Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 So do theistic scientists involve themselves in this "atheist science" you talk about? And if so, why do they?Its truly baffling why you have Christian darwinian evolutionists.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 3, 2014 Author Posted April 3, 2014 Its truly baffling why you have Christian darwinian evolutionists.Maybe because they can't deny the evidence in front of them.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 3, 2014 Author Posted April 3, 2014 Louis Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").Pasteur died over 100 years ago. If he could see the century worth of discovery since his death he well may have changed his wording a bit.
danielwoods Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) Pasteur died over 100 years ago. If he could see the century worth of discovery since his death he well may have changed his wording a bit. Nothing has changed. Life still doesn't come from non-living matter. It is supported by what I call the faith of scientists. It's similar to the theory of Phlogiston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory Which was the theory of fire for a 100 years. Edited April 3, 2014 by danielwoods
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Maybe because they can't deny the evidence in front of them. What evidence? There is no evidence that life arose from nothing.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 3, 2014 Author Posted April 3, 2014 What evidence? There is no evidence that life arose from nothing.I'm speaking of the evidence for evolution. You're mixing the topics
Brian 2.0 Posted April 3, 2014 Author Posted April 3, 2014 Nothing has changed. Life still doesn't come from non-living matter. It is supported by what I call the faith of scientists.It's similar to the theory of Phlogiston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theoryWhich was the theory of fire for a 100 years.Nothing definitive, yes. But look at this and you'll see the developments since Pasteur. There's even a section on Pastuer and there's some things and experiments since his death that have taken place where he may have softened his stance...Maybe from "a dream" to "an interesting theory". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisThis stuff is still very much up for debate and no one is claiming we know it to be factual. It's a whole different ballgame from evolution which is highly supported by evidence and accepted by practically all scientists.
danielwoods Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Nothing definitive, yes. But look at this and you'll see the developments since Pasteur. There's even a section on Pastuer and there's some things and experiments since his death that have taken place where he may have softened his stance... Maybe from "a dream" to "an interesting theory". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis This stuff is still very much up for debate and no one is claiming we know it to be factual. It's a whole different ballgame from evolution which is highly supported by evidence and accepted by practically all scientists. It's called faith. Just 15 major problems with the faith in abiogenesis. http://creation.com/loopholes-in-the-evolutionary-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-summary
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 I'm speaking of the evidence for evolution. You're mixing the topics Im speaking about where the rubber meets the road. That spot is how does one explain the complexity of life and how it was possible to arise here on this planet. Atheist science says it just happened on its own through natural processes. Where is their evidence? It doesn't exist.
cdowis Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) I have never said how God did it. I have stated how a mortal scientist could explain how it could be done without invoking God. That is not Atheism that is Agnosticism. Again you don't get to use your own special definitions of words.SEE http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ Apparently Dawkins was stumped by Hawkin when he asked THE question. Pay special attention to 1:30 where the video showed sparkles and explosions to avoid showing him drooling and slobbering when he totally unable to respond to the obvious implication of the question.(see from the beginning to 1:30) Edited April 3, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Apparently Dawkins was stumped by Hawkin when he asked THE question. Pay special attention to 1:30 where the video showed sparkles and explosions to avoid showing him drooling and slobbering when he totally unable to respond to the obvious implication of the question.(see from the beginning to 1:30) Dr. Hawking has ALS with destroys everything in your body except your mind. That you find it funny entertainment to watch a brilliant man's slow fatal disease consume him is telling. That being said neither Dawkins nor Hawkings are qualified to have anything more than their personal opinion on God. 1
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Of course your atheist science is going to say intelligent design is bogus, they must in order to defend atheism. There is no such thing as "atheist science"
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 There is no such thing as "atheist science" True. OTOH There is no such thing as Theistic science, as well.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 There is no such thing as "atheist science"Sure there is. All you have to have is a paradigm that while perfectly logical that it could include God or some ntelligent design, it instead denys it and does not have belief in it refuting it at every turn. That my friend is all that is required to make it atheist.In reality, no science should be atheistic. If there is a logical proof for the existence of design in nature then science should embrace it and uphold it. Thats actually my brand of science which is the correct approach. My understanding of science leads me to the strobg belief in an intelligent designer which my belief on faith is that it is God. There is ample scientific evidence that supports intelligent dedign in the universe. We arent here merely by chance. Thats where the science leads us and as such is not atheistic. Its only the other side that seeks to make it collectively atheistic.
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 True. OTOH There is no such thing as Theistic science, as well. Indeed.
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Sure there is. All you have to have is a paradigm that while perfectly logical that it could include God or some ntelligent design, it instead denys it and does not have belief in it refuting it at every turn. That my friend is all that is required to make it atheist.In reality, no science should be atheistic. If there is a logical proof for the existence of design in nature then science should embrace it and uphold it. Thats actually my brand of science which is the correct approach. My understanding of science leads me to the strobg belief in an intelligent designer which my belief on faith is that it is God. There is ample scientific evidence that supports intelligent dedign in the universe. We arent here merely by chance. Thats where the science leads us and as such is not atheistic. Its only the other side that seeks to make it collectively atheistic. While a belief in God is perfectly logical, it is not falsifiable or empirically testable. Science is by definition limited to what can be tested and/or observed, and ultimately subject to falsification. God is a great subject for philosophy, but completely outside the scope of science
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Sure there is. All you have to have is a paradigm that while perfectly logical that it could include God or some ntelligent design, it instead denys it and does not have belief in it refuting it at every turn. That my friend is all that is required to make it atheist.In reality, no science should be atheistic. If there is a logical proof for the existence of design in nature then science should embrace it and uphold it. Thats actually my brand of science which is the correct approach. My understanding of science leads me to the strobg belief in an intelligent designer which my belief on faith is that it is God. There is ample scientific evidence that supports intelligent dedign in the universe. We arent here merely by chance. Thats where the science leads us and as such is not atheistic. Its only the other side that seeks to make it collectively atheistic. Now tell me which of these Gods is science supposed to use in their theories?http://www.alternet.org/belief/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-attack-christians-who-want-more-biblical-creationism-his-show
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 While a belief in God is perfectly logical, it is not falsifiable or empirically testable. Science is by definition limited to what can be tested and/or observed, and ultimately subject to falsification. God is a great subject for philosophy, but completely outside the scope of science That is why there is this theory called the "intelligent design" theory. ID theory does not have to identify God, his personality, etc. All it has to do is provide evidence that concludes that life did not arise by mere chance in nature. We both know that it indeed is a possiblity that life arrived here fully functional and complex from another place or cause in the universe. That being logically true, it can be tested and subject to falsification.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Now tell me which of these Gods is science supposed to use in their theories? http://www.alternet.org/belief/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-attack-christians-who-want-more-biblical-creationism-his-show The evidence keeps piling up that you are indeed atheist.
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) That is why there is this theory called the "intelligent design" theory. ID theory does not have to identify God, his personality, etc. All it has to do is provide evidence that concludes that life did not arise by mere chance in nature. We both know that it indeed is a possiblity that life arrived here fully functional and complex from another place or cause in the universe. That being logically true, it can be tested and subject to falsification. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. It's a moving target and there is no formally accepted definition of God. Irreducible complexity is essentially an argument from ignorance. We don't know how this evolved, therefore God did it. And consider, even if intelligent design were a scientific theory and could be tested and verified, it would be out of harmony with LDS theology on the nature of God. God did not design the human body because God is an exalted human. Edited April 3, 2014 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 The evidence keeps piling up that you are indeed atheist. So despite everything I've said, my life for the last 43 years, the Church I voluntarily belong to, my prayers when I go before my God. I am some how an Atheist. Yet you wonder when jerk Anti-Mormons say that we don't believe what we say we believe. Don't be a jerk. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 So despite everything I've said, my life for the last 43 years, the Church I voluntarily belong to, my prayers when I go before my God. I am some how an Atheist. Yet you wonder when jerk Anti-Mormons say that we don't believe what we say we believe. Don't be a jerk. What am I supposed to believe when you throw in a snarky link that pretty much entirely trashes Christian belief?
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 What am I supposed to believe when you throw in a snarky link that pretty much entirely trashes Christian belief? Read for comprehension. Science can't prove any Creation beliefs. Science can't disprove any Creation beliefs. They are all equally valid as beliefs. However beliefs are not science. 1
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 The evidence keeps piling up that you are indeed atheist. Does your advocacy of creationism make you an evangelical Christian? After all, that seems to be their thing, not the LDS church's thing.
Recommended Posts