Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

aardvark said:
new theories are presented in most scientific papers, he certainly made many in his books - i'm not sure what you mean by 'scientific theory'? he has made hundreds, so have i, every scientist does.
Click to expand...

But you are making the laymen mistake of assuming a scientific theory is just a bunch of ideas you have. You are using the word 'theory' in the same way a laymen would or in the same sense a scientist would use hypothesis.

[See m4rk84's post above]

Now tell me when the last time you wrote "..a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".

Getting your hypothesis recognised as a theory is not easy, yet you write as if it's an everything thing in the science world. I'm starting to doubt your "I'm a scientist"
 
Evangelion said:
Erm... no. Christians were using the cross as early as the 3rd Century AD. It became popular in the 4th.



Wrong again.



Of what? Christians used the cross because Jesus was believed to have been crucified. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

I wasn't 100% sure, but a quick google:

Pre-Christian Crosses

From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man's civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples, while numerous instances, dating from the later Stone Age to Christian times, have been found in nearly every part of Europe. The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship. (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1910, Vol. 7, pg. 506. Emphasis ours.)


Nature worship suggests Paganism.

It's also not known if Jesus was actually crucified on a cross. It was more common for crucifictions at that time to be performed on T shapes, or even a stake
 
We are on a creationism vs evolution debate here. I am quite comfortable with my use of the term theory at the high level and what I am inferring.

Creationism - creator created everything

Problem: who created the creator?
Typical Answer: the creator was always there.

Evolution - Big Bang began the evolutionary process

Problem: where did the matter come from?
Typical Answer: there was always something there.

Both fall down at the first stage, neither answer is acceptable, therefore, how robust is the rest of each process?

Indeed we have a great understanding of some of the Evolutionary processes and outcomes which do form robust theories. However, when we go back to the building blocks there is a gap?

We cannot test the Big Bang in a controlled environment either as there is already something here.

Creationism requires faith in a process that is tested and built on scientifically irrational beliefs.

Neither offer irrefutable evidence or even close to it for the starting points.
 
Last edited:
Scrutinize said:
We are on a creationism vs evolution debate here. I am quite comfortable with my use of the term theory at the high level and what I am inferring.

Creationism - creator created everything

Problem: who created the creator?
Typical Answer: the creator was always there.

Evolution - Big Bang began the evolutionary process

Problem: where did the matter come from?
Typical Answer: there was always something there.

Both fall down at the first stage, neither answer is acceptable, therefore, how robust is the rest of each process?

Indeed we have a great understanding of some of the Evolutionary processes and outcomes which do form robust theories. However, when we go back to the building blocks there is a gap?

We cannot test the Big Bang in a controlled environment either as there is already something here.

Creationism requires faith in a process that is tested and built on scientifically irrational beliefs.

Neither offer irrefutable evidence or even close to it for the starting points.
Click to expand...


You don't know what evolution is. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang.
 
Scrutinize said:
It is pretty clear I am looking at the start of the whole process. You have to when comparing creationism to evolution since creationism requires a creator.
Click to expand...

The process of evolution starts at the beginning of biological life. It has nothing at all to do with the big bang in any sense.
 
Scrutinize said:
It is pretty clear I am looking at the start of the whole process. You have to when comparing creationism to evolution since creationism requires a creator.
Click to expand...

But evolution doesn't start with the Big Bang. You are comparing cosmology with Creationism. :confused:
 
m4rk84 said:
The process of evolution starts at the beginning of biological life. It has nothing at all to do with the big bang in any sense.
Click to expand...

You can't compare Creationism to Evolution unless you have a starting point of a Creator or Matter.

You can take Evolution as a stand-alone process where on earth it is a robust theory.

But this debate brings in creationism so you have to balance the evidence which means going back to the start of the whole process.

Creator vs Big Bang equates to no creator = no creationism or no big bang = no opportunity for evolution.
 
So would you atheists say it takes more faith to believe that all these building blocks come together to create life than believing in a creator?
 
Scrutinize said:
You can't compare Creationism to Evolution unless you have a starting point of a Creator or Matter.

You can take Evolution as a stand-alone process where on earth it is a robust theory.

But this debate brings in creationism so you have to balance the evidence which means going back to the start of the whole process.

Creator vs Big Bang equates to no creator = no creationism or no big bang = no opportunity for evolution.
Click to expand...

Atheists just tell you the universe magically appeared from literally nothing. You can't argue with them. It's a futile undertaking.
 
Jason2 said:
So would you atheists say it takes more faith to believe that all these building blocks come together to create life than believing in a creator?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean you as atheists. Phrasing it as you atheists, along with the tone of some of your other posts does come across as a tad aggressive.
 
Jason2 said:
So would you atheists say it takes more faith to believe that all these building blocks come together to create life than believing in a creator?
Click to expand...

How can you have legitimacy in a book that has already been scrutinized and debunked. The 6000 year old Earth, if this is wrong how can you fully believe the rest of the book to be truthful and not have doubts about the rest of it?

This is what I find hard to understand.
 
Malevolence said:
Oh I can't wait for the discovery of extra-terrestrial life that has evolved to have either DNA with 0% commonality with us or no DNA, as we know it, at all.
Click to expand...

or has remarkably similar DNA as living things on this Planet, because that is how the Universe creates life within the rules of said Universe..We are all made from the same stuff after all.

The Wonders of the Universe has nothing to do with religion or whether there is a some kind of Universal Creator or not so I don't see the point of the OP.
 
Jason2 said:
Atheists just tell you the universe magically appeared from literally nothing. You can't argue with them. It's a futile undertaking.
Click to expand...

If someone comes up with a better idea, I'd be willing to learn and change my views if it makes sense or some irrefutable evidence is presented. Most faith believers are unwilling to progress, learn and change their views.
 
Jason2 said:
So would you atheists say it takes more faith to believe that all these building blocks come together to create life than believing in a creator?
Click to expand...

Faith doesn't even play a part in scientific theory. Faith is for religion.

How exactly the first self replicating molecule came into existence has several different hypotheses.

Blindly believing that a creator did it 'just because' uses the same logic as the Sun God Ra making the sun rise each morning 'just because' that is to say it uses no logic at all.

Once science does explain how exactly it happened you people will move onto the next step of the unexplained as proof of the existence of God.

God of the gaps indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom