mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Science does not make judgment calls on theological issues. It just doesn't. Some otherwise great scientists try to play their hand at theology, and simply are out of their bounds of expertise. One can accept Dawkins as an excellent scientist without giving any credence to his pseudo-theological conclusions pertaining to implications of that science. Just as some otherwise great Church teachers and spiritual leaders when they try their hand to explain a science they didn't specialize in often end up looking very badly to those who understand the science they just destroyed a strawman replica of.Exactly!
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 When my doctor talks to me about my blood pressure and cholesterol and how to bring both down, he never mentions God either. I guess that makes him an atheist. Apples and oranges. He isn't speaking about the origin of life- thats the issue.
Mystery Meat Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Apples and oranges.He isn't speaking about the origin of life- thats the issue. Scientists are not theologians. Nor do they have to be. That's the issue. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Scientists are not theologians. Nor do they have to be. That's the issue. If we find that life arose because of design and intelligent processes by an intelligent cause/entity preceding it then it becomes "theology"? Your statement makes no sense.
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I have this strange sensation we have been through all this before..... like a hundred times or so.....
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I have this strange sensation we have been through all this before..... like a hundred times or so..... Eventually even a child learns how to pick himself up and walk. Unfortunately though, just because we can do that doesn't mean they can ever take the blinders off to keep from stumbling over the same obstacle over and over and over...
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 So then, answer the question please- Do you believe that gravity, matter and time is all the ingredients for life void of God acting upon it? Whatever God used I'm fine with him using it.
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Whatever God used I'm fine with him using it. So am I. The important thing though is that it actually required his intelligence and acting upon that intelligence for it to happen
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 That's ONE difference between them, yes. There are actually a lot of differences between chemical structure between the proteins. The functional porphyrin rings are similar in structure, and one uses Fe2+ (actually four Fe2+ per hemoglobin) and the other uses Mg2+ (1 per chlorophyll), it's true, but there are a few other differences. Plus there are multiple types of chlorophyll. Chemical structure yes. Chemicals not so much.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) So am I. The important thing though is that it actually required his intelligence and acting upon that intelligence for it to happen Not really. A belief in an intelligent designer isn't necessary for chemistry and physics to work. We both happen to believe in pretty much the same God(Blame it on the movies, but I see him as George Burns. ), but science can not posit him. IE; 2+2+God=4 in the science of number theory God is the unnecessary element. Edited April 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 You are mistaken. He is not just an atheist. He is on an anti-Christ crusade using science as a sword in his campaign. He has taken the burden to answer this basic argument, presented by one of the greatest scientists of all ages. And all he can give us is explosions and sparkles. Both Hawking and Dawkins are Atheists . Hawking is theoretical physicist and Dawkins a biologist.
cdowis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Both Hawking and Dawkins are Atheists . Hawking is theoretical physicist and Dawkins a biologist. I understand that Hawkin has been on both sides of the issue (agnostic?) but recently fell on the side of atheism. I suspect that at the time of the video he was speaking as an agnostic, considering his questions to Dawkins. Stephen Hawking, the most famed physicist alive today, once wrote that "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics…" Is this a puzzling statement coming from someone who grew up in an atheist household?In a perhaps more telling statement from Hawking he stated that “An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!” It is well known by Hawking followers that he doesn’t believe in god, at least not in any conventional sense.We’ll call it as being “reasonably certain” that Stephen Hawking is an atheist.http://hughwilliamson.hubpages.com/hub/10-Brilliant-Scientists-and-Their-View-of-God Edited April 4, 2014 by cdowis
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Not really. A belief in an intelligent designer isn't necessary for chemistry and physics to work. We both happen to believe in pretty much the same God(Blame it on the movies, but I see him as George Burns. ), but science can not posit him. IE; 2+2+God=4 in the science of number theory God is the unnecessary element. I wasn't speaking of chemistry. I was speaking of life coming into existence. Its necessary for intelligence to already exist in order for life to come about here on this planet.
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Chemical structure yes. Chemicals not so much. What is cool is that there must have been a super nova in this region of space long ago for the chemicals for life to even be here. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I wasn't speaking of chemistry. I was speaking of life coming into existence. Its necessary for intelligence to already exist in order for life to come about here on this planet. Life is chemistry. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 What is cool is that there must have been a super nova in this region of space long ago for the chemicals for life to even be here.True. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Life is chemistry.So, you are saying that chemicals, on their own, assemble into life? Nice pipe dream!
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 So, you are saying that chemicals, on their own, assemble into life? Nice pipe dream! Life on its own is chemistry. IE; Take out the chemical carbon and life as we know it ceases to exist. Abiogenesis is the explanation of the process. 1
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Life on its own is chemistry. IE; Take out the chemical carbon and life as we know it ceases to exist. Abiogenesis is the explanation of the process. Just as phlogiston theory explained fire.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Just as phlogiston theory explained fire. Yep; and it turned out to be a not very good theory when repeated testing disproved it. Now all you have to do is disprove the theory of Abiogenesis.
USU78 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Life on its own is chemistry. IE; Take out the chemical carbon and life as we know it ceases to exist. Abiogenesis is [an] explanation of the process. FIFY
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 FIFY If we discount the meaning of the word theory you are technically true, but within the context of this thread irrelevant.
USU78 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 If we discount the meaning of the word theory you are technically true, but within the context of this thread irrelevant. I don't know anybody that can tell us why things work the way they do, and how much of our universe is the way it is because of engineering and not immutable and necessary laws. I do know people who claim such things. I call them "arrogant yutzes."
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I don't know anybody that can tell us why things work the way they do, and how much of our universe is the way it is because of engineering and not immutable and necessary laws. I do know people who claim such things. I call them "arrogant yutzes." As to why I'll leave that up to God. As to how. Given the very fact that you are using one of the most scientifically advanced machines yet invented by man. I'll stick with the sciences. Arrogance and humility often have the same face.I've never claimed to know very much at all, but what I do know I do know. 1
Recommended Posts