and similar staple foods are insignificant to you, they must not be important to anyone. Because you have fixed ideas relating to a spiritual (somatic) pack hierarchy in which you can have no value of your own except in respect to a higher (or lower) power, everyone must. It could be money, or liquor, or mtv (but not tacos? why couldn't it be tacos?) it could be their own understanding, it could even be Charlie Darwin. But everybody must worship something, just because you clearly have to.Well, I'm sorry to break your bubble, but it isn't so. There are people in the world who have learned not to attach themselves to anything, not to be hypnotized by the world of illusion, not to bow down before anyone, never to submit. And it is people like that who made your religion and all the other ones, to make it easier to rule people like you.And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

​

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
--Mark 2:16,17

quote:

---

here have been several attempts to quantify probability using a plethora of variables.

---

And unless it can be claimed that all of the possible processes relevant to abiogenesis have been taken into account, those calculations are worthless. Since science has not yet figured out all the processes that are possibly relevant, it cannot be claimed that they have been taken into account. Therefore, those calculations are worthless.By the way, the form of this syllogism is called "modus ponens", if you want to learn something about logic.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

What blatantly biased statement did i make? Was it in referrence to abiogenesis or Deism? Yes, I understand that this is what Deists believe. I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to come to a decision of a Creator, or even a need for one to exist, when you at every turn you give no reason to even believe in one. If God is "unknowable," then how do you know Him? How could you have come to the decision that a Creator exists if there is no compelling reason to do so? You've effectively erased any possibility of a personal relationship, so we know that you haven't come to your conclusion down that avenue. And we know that you champion naturalistic explanations for everything, including spontaneous generation. So, your god didn't create the possibility of life according to your testimony. Where in the world does God fit in the picture for you to have ever come to your decision? This is what I don't understand about Deists. To me, it just sounds like a vague explanation. If you concede that the universe was designed by a Creator, whether that be a passive creation where it goes wherever it may go or otherwise, then why have you taken up the position that He/She/It has no position in the universe? How can you in one instance believe that God created the universe, and in the next, believe that it arose by chance? What exactly do you believe the Creator created? So, your faith is that Truth, in its totality, will be revealed? I can grasp this concept with my own, if in fact, that was what you were referring to. Believe me when I say that I had an aversion towards Christianity. I sought them all, (well, okay, not all), but quite a great number of them. And many of their beliefs seem to make sense until something else cancelled it out, but they all lacked this quality that I can't identify... Its as if there is/are no word(s) to convey such a lack. At the end of the day, they seemed to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Yesterdays discourse was a carbon copy of yesterdays rant - that is, until my prayers were answered in such a way that coincidence could not have played any factor in it. I can't speak on their behalf because I don't know them. But know this, I've met some pretty nutty people who claim the name of Jesus. I think you might be able to appreciate that when I turn on TBN, I see the same people that you do. And it angers me to no end because of the damage they are doing. They have brought Christ and the whole of Christendom into disrepute. Now, I'm categorically placed side by side with them by virtue of association. Yeah, I mean, I suppose its the nature of things that some people are going to offer a genuine explanation for the things they believe and others seem to make their own beliefs invalidated by their lack of care. Yes, on some level faith can only be manifested through the things that we do know. But even this may be elusive or may prve to be a lesson in futility. We'd have to question what we honestly "know," or even what knowledge is. Its kind of like Pontious Pilot asking Jesus, "What is Truth?" Its an honest question. And that question cannot be quantified or answered by some coined response. This is the dichotomy. On one hand I think we can safely assume that education is an important aspect in our development. At the same time, I think we are under a false illusion that education is going to be some bastian of hope or that people with high level of education are some how going to be more intelligent than someone without it. I know MIT and CalTech grads that could compose a very eloquent theorums about this or that, but they can barely function in society, let alone tie their own shoe laces.And then I also believe that we as humans tend to confuse knowledge with wisdom. Knowledge is attainable by virtually all. All it takes is a quick trip down to the local library or a Google search to gain knowledge. There is nothing wrong with knowledge, I just feel that wisdom is superior to it. Wisdom is a conglomerate of knowledge, experience, intellect, and a humility that we couldn't really pin point. My only reason for mentioning it is that evolutionists seem imbued by the notion that having a degree, even an advanced degree, is going to make that person more knowledgeable of this or that. And for the most part, its a safe assumption. But it isn't recognized of creationists because their studies run counter to that of the typical evolutionist. Why? If havng a PhD in whatever was the basis for having a valid opinion, then why not with the creationist? But see, I think that's silly because I think you could recognize that creationists are just as much fascinated with science as the average evolutionist. For them, its a way to explore the individual thought of God and have them revealed. Again, most creationists have some sort of theological belief. That isn't unfounded. And most evolutionists seem to fancy or favor a purely naturalistic explanation for everything. Neither cancels the other out, and neither is the absolute rule, but recognizing that most evolutionists exhibit atheistic tendencies isn't unfounded either. Let me ask you this: Do you honestly, truly, wholeheartedly believe that AiG and ICR is just complete and total nonsense? Or do you believe that they have, however miniscule,some level of understanding that exceeds the "general public?" Accomplish the task of what? Again, this is what I don't understand. You seem to think that God created the ability for evolution, but what was miracle event that precipitated it? I wouldn't whether it was boring or not because I'm not omniscient. But what leads to believe this? What was the defining principle for your belief in this? Did you take a hard look at nature and how pieces of a puzzle fal into place to have come to the conclusion of a Creator? You seem to be under the misconception that you or anyone else is immune to having formulated an opinion based on facts, and then call it a "bias." Being biased is trying to make evolution make sense, even when it doesn't. Being biased is trying to make a Creator make sense, even when it doesn't. I didn't grow up believing about God. It wasn't taught to me to believe in it. I came to that conclusion only a few years ago. Contrastly, I was indoctrinated by evolution from the beginning, just like eveeryone else on this forum. So nobody claim that my conclusions are predjudiced on the notion that I try to make God fit. I can't say the same thing for most of my counterparts. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos. I'll fix the rest later after i make some breakfast. As for now, I'm gonna go make some pancakes for me and the kids.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Please define worship. Do only humans worship? Or do apes, mammals, insects, etc? Does a human have to be a particular age before they worship?some possibilities: or a Christian discussion that ranked high on Google: more possibilities: It might just be possible if one comflates a wide variety of meanings for the word to claim that everyone might worship something, though not people in coma for example. I wouldn't say either that the dependency of a heroin addict on their drug was worship though some heroin addicts might worship the drug most just use it. Animals can be addicted so I don't think that behaviour qualifies as worshipping.For example at this point I will confidently state that all humans require oxygen to live. I believe this to be catagorically true. I am skeptical that unless you play fast and loose with the definition that the assertion "Everyone worships something" is catagorically true.lfen