This post will deal with the derivative of all experience; let me make it clear that i do believe that change is always happening in our world including biological change.

Evolution does a good job of explaining change but as soon as it comes to the derivative of all experience it falls short.

Im sure the people i am addressing follow the scientific method and value logic; so let me put my point across in this way.

The process of science involves observing our environment, making inferences on it and then experimenting on them for verification.

Correct me if i'm wrong but science claims that matter has always existed, it just expands and contracts which explains how our world came into existance ( not that matter didnt exist just that it did not exist in the way it does presently- big bang theory).

So during the expansion of matter somewhere along the line a habitat for life developed and because of that chemicals became composed and evolved into a form which contained the capacity for Movement Respiration Sensitivity Growth Reproduction Excretion and Nutrition.

If this is so, and science the process of observation, inference, experimentation and confirmation, and it has been observed that matter/chemicals exist and over time biotic matter developed from a biotic matter; then why dont you fucking prove it.

Show me your experiment in which you can manufacture life that does not come from life; show me your experiment where you create life from chemicals it has not been done and it cannot be done; because of this the logical answer is that life only comes from life.

Show me your experiment in which you can manufacture life that does not come from life; show me your experiment where you create life from chemicals it has not been done and it cannot be done; because of this the logical answer is that life only comes from life.

Amino acids make proteins, and from proteins come life. Some scientist did manage to recreate the theoretical conditions of a primordial Earth from around the same time period the first life is estimated to come into existence. During these conditions he managed to create amino acids from scratch.

One can infer, that within thousands of years (barely a sliver on the timeline of Earth), that these amino acids eventually chemically formed into proteins, and eventually would be enclosed into cell like membranes, which would eventually develop RNA, then DNA, and would be the first microscopic organisms.

Over billions of years, this can easily have evolved into life.

That was all from a pure scientific perspective, and I'm sure with some Google searching you can find the experiments I described.

Anyway, I believe evolution was how God created life. It just seems like the universe is too filled with chaos and randomness for life on Earth to be a complete coincidence. Even existence in general... The Big Bang was the theoretical beginning of the universe. What was before the Big Bang? How did it happen, where did it come from?

This is all beyond human comprehension, so the answer can only be what we perceive as "God." There is most certainly some omnipresent universal force, we call it God.

Amino acids make proteins, and from proteins come life. Some scientist did manage to recreate the theoretical conditions of a primordial Earth from around the same time period the first life is estimated to come into existence. During these conditions he managed to create amino acids from scratch.

One can infer, that within thousands of years (barely a sliver on the timeline of Earth), that these amino acids eventually chemically formed into proteins, and eventually would be enclosed into cell like membranes, which would eventually develop RNA, then DNA, and would be the first microscopic organisms.

Over billions of years, this can easily have evolved into life.

That was all from a pure scientific perspective, and I'm sure with some Google searching you can find the experiments I described.

Anyway, I believe evolution was how God created life. It just seems like the universe is too filled with chaos and randomness for life on Earth to be a complete coincidence. Even existence in general... The Big Bang was the theoretical beginning of the universe. What was before the Big Bang? How did it happen, where did it come from?

This is all beyond human comprehension, so the answer can only be what we perceive as "God." There is most certainly some omnipresent universal force, we call it God.

So the answer can only be that we acknowledge that it is beyond human comprehension. There is no science or logic behind randomly crediting a "God" with our existence.

Anyway, I believe evolution was how God created life. It just seems like the universe is too filled with chaos and randomness for life on Earth to be a complete coincidence.

You should read about chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory), based on what you said there, you'll probably find it interesting.


This is all beyond human comprehension, so the answer can only be what we perceive as "God." There is most certainly some omnipresent universal force, we call it God.


yeh, seems to me like there most likely is something like that, but the word "god" just seems like such a medieval word, most people when they hear the word god, imagine a giant invisible person that has thoughts like us and takes an interest in our lives. I think there are too many definitions of that word.

Assuming that the big crunch theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Big_Crunch) is true along with the big bang, then you could argue that gravity is the force behind the creation of the universe, therefore god is gravity.

OP, you've got to understand that to spontaneously produce life, it requires a very exact medley of gases, chemicals, and meteorological events.

Scientists cannot know what those chemicals were, exactly, but they can aim closely. Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Now, please don't bring up the "If it's so precise it must've been God" thing. If those chemicals hadn't mixed well enough, our consciousness would have never even been aware it was not in being. Thus, we're the result of an almost one-in-a-million event. That is why we've had such a tough time detecting other life forms outside of our own. That does not mean there's no other life. In a Galaxy with 200 billion stars, and in a Universe with trillions of galaxies, who the hell knows?

We may never truly know arguments like what caused the Big Bang or what dark matter & energy is, but this lack of knowledge does not warrant a shred of evidence for the existence of God. Theists have long hid God in the shadows of scientific understanding, and now, that shadow is growing ever brighter.

Amino acids make proteins, and from proteins come life.

Over billions of years, this can easily have evolved into life.


Thankyou for the replies.

This is a good point, im well aware of this. This is an inference you are making and according to the scientific method you must experiment to confirm these. You are saying it takes billions of years for biotic life to come about from abiotic life; if this is so then i dont think anyone is going to prove me wrong anytime soon.

In science there are no pseudo conclusions; so i ask that you stick to the restrictions of science and only make absolute scientific conclusions.

AGAIN show me the experiment in which biotic life comes from abiotic matter.

i look forward to seeing this; and i assure you when it is presented i will subscribe to your view.

Thankyou for the replies.

This is a good point, im well aware of this. This is an inference you are making and according to the scientific method you must experiment to confirm these. You are saying it takes billions of years for biotic life to come about from abiotic life; if this is so then i dont think anyone is going to prove me wrong anytime soon.

In science there are no pseudo conclusions; so i ask that you stick to the restrictions of science and only make absolute scientific conclusions.

AGAIN show me the experiment in which biotic life comes from abiotic matter.

i look forward to seeing this; and i assure you when it is presented i will subscribe to your view.


Well congratulations on realizing that the scientific process takes time, as it currently stands there the amino acids thing holds the most evidence, in the future it more evidence supporting it may be found or possibly it may be proven false, that's how the scientific process works. We don't currently know so instead of trying to come up with a belief that you can absolutely prove, just keep an open mind and look at all the evidence. Scientists know that any theory can be changed or falsified, they accept that everything they work for could be for nothing, but the point of it is to contribute to the body of information that the world has. So evolution could possibly be proven wrong, but its the evidence we currently hold that matters.

TL/DR: there is no such thing as an "absolute scientific conclusion", all information is subject to change.

also you may find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Thankyou for the replies.

This is a good point, im well aware of this. This is an inference you are making and according to the scientific method you must experiment to confirm these. You are saying it takes billions of years for biotic life to come about from abiotic life; if this is so then i dont think anyone is going to prove me wrong anytime soon.

In science there are no pseudo conclusions; so i ask that you stick to the restrictions of science and only make absolute scientific conclusions.

AGAIN show me the experiment in which biotic life comes from abiotic matter.

i look forward to seeing this; and i assure you when it is presented i will subscribe to your view.

Again, we, who choose to believe in science and reason, restate our position that we hold this theory to be the one most accountable for our current world.

And again, we say that the religious demand a level of evidence that isn't demanded from other branches of science, and the only reason you Theists challenge evolution so much is because it invalidates your beliefs so much.

And guess who the ones claiming to know all the answers are: you guys (theists in general). Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. We, as evolutionists, have made our case. Shared DNA, fossil records, etc.

Where's the evidence for a God?

Well congratulations on realizing that the scientific process takes time, as it currently stands there the amino acids thing holds the most evidence, in the future it more evidence supporting it may be found or possibly it may be proven false, that's how the scientific process works. We don't currently know so instead of trying to come up with a belief that you can absolutely prove, just keep an open mind and look at all the evidence. Scientists know that any theory can be changed or falsified, they accept that everything they work for could be for nothing, but the point of it is to contribute to the body of information that the world has. So evolution could possibly be proven wrong, but its the evidence we currently hold that matters.

TL/DR: there is no such thing as an "absolute scientific conclusion", all information is subject to change.

also you may find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Well congratulations on realizing that the scientific process takes time

Thankyou; i am well aware the scientific process takes time. However it is not defined by time i.e. billions of years; maybe you are aware of that- that is not how you communicated yourself.

the amino acids thing holds the most evidence, in the future it more evidence supporting it may be found or possibly it may be proven false, that's how the scientific process works.

A scientific conclusion on the derivation of life cannot be made from this.

We don't currently know so instead of trying to come up with a belief that you can absolutely prove, just keep an open mind and look at all the evidence

Ok well i realize claiming absolute truth in a concept is a radical claim; but why not use logic- isnt that the scientific process - asses the evidence. The strongest evidence at this point in time is evidence that we can observe, infer, experiment (simulate/duplicate) and therefore verify.

But for some reason followers of science have difficulty seeing this- that the scientific method they value so highly can be used for phenomenon that arent "scientific" or wouldnt traditionally come under the field of "science"; however in principal anything which can be proved with the scientific method is science- even the supposed nemesis- spirituality, what do i mean?

Incase i havent mentioned previusly - life comes from life.

1. Observation - We can see that life comes from life; you came from life, you are the offspring of your parents that is an empirical fact.

2. Inference- Due to this observation it can be infered that life comes from life; indeed all life; as there is no evidence that this is otherwise, as can be seen in this thread! and indeed our world and the universe.

note: i would consider myself an open minded person; im open minded to the possibility that life be derived from something or someone other than life or that is not alive, but there is not evidence ( emperical/ scientifically verifiable evidence) for this.

3. Experiment- This ones easy, sexual intercourse> meiosis> gestation> birth/life.

4. Verification/Confirmation- It can be seen that life comes from life, therefore it is an emperical fact that life comes life - ( feel free to debate wether it is an emperical fact or not)

It is easy to see that our lives came from our parents, but what of their parents and their parents etc etc etc? Surely the derivative of all biotic experiences must have also been biotic.

Again, we, who choose to believe in science and reason, restate our position that we hold this theory to be the one most accountable for our current world.

And again, we say that the religious demand a level of evidence that isn't demanded from other branches of science, and the only reason you Theists challenge evolution so much is because it invalidates your beliefs so much.

And guess who the ones claiming to know all the answers are: you guys (theists in general). Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. We, as evolutionists, have made our case. Shared DNA, fossil records, etc.

Where's the evidence for a God?

Well i presume your talking to me; however i hope you are not.

Stereotyping and being presumptions of others are not good qualities to posses. Let me elaborate.

the religious

Who me? really? I am not religious. I do not follow any religion i am a spiritual being and that is the way i portray myself therefore i am a follower of spirituality, not religion; these two phenomenon are worlds apart.

you Theists

Really? Again? i am not a thiest, i am a Gnostic.

believe in science and reason.

I am very interested in Vedic philosophy, for the very reason you value science- everything is reasoned and alot of which can be proved using the scientific method (Esoteric teachings).

Read the post above; and you will see what i mean. I have explained to you that i believe the evidence for biotic matter existing can and is as a derivative of biotic existence can has more compelling evidence than the belief that biotic matter can exist as a derivative of abiotic matter.

What you are proposing is a theory with supporting evidence.

What i am proposing is a justified empirical fact, the reality - life comes from life; care to argue against that? or did you crawl out form under a rock?

Ironic that the Vedic spiritual approach is better justified than "science".


Where's the evidence for a God?[/QUOTE]

It depends on what definition your using, seeing as this is a thread relating to evolutionism (inevitably vs creationism) we will define God as the creator of the universe which is differentiated from any other type of alpha -omega, omniscience or derivative in that God is alive or at least God can give life from god (create).

So where is the evidence for this God?

as i said the fact that life comes from life; because of this life ultimately comes from life; no matter how far back you go into the past this is the reality because it is truth that life comes from life. I gave totse the oppurtunity to show me evidence against this and this has not been done, it is possibility verse reality. A reasoned mind values reality over possibility, and as i have said- show me the experiment and i will subscribe.

I think thats as far as i need to take it in this context.

A scientific conclusion on the derivation of life cannot be made from this.
as I said, it holds the most evidence currently, and is subject to change. you must realize that at this point in time, there is no scientific conclusion on the derivation of life, most of this stuff is still just hypothesis's, people are still adding to the body of information.

I don't know how to address the rest of your post other than just saying again, All information is subject to change. You say that you agree that claiming an absolute truth would be ridiculous, then you go on to claim an absolute truth.

I have no interest in changing your mind, and no reason to either, because I don't know how life was created and neither does anyone else.

The only advice I can give you is either choose to believe what has the most evidence supporting, or choose to stop thinking about it

This is to do with abiogenesis, not evolution. There currently is no proven theory of abiogenesis, however it is a developing field of study.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

as I said, it holds the most evidence currently, and is subject to change. you must realize that at this point in time, there is no scientific conclusion on the derivation of life, most of this stuff is still just hypothesis's, people are still adding to the body of information.

I don't know how to address the rest of your post other than just saying again, All information is subject to change. You say that you agree that claiming an absolute truth would be ridiculous, then you go on to claim an absolute truth.

I have no interest in changing your mind, and no reason to either, because I don't know how life was created and neither does anyone else.

The only advice I can give you is either choose to believe what has the most evidence supporting, or choose to stop thinking about it

I said radical, not ridiculous. Don't twist my words to suite your will those words have two very different meanings

I made it clear that i was seeking for the experiment that would prove all these theories and i have not seen it, so i will stick to my principals and you stick to yours.

I have explained i feel this is the only evidence that will compel me to subscribe to the evolutionary theory, because otherwise to me the creationist argument holds stronger; i have explained my reasoning.

i dont think there is anything more that can be said here- this is what i expected.

But really - is it rediculous to claim that life comes from life?

where did you come from mate, you came from life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment


This is the experiment. It has not been exactly proven, because then one would have to literally create a life form from chemicals in a laboratory, but this experiment got damn close.

My argument for the existence of God is that there seems to be some sort of guiding force in the universe. There is also the fact that so many people in the world believe in a higher presence, and there is spiritual, not scientific (due to the near impossibility of scientifically proving)proof of the existence of multiple planes of reality or dimensions (See: astral projection). There most likely is not a literal "God" in the sense that most people usually think, as that is the personification of the force, humans made that up. However, I believe there definitely is an abstract force that manifests itself in religions as God or gods or whatever.

It really just comes down to beliefs, but I believe there is reason behind the seemingly random and chaotic universe.

This is the experiment. It has not been exactly proven, because then one would have to literally create a life form from chemicals in a laboratory, but this experiment got damn close.

My argument for the existence of God is that there seems to be some sort of guiding force in the universe. There is also the fact that so many people in the world believe in a higher presence, and there is spiritual, not scientific (due to the near impossibility of scientifically proving)proof of the existence of multiple planes of reality or dimensions (See: astral projection). There most likely is not a literal "God" in the sense that most people usually think, as that is the personification of the force, humans made that up. However, I believe there definitely is an abstract force that manifests itself in religions as God or gods or whatever.

It really just comes down to beliefs, but I believe there is reason behind the seemingly random and chaotic universe.

What you believe is fine then, since there is no way to either prove or disprove your stance, and it is a personal conviction that no one has the right to challenge. Even if there was something I could hold against your beliefs, I really am not one to be anal. Science can offer different theories, and you choose to have your own.

It's only when those creationists, and those young-earth creationists try to bring their intangible beliefs into the public school system, our park, etc that I find a problem...

I won't even hold it to you that there's no tangible evidence for your beliefs, because the Higher Being you describe lives outside the confines of our scientific comprehension, as of now.

So, for now, carry on, and have a nice day! :)

OP:

1. Science has no "absolute scientific conclusions". All scientific conclusions are subject to change to fit the best available evidence. So the point being that even the scientific theories and laws you subscribe to have do not have "absolute conclusions" yet you do subscribe to them.

You only put a much stronger burden of proof on evolution because you don't like it's conclusion. That's it.

For example, there are planets we haven't observed a full rotation of around the sun yet I'm guessing you have no problem believing they will rotate around the sun. Why? Because you pick and choose how strong to make the burden of proof when it's convenient for you.


2. The fact that abiogenesis is the theory that fits all the available evidence instead of contradicting it with nonsensical claims liek creationism, makes naturalistic theories of abiogenesis much more compelling scientific conclusions/explanations that ridiculous things like biblical creationism.

That's what I was arguing earlier, Rust. The OP is asking for more evidence than the scientific community can be accountable for. An amount of evidence not asked for when discussing other things.

The only reason he is demanding such amounts of evidence is because they conflict with his beliefs in some way or another.

Perhaps you can define to me what a scientific conclusion is, i was under the influence that a scientific conslusion is never a maybe, it is a yes or a no.


As for this kind of thing in schools, i think if there is room for evolution theory in school, then there is room for creation theory, and if there is no room for evolution theory then there is no room for creation theory.

And yes you are correct; in this instance i am asking for significant, overwhelming and powerful evidence- absolute proof.

Because ( as i have said before!) that is the level required for me to subscribe to the theory, in lamens terms the evidence is greater for my view (you can call it creationism if you want, it is certainly not a biblical derivation as i have stated before!).

The evidence for science is a "maybe" whilst the evidence for creationism is a "yes".

Life comes from life folkes, that is an absolute truth (at this stage in history at least).

Bigotry: A refusal to subscribe to or deny a point of view even when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

I am no bigot, i will subscribe when the evidence is there, and the level of that evidence must be absolute as that is the level of evidence for creationism.

Like you have said science has come close- but thats not enough for me because creationism is already there.

Perhaps you can define to me what a scientific conclusion is, i was under the influence that a scientific conslusion is never a maybe, it is a yes or a no.

That's the point: the are no scientific conclusions in the sense of "this is the only true thing no matter what". Science is in the business of providing the best answers given the current available evidence. If the evidence changes, then so can the answers. In other words, Science doesn't claim to be perfect.

As for this kind of thing in schools, i think if there is room for evolution theory in school, then there is room for creation theory, and if there is no room for evolution theory then there is no room for creation theory.Good thing then, that most developed countries in the world have separation of Church and State (be it written in law or as a matter of practice) and thus you don't get to decide if children should be taught the nonsense of creationism.


And yes you are correct; in this instance i am asking for significant, overwhelming and powerful evidence- absolute proof.

Hence the utter dishonesty in your position: You only raise the burden of proof when it's onvenient to your unsubstantiated religious or spiritual beliefs. The moment the evidence starts refuting the unsubstantiated things you believe is the moment you conveniently decide to raise the bar.

You have a double standard. One standard for things that don't put in question your religious/spiritual beliefs, and another one for things that do.


The evidence for science is a "maybe" whilst the evidence for creationism is a "yes".
What evidence of creationism? Please show us the "evidence for creationism" before you make such a ridiculous statement. Saying "Yes it happened as this myth tells me it did" is no evidence, it's a claim.

You continue to repeat "Only life can create life", as if it undermines evolution, and raises creationism. Two things.

1) Understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

2) Creationism stipulates that an eternal force created life, not simply life created life. Please provide evidence that his eternal force is a life. Otherwise, life created life, does not help your "argument".

Like you have said science has come close- but thats not enough for me because creationism is already there.

It is good that you seperate science and creationism in this statement.

You have yet to show in any way, shape or form, how creationism is better than science in regards to how life began.

Feel free to actually back up any creationist assertion with anything substantial at any fucking time. Or continue to talk out of your ass.

Ok i can see that some people have not read through alot of what ive written including the OP, im not saying i never do this or i havent done this im just pointing this out.

I have become quite zealous about spiritualy zealous recently and this has cauesd a lapse in the consciusness of my ethnographic bias; i usually try to be fair and balanced but i recognise this is soemthing i havent done; however this is a topic which calls for decisiveness.

I have been brought up in a religous family and have a religous background; but ive never really accepted those views as my own to this day i do not- so of all people i am not guilty of being the "crazy, religous creatonist demanding too much evidence" type - i have been enculturated against this in wider society.

I feel that some of your biases are showing becaues you see this debate as evolutionism vs creationism - i do not subscribe to either of thse views and if you read the OP i never said God created life.

I made an attempt even to word it scientifically- the way i phrased it is not how i usually would because i wanted to demonstrate that i have some scientific knowledge but i have been labblled as some crazy god fearing individual.

Go back to my OP and youl see i have not mentioned creationism or God at all.

Let me clear up these semantics on scientific conclusion.

Let us put aside our beliefs for a minute and asses the evidence in and of itself.

Evolutionary conclusion: Biotic matter( life) may have been derived from abiotic matter (lifeless), there is evidence for this such as the miller experiment and abiogenesis.

My conclusion: Biotic matter (life) is derived from other biotic matter ( life ) this can be seen in the seven symptoms of life and sex ( sorry i cant use a more scientific word). The parent posseses life and the offspring posseses life; this is creation ( that seems obvius to me eh?).

Now tell me if you disagree with that? that is what my original post said pretty much.

Rust: I realise how you must feel i am acting unjustly when i ask for a "raised burden of proof"; i have tried to explain why i have done this and i am not trying to be dishonest or disengenous when i do this; i have tried to explain my position - in summarry again i feel a more conclusive evidence is needed for the evolution argument; think about it as oppurtunity cost.

The evolutionary theory is the opportunity cost to to me; it is the next best alternative forgone when my decision is made; so if it is to me my choice more conclusive evidence is needed becaues i feel my position i sbetter justified- i have explained this thourouly.

If you feel it is not justified then feel free to deconstruct what i am saying; because that is the only way you could make me aware of my supposed "crazy religous bias".

Double standard? no - this the standard is not based on scientific standard, the standard for this topic stand alone in and of itself- to assume the same standard as other aspects of science is falicous in my opinion; this is because of the nature of the topic; that is not to say we dont follow the scientific method.

I dont see this as a double standard because the topic is not neccacaraly a scientific one- that is only one side of the coin.

Evidence for creationism - I do not subscribe to creationism, my views are not religously derived, they are spiritualy derived know the difference or learn it.

BrokeProphet

I do not subscribe to creationism- that is i do not choose my views by aligning myself with the views that best suite me, i at least feel i have independatly derived my own view- that is not to say i havent sourced it in some way or that i share similarities with creationism - i jsut dont enjoy being labelled- particularly with a label with thoes kind of connotations.

Again i do not subscribe to creationism although logically wether a creative force is external or not it must have life to create life- that is the principal- this does not neccacarily mean the original creator or creation (which as far as i know there is an original creation according to science also) was the same as us- onyl that is posses the qualities that we do, but quite possibly more.

Let me use genetics as an analogy- You are the offspring of your parents- your genetic code is derived from a combination of your parents genetic code- the process is known as meosis- this proccess is more than simple cell duplication becaues of the randomization. Im sure i dont need to go further because im sure all you guys know all that and probably know alot more than a crazy fundamentalist like me.

Creation was derived from an eternal force - the force that brought about life must have contained life- because life comes about from life, through two types of sex- asexual and sexual reproduction- mitosis and meosis.

So the possibility the the source of creation was/is something more than us is possible but not neccacerly certain, what is true is that according to the principal the eternal force must contain life.

You ignore that life comes from life- despite it being an empircal fact.

However let me remind you again i do not subscribe to creationism- however my personal perspectives do invlove creation i do not wish to create boundries for myself simply because others do so for themselves.

I realise that i have stated "creationism"- i dont always articulate myself externally as i do understand myself internally and that would be a symptom of that- but to be fair to myself you guys labelled me with that before i ever mentioned it. IMHO i havent even done any individual research on creationism- and have done very little on evolutionism ( but im more welll read on evolutionism) but i have learnt them well during my school years ( yes my school had Religous education and science, your schol probably didnt but your accusing me of bias).

"You have yet to show in any way, shape or form, how creationism is better than science in regards to how life began">

You are correct, and that would be stupid of me- if that were my intention- read my original post.

for the last time im not a creationist- but i do believe in creation.

/ass talk

Evolutionary conclusion: Biotic matter( life) may have been derived from abiotic matter (lifeless), there is evidence for this such as the miller experiment and abiogenesis.

My conclusion: Biotic matter (life) is derived from other biotic matter ( life ) this can be seen in the seven symptoms of life and sex ( sorry i cant use a more scientific word). The parent posseses life and the offspring posseses life; this is creation ( that seems obvius to me eh?).

Now tell me if you disagree with that? that is what my original post said pretty much.

The flaw in your logic is that you assume that because you don't see abiogenesis, and only life being produced from other life, that abiogenesis is impossible.

The flaw in your logic is that you assume that because you don't see abiogenesis, and only life being produced from other life, that abiogenesis is impossible.

you mean like how i cant see God?

Go back to my OP and youl see i have not mentioned creationism or God at all.

You mentioned creationism afterward and you doubt one of the most substantiated theories in all of science. Sorry, but it's hard not to call you crazy; whether you call yourself spiritual or what have you is inconsequential really.


My conclusion: Biotic matter (life) is derived from other biotic matter ( life ) this can be seen in the seven symptoms of life and sex ( sorry i cant use a more scientific word). The parent posseses life and the offspring posseses life; this is creation ( that seems obvius to me eh?).

Now tell me if you disagree with that? that is what my original post said pretty much.

No, what you're really saying is : "Life, spanning all cases in all the billions of years of this universe, must always come from life." and there's absolutely nothing substantiating that allegation. None. Zero.



I realise how you must feel i am acting unjustly when i ask for a "raised burden of proof"; i have tried to explain why i have done this and i am not trying to be dishonest or disengenous when i do this;i have tried to explain my position - in summarry again i feel a more conclusive evidence is needed for the evolution argument; think about it as oppurtunity cost.

Why you do this is no important to me, nor does it make it any better. I don't doubt your ability to rationalize double standards.

The fact still remains that you establish a ridiculous burden of proof on Science only when it's convenient to you.


Double standard? no - this the standard is not based on scientific standard, the standard for this topic stand alone in and of itself- to assume the same standard as other aspects of science is falicous in my opinion; this is because of the nature of the topic; that is not to say we dont follow the scientific method.

Yes, double standard. Do you have the exact same burden of proof on other scientific theories that don't conflict with your religious or spiritual beliefs? No. Thus, there is a double standard. This has nothing to do with "not following the scientific method - I didn't even mention scientific method in my post - so why you respond like that is beyond me.


Evidence for creationism - I do not subscribe to creationism, my views are not religously derived, they are spiritualy derived know the difference or learn it.

"I have explained i feel this is the only evidence that will compel me to subscribe to the evolutionary theory, because otherwise to me the creationist argument holds stronger; i have explained my reasoning."


"The evidence for science is a "maybe" whilst the evidence for creationism is a "yes"."

I'm using your own words. You said that creationism holds stronger. You said the evidence for creationism is a "yes".

If you want to call it something else now, then fine, however you still claimed what you did. Thus: provide the evidence or admit that you cannot.

you mean like how i cant see God?

What does that have to do with anything?

You mentioned creationism afterward and you doubt one of the most substantiated theories in all of science. Sorry, but it's hard not to call you crazy; whether you call yourself spiritual or what have you is inconsequential really.



No, what you're really saying is : "Life, spanning all cases in all the billions of years of this universe, must always come from life." and there's absolutely nothing substantiating that allegation. None. Zero.




Why you do this is no important to me, nor does it make it any better. I don't doubt your ability to rationalize double standards.

The fact still remains that you establish a ridiculous burden of proof on Science only when it's convenient to you.



Yes, double standard. Do you have the exact same burden of proof on other scientific theories that don't conflict with your religious or spiritual beliefs? No. Thus, there is a double standard. This has nothing to do with "not following the scientific method - I didn't even mention scientific method in my post - so why you respond like that is beyond me.



"I have explained i feel this is the only evidence that will compel me to subscribe to the evolutionary theory, because otherwise to me the creationist argument holds stronger; i have explained my reasoning."


"The evidence for science is a "maybe" whilst the evidence for creationism is a "yes"."

I'm using your own words. You said that creationism holds stronger. You said the evidence for creationism is a "yes".

If you want to call it something else now, then fine, however you still claimed what you did. Thus: provide the evidence or admit that you cannot.

Well my views are of creation which is similar to creationism; i just wantto make it clear my views are not biblically derived.

At this point in time i doubt any more worthwhile evidence can be given; only evaluations of them.

I could go further into the argument but you would simply reject my arguments and evidence as false and vice versa.

Of course my understanding of God and creation and the justification for it goes beyond what i have said; but nobody will pay attention to that; even if it is based on the scientific method; now thats a double standard.

Well my views are of creation which is similar to creationism; i just wantto make it clear my views are not biblically derived.

Whether they are biblical or not, if they deny one of the most substantiated theories in all of Science, they are absurd.

I could go further into the argument but you would simply reject my arguments and evidence as false and vice versa.
Please don't assume to know what I would do. You made a claim, so you have the responsibility to substantiate it if you want people to take you seriously. If you want to abandon your claim, fine; but don't blame this on me "rejecting" your evidence as if I wouldn't adequately evaluate it when you have no clue what I would do.


Of course my understanding of God and creation and the justification for it goes beyond what i have said; but nobody will pay attention to that; even if it is based on the scientific method; now thats a double standard.How in the world can we pay attention to something you haven't even said or provided? Are you seriously blaming us before you've even said something? Are you even reading what you're posting?

Again, do you or do you not apply a different standard as soon as the scientific evidence questions your unsubstantiated spiritual beliefs? You do. If you want to accuse us of the same, then you're going to have to base in on something that happens not your baseless assumptions.

Life begets life, so an eternal life must have created life...

Is not scientific. There is nothing you are going to say to make it so. If it were creationism would be entered into valid scientific theory.

If only life begets life, you HAVE to PROVE an eternal life. Life begets life DOES NOT PROVE ETERNAL LIFE.

If your silly notion that life begets life, therefore, creationism is valid, can be used than my simple notion that all life eventually ceases to be can be used to prove eternal life is not possible, therefore eliminating the MUCH NEEDED eternal life for your argument to be valid.

Basically there are a number of problems with "scientific" argument.

Your done.

Life begets life, so an eternal life must have created life...


that is a belief that i have come through using the scientific method in the context of consciousness; the belief itself is the result of the scientific method.

A well informed individual knows that a result is the latter stage in the scientific method; all components must be applied in the method.

Before evaluating or concluding we must ask a question/hypothesis do background research and experiment

You cannot understand my conclusions if you dont understand my evaluations; which is made on the basis of my question's; on my knowledge or on my experience which you don't understand so you are the one who will never understand.

i came here to show my results; and to try and show you the steps of my method.

all you want to to is destroy and attack other people; instead of showing me your results and method you attack me, perhaps because you yourself cannot achieve results

you are the one who is done.

that is a belief that i have come through using the scientific method in the context of consciousness; the belief itself is the result of the scientific method.

Life begets life, so an eternal life must have created life...

Please show me again, I must have missed it, the scientific method you used to come to this conclusion. Because it seems to me like you just said something as simple as this...

Maggots appear on meat, meat must creates maggots.

...and possess no scientific evidence to back it up whatsoever.

i came here to show my results; and to try and show you the steps of my method.

Then you have failed. I have not seen one thing from you that resembles any type of scientific method, and I have seen very little in the way of logical thought.

You cannot understand my conclusions if you dont understand my evaluations; which is made on the basis of my question's; on my knowledge or on my experience which you don't understand so you are the one who will never understand.

You prattle on that I cannot understand your evaluations and conclusions b/c I cannot understand your experiences? If it is science, your personal subjective experience has nothing to do with it. Learn what the fuck science is my friend.

---

How about you put your premises and conclusions into a syllogism or three, so we can all better understand what it is you are asserting. Google syllogism if you must, and be careful, your ass may get handed to you.

-----

Food for thought.

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public.

Ruh roh raggy, you been discovered.

You dont understand because you adhere to the double standard of science; that only objective reality is scientific.

I have used the scientific method to measure subjective reality and i realize that is something you have probably been dogmatically indoctrinated against; so you will never accept this.

You dont understand because you adhere to the double standard of science; that only objective reality is scientific.

I have used the scientific method to measure subjective reality and i realize that is something you have probably been dogmatically indoctrinated against; so you will never accept this.

You obviously don't get it. Science is objective as it possibly can be. It is the WHOLE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE. Scientist go through great lengths to get every subjective variable OUT OF there experiments, BECAUSE these experiments are used to OBJECTIVELY prove the hypothesis.

Do you know what happens if you do not remove all subjective variables from your experiments? Your peers let you know it, when you submit your data for peer reviewal.

Tell me, if your concept is so scientific, why isn't is submitted to ACTUAL scientists for peer reviewal, and then put in it's proper place among valid scientific knowledge? If it has been, just supply a link, and I will quit suggesting what you are suggesting is utter horseshit.

Until then..............HORSESHIT.

---------

Science being objective is CLEARLY one standard. It is a standard held to all information that attempts to enter into the collective scientific knowledge.

You claiming it to be a double standard, does not make it a double standard.

You have not used the scientific method to measure subjective reality. You refuse to enter your concept into a syllogism, or any form of proper scientific method. You simply typing shit, and drawing your own highly contested subjective conclusions (WHICH IS ALL YOU HAVE IN F ACT DONE!!!) does not equal science or any method therein.

--------

Once again, at any time feel free to submit your "scientific" concepts, into a syllogism. This should not be difficult for you to do, since you believe you have actually discovered a bit of scientific knowledge, all by yourself, talking on a forum here on totse.

;)

Evolution has been proved, although ignored.

Life in different stages have been found fossilized. Some with whats left of a previous life, such as wing stubs, tail stubs, etc.

From Wikipedia;
an amino acid is a molecule containing both amine and carboxyl functional groups. These molecules are particularly important in biochemistry, where this term refers to alpha-amino acids with the general formula H2NCHRCOOH, where R is an organic substituent.

It's a chemical molecule. Just like acetic acid(CH3COOH), it is an organic molecule, hence the long chain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell-Volhard-Zelinsky_halogenation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids#Chemical_synthesis

As someone said above, amino acids are used to create protein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein#Synthesis

O look, it seems you can synthesize these "proteins"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology#Fabrication

Looks like they can make life from nonlife...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_analogues

Now explain yourself

You obviously don't get it. Science is objective as it possibly can be. It is the WHOLE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE. Scientist go through great lengths to get every subjective variable OUT OF there experiments, BECAUSE these experiments are used to OBJECTIVELY prove the hypothesis.

Do you know what happens if you do not remove all subjective variables from your experiments? Your peers let you know it, when you submit your data for peer reviewal.

Tell me, if your concept is so scientific, why isn't is submitted to ACTUAL scientists for peer reviewal, and then put in it's proper place among valid scientific knowledge? If it has been, just supply a link, and I will quit suggesting what you are suggesting is utter horseshit.

Until then..............HORSESHIT.

---------

Science being objective is CLEARLY one standard. It is a standard held to all information that attempts to enter into the collective scientific knowledge.

You claiming it to be a double standard, does not make it a double standard.

You have not used the scientific method to measure subjective reality. You refuse to enter your concept into a syllogism, or any form of proper scientific method. You simply typing shit, and drawing your own highly contested subjective conclusions (WHICH IS ALL YOU HAVE IN F ACT DONE!!!) does not equal science or any method therein.

--------

Once again, at any time feel free to submit your "scientific" concepts, into a syllogism. This should not be difficult for you to do, since you believe you have actually discovered a bit of scientific knowledge, all by yourself, talking on a forum here on totse.

;)

Social science accepts the validity of both objective/subjective information. Is this not a science?

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge (Websters dictionary). I understand the "science" of today or natural science claims its ways are superior but hey, so is fuckin everybody else!

Natural science is the study of the natural world through a scientific method , social science is the study of the social world through a scientific method, spiritual science is the study of the spiritual world through a scientific method.

So you see the study of the natural world and the parameter of the natural/material world is not what makes natural science scientific it is its following of a scientific method( which only accepts objective evidence, which makes sense when you look at its context).

I know many will be quick to judge "spiritual science" as an oxymoron but really if it is a study of the spiritual world using a scientific method then it is valid science i.e. the science of the soul.

If you think im bullshiting go and research Ayurveda.

<snip>

If you've gone through the scientific method, then fucking post it already. This stupid little game you're playing is only making you look like a fucking retard. Btw, social science still relies on objective experimentation.

So far in this thread, the only thing remotely close to a scientific method you've posted is this:



1. Observation - We can see that life comes from life; you came from life, you are the offspring of your parents that is an empirical fact.

2. Inference- Due to this observation it can be infered that life comes from life; indeed all life; as there is no evidence that this is otherwise, as can be seen in this thread! and indeed our world and the universe.

note: i would consider myself an open minded person; im open minded to the possibility that life be derived from something or someone other than life or that is not alive, but there is not evidence ( emperical/ scientifically verifiable evidence) for this.

3. Experiment- This ones easy, sexual intercourse> meiosis> gestation> birth/life.

4. Verification/Confirmation- It can be seen that life comes from life, therefore it is an emperical fact that life comes life - ( feel free to debate wether it is an emperical fact or not)

My conclusion: Biotic matter (life) is derived from other biotic matter ( life ) this can be seen in the seven symptoms of life and sex ( sorry i cant use a more scientific word). The parent posseses life and the offspring posseses life; this is creation ( that seems obvius to me eh?).

Which is beyond stupid, and not legitimately scientific in any way.

So, next time you post in this thread, please either: 1) Back your shit up with a legitimate scientific process. 2) Admit that your belief is not based on science.

If you opt for number one, this is what I expect:

1) A definition of the issue: define your "creationism" concretely, and please discuss it as a FULL alternative to evolution (i.e., does your creationism explain how life changes over time?). What are you even attempting to say here?

2) Observations you have made: Considering the vast amount of verifiable evidence for evolution, this one better be pretty good

3) Hypothesis: What you think occurs based on your observations.

4) Experiment: I have a hint for you; the "experiment" you posted above is logically fucked. Get a new one that PROVES life must come from life. We all know life CAN come from life.

5) Analysis of your experiment: show how the data either does or does not support your hypothesis.

6) Conclusion: profit??

. Btw, social science still relies on objective experimentation.


If you mean they rely solely on objective experimentation then NO!

example- interview- a conversation with a person through questions and answers ( the amount of liking to a "conversation" can vary depending on how organized or disorganized a researcher wishes)

An interview is by no means an objective research tool, and it something that a social science like Anthropology or Criminology rely on heavily. That is not to say objective information is valued also.

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

It is not THE scientific method it is A scientific method. Content and context, the content of the natural scientific method is relative to the natural context.

Take Psychology for instance, this is a social science that strictly adheres to the scientific method, it may manifest itself differently in its content because of the psychological context but the scientific process is still the same.

You do not understand the scientific process is a system of aqqiring (sp) knowledge that is specific only to the context it relates to.

Saying one science is greater than another is simply an opinion and very debatable.

Only an idiot thinks the world around him is only what is tangible. Just look at the subtleties of the soul, imagination or initiative- we can see these qualities in a person but they are not tangible at all.

Now im not going to go into the semantics of evolution vs creationism, i dont have to justify my belief to you in order to attain it, but you should know when you are misunderstanding fact and inference.

Natural science is the only legitimate science because is studies the natural world in an objective way - INFERENCE.

I know you will never accept this even though you understand this, because you make a double standard and put an extra-ordinary amount of evidence necessary on for the burden of proof that you normally wouldn't apply.

Who gives a flying fuck if Social Sciences deals, some what, with subjective data? That's completely irrelevant to the point because creationism, evolution, and the existence of something are questions that fall under the realm of the Natural Sciences.


You do not determine the age of the universe by making a questionnaire, do you? You do not determine if the Big Bang describes the formation of the universe through an interview, do you? You do not determine if a being exists by asking random people on the street, do you? These are questions that fall under the realm of Natural Sciences.

You determine the age of the universe through the objective evidence we can find (e.g. the speed of light and the distance between ourselves and the most distant observable cosmological objects). You determine the reality if the Big Bang through empirical data (e.g. the demonstrable expansion of the universe, background radiation). You determine the existence of something by how it affects reality (e.g. the light it gives off, the weight it has, the space it occupies, etc.).


Mentioning the Social Sciences is a complete red herring you threw out, either based on ignorance or dishonesty. Your claims in this thread are not comparable to the Social Sciences; they do not require your subjective opinion to be substantiated, they require cold hard evidence. Either provide the evidence, or kindly shut the fuck up.

Who gives a flying fuck if Social Sciences deals, some what, with subjective data? That's completely irrelevant to the point because creationism, evolution, and the existence of something are questions that fall under the realm of the Natural Sciences.


Incorrect creationism and evolution fall into the realm of History. It is in the past so it is historical. That is fact.

Creationism falls under natural science? Are you crazy? Are you saying it SHOULD fall under science or it does?

Creationism is a viewpoint on creation that is spiritually/religiously derived; care to explain how that comes under natural science?

People like you need to learn to be aware of your ethnographic bias; your no less dogmatic than a religious fundamentalist type, your just a scientific fundamentalist who believes science is the only way.

Fact- History is the study of the past, if creation occurred in the past then it automatically falls under the category of History, although this is not the only denomination of knowledge it can fall under.

Really the most truthful argument we can use in regards to creation is that it happened in the past, that is its most defining feature, therefore it is Historical.

It can fall under the realm of natural science - but that is only one way of looking at it. Of course yo are dogmatically certain that science is the only way just like the religious people so you will never admit it can exist outside natural science.

Your bias is evident; you are saying natural science is the only way the creation can be contemplated because all questions in the context of creationism have to come under natural science. I hope i am never this close minded. I hope i am never so close minded that i ONLY choose my ontology based on "evidence" from one school of thought.

Creationism falls under natural science?

Yes, matter springing into being, falls under natural science. Energy appearing out of nothing, falls under natural science. Energy and or matter being manipulated by some force (be it intelligent or otherwise) falls under natural science.

Fact- History is the study of the past, if creation occurred in the past then it automatically falls under the category of History, although this is not the only denomination of knowledge it can fall under.

If you feel that using social science is not only possible, but the BETTER way, to gather evidence for creationism, then please explain HOW it is possible, why it is better.....

....and most importantly WHY you tried to use natural science instead. LMAO.

-----------

I am thinking you JUST NOW figured social science is the better way to attempt to sell your bullshit, AFTER we taught you how full of shit your idea was when you attempted to use natural science to prove it.

You are just too fucking dumb to realize you are about to jump out of the frying pan and into the fryer.

That is to say, you are on the intellectual run, and now revealed to be a pathetic cunt. You are now the intellectual equivalent of a worm, and everyone on here knows it....

Incorrect creationism and evolution fall into the realm of History. It is in the past so it is historical. That is fact.

So what? That they occur in the past (even that assertion of yours is wrong, because evolution is still occurring) does not mean they do not fall under what the Natural Sciences study. That was the point.

Archeology also studies artifacts that are from the past yet it's still a branch of Natural Sciences. Cosmology studies events of the past, and it too is a Natural Science (a Branch of Physics).


Creationism falls under natural science? Are you crazy? Are you saying it SHOULD fall under science or it does?I said it falls under the realm of the natural Sciences. By that I mean that their claims (i.e. age of the universe, creation of species, etc.) can be tested (and have been) by the Natural Sciences. What they claim is to be tested by Physics, Biology, Archeology, etc.

People like you need to learn to be aware of your ethnographic bias; your no less dogmatic than a religious fundamentalist type, your just a scientific fundamentalist who believes science is the only way.You are having enough trouble substantiating the incredibly stupid things you've already said in this thread; I suggest you don't add more trouble for yourself by talking straight out of your ass about things you don't know (namely what I do or do not believe).

In the end the fact still remains:

The claims of creationism, the big bang and evolution are to be test not by questionnaires, o rinterviews (the methodology often employed by the Social Sciences) but by experiments that use objective and empirical evidence (the bread and butter of the Natural Sciences.

You do not test the claim that the world is only 6,000 years ( a very popular creationist claim) by conducting an interview. You test it by examining the empirical evidence that tells us the age of the universe.

Citing the Social Science isn't going to help you escape the burden of proof, or pass off your worthless subjective claims as evidence. Either provide valid evidence of your claims or kindly shut the fuck up.

Guys, OP is clearly making a fool of himself, but I think that's punishment enough and we don't need to be such jackasses.

@OP: It's a little-known fact, but evolution actually makes no attempt to explain the origins of life. Evolution is a theory (albeit a theory with mind-boggling amounts of evidence) that accounts for the origin of species. Sounds familiar, right? Actually, Darwin himself was a creationist, and I'm pretty sure he spent years trying to reconcile evolution and his religious convictions before publishing his studies.

Anyway, evolution is not concerned with how life began. Evolution is concerned with how the first organic replicators became the flora and fauna of the world today, because it's pretty obvious that every organism on earth used to be different and we want to know why that change happened and how.

I hope this clears things up.

This has been done to death.

What your asking has nothing to do with evolution. Your talking about the theory of abiogenesis. Currently we cannot create life. We may one day. There are new break throughs in that field all the time.

One major difference between science and religion is the fact that in science you dont know everything. Thats the whole basis of the scientific process. It is the quest of finding things out. Rather then just filling all lack of knowledge with an imaginary being, claiming "god did it" end of story.

Your bias is evident; you are saying natural science is the only way the creation can be contemplated because all questions in the context of creationism have to come under natural science. I hope i am never this close minded. I hope i am never so close minded that i ONLY choose my ontology based on "evidence" from one school of thought.

Well, listen - if we could call up the very first organic molecules and ask them detailed questions about their existence, we definitely would, but the fact is that man has only been around for a few thousand years so there is no way to deal with ancient topics like the origin of life or the universe using social science.

I mean, you can't mail a survey to the cosmic microwave background radiation!

Rather then just filling all lack of knowledge with an imaginary being, claiming "god did it" end of story.

This.

I am tired of believers using God as a crutch for ignorance. That is simply unacceptable. As a Catholic, I feel pretty confident in saying that I don't think God wants his followers to make him look like an idiot by saying "OMG CEILING CAT WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYZ!!!!"

If you are closing your minds to anything beyond the natural sciences then there is nothing i can say worth saying here.

If you are closing your minds to anything beyond the natural sciences then there is nothing i can say worth saying here.

Who here said anything remotely close to that? You're putting words in people's mouths.

I believe the Social Sciences are great, and I am willing to listen to what they have to say. I've taken multiple courses in Psychology, for example, which would be pretty stupid if I were "closing my minds to anything beyond the Natural Sciences".

The point here is not the the Social Sciences are useless or stupid, but that your claims are to be tested by the Natural Sciences. You keep mentioning the Social Sciences, and the type of evidence they accept, because you are weakening your burden of proof. You're saying "Hey, these Sciences sometimes use subjective data so I'll just say so do I". That's not how it works.

Claims regarding the age of the universe, or the falseness of the Big Bang, or the falseness of evolutionary theory, don't require interviews or questionnaires they require the examination of the physical data available.

If you are closing your minds to anything beyond the natural sciences then there is nothing i can say worth saying here.

Well, for that matter, why should we be so closed-minded as to classify the sciences at all? Let's pull out all the stops. Forget about "social science", "natural science" etc., let's just agree that science is the act of discovering through controlled observation and making theoretical deductions about anything at all based on the results of the observations. Science is a methodical process of discovering how things work.

So, uh, now what? We're all on the same page.

There is nothing i can say worth saying here.

Fixed, and very obvious over the course of this thread, I am sure many will agree.

Amino acids make proteins, and from proteins come life. Some scientist did manage to recreate the theoretical conditions of a primordial Earth from around the same time period the first life is estimated to come into existence. During these conditions he managed to create amino acids from scratch.

One can infer, that within thousands of years (barely a sliver on the timeline of Earth), that these amino acids eventually chemically formed into proteins, and eventually would be enclosed into cell like membranes, which would eventually develop RNA, then DNA, and would be the first microscopic organisms.
.


Do you know what the chances of that are, scum bag? In combination with the chances that earth was perfectly positioned and created to hold life? Obviously, God intended this to happen and directed it. That chance is impossible.

You, sir, are a dumb fuck.


A scientists, using logical and the scientific theory, considers "Statisitically insignificant"...well... insignificant. This is the epitome of statistically insignificant. You are a hypocrite, as well as a dumb fuck.

go back to bltc troll

go back to bltc troll

Link me to one thread that I am a troll in. And don't use the MDMA thread you fucking cunt.

Fixed

That is the closed mindedness i speak of.

Well, for that matter, why should we be so closed-minded as to classify the sciences at all? Let's pull out all the stops. Forget about "social science", "natural science" etc., let's just agree that science is the act of discovering through controlled observation and making theoretical deductions about anything at all based on the results of the observations. Science is a methodical process of discovering how things work.



I agree that is the nature of science.

When we start defining "observations" etc we will start to disagree im sure, and we will be right back at the start, with these intolerant conformists and there dogmatic ontology based absolutely on material nature.

When we start defining "observations" etc we will start to disagree im sure, and we will be right back at the start, with these intolerant conformists and there dogmatic ontology based absolutely on material nature.

No we won't. Objectivity isn't subjective.

Obviously, God intended this to happen and directed it. That chance is impossible.

No, it is not obvious.

What is obvious is your head, jammed into your colon.

A scientists, using logical and the scientific theory, considers "Statisitically insignificant"...well... insignificant. This is the epitome of statistically insignificant. You are a hypocrite, as well as a dumb fuck.


According to who or what? The statistics you pulled straight out of your ass? Do everyone here a favor and either actually post a decent statistical analysis (read: not your uninteresting and baseless claims) or kindly shut the fuck up.

Thankyou for the replies.

This is a good point, im well aware of this. This is an inference you are making and according to the scientific method you must experiment to confirm these. You are saying it takes billions of years for biotic life to come about from abiotic life; if this is so then i dont think anyone is going to prove me wrong anytime soon.

In science there are no pseudo conclusions; so i ask that you stick to the restrictions of science and only make absolute scientific conclusions.

AGAIN show me the experiment in which biotic life comes from abiotic matter.

i look forward to seeing this; and i assure you when it is presented i will subscribe to your view.

I will subscribe to your view when you present me with one conclusive shred of evidence that God exists, other than what is written in a heavily censored book. The only conclusion one can reach is that we will never know the answer to this. We do not need to prove you wrong, because you cannot prove us wrong. However, you were wrong about there being no pseudo-conclusions in science. It is perfectly acceptable to say 'we just don't know' and then spend the next thousand years niggling away at the sides of the problem.

But if we lay back and simply accept what we are told by men with no other qualifications than an extensive knowledge of an outdated and unchanging textbook (the Bible), how can we ever come close to understanding the truth? Science is not out to disprove the existence of God, though it will question it. It is the search for order in a chaotic and, frankly, fucking frightening universe.

I love threads that begin with these challenging and aggressive posts, because the fact is, as difficult as it may be for you to accept, God does not exist. You can put a name to random coincidences and worship the chance that governs them, but it will not help the fact that I can close my eyes and make you all go away.

I've always considered god to be the four universal constants, you know, gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force

No we won't. Objectivity isn't subjective.

Only the objective can be observed; according to natural science.

I can observe someone else accidentally stepping on a tac on the floor resulting in a feeling pain, this observation is subjective; does that mean the individual im observing is not in pain? NO!

I will subscribe to your view when you present me with one conclusive shred of evidence that God exists, other than what is written in a heavily censored book. The only conclusion one can reach is that we will never know the answer to this. We do not need to prove you wrong, because you cannot prove us wrong. However, you were wrong about there being no pseudo-conclusions in science. It is perfectly acceptable to say 'we just don't know' and then spend the next thousand years niggling away at the sides of the problem.

But if we lay back and simply accept what we are told by men with no other qualifications than an extensive knowledge of an outdated and unchanging textbook (the Bible), how can we ever come close to understanding the truth? Science is not out to disprove the existence of God, though it will question it. It is the search for order in a chaotic and, frankly, fucking frightening universe.

I love threads that begin with these challenging and aggressive posts, because the fact is, as difficult as it may be for you to accept, God does not exist. You can put a name to random coincidences and worship the chance that governs them, but it will not help the fact that I can close my eyes and make you all go away.

An understanding of God can never be met through natural science; that is fact. God does not fall under the realm of material nature, it is spiritual matter and therefore subjective; natural science limits itself to the objective despite the fact that subjective things are part of our everyday life, all around us and something that is part of all of us and fundamental to who we are. Material nature is temporary and malleable as opposed to spiritual nature which is eternal- no beggining no end.

You can socially construct that as something positive or as something negative; it just depends on your ontology.

God is is spiritual in nature that is a fact (you can socially construct the degree of validity behind the theory, but that spirit is fundamental to the theory)

This is an understanding that can be approached with laziness (religion) or with tentativeness and zealous; making sure to ask questions and test the knowledge (spiritual science or using the scientific method on subjective things).

If i have test spiritual knowledge and find it to me something truthful and something i can relate to even in comparison to knowledge that could be substituted with it, who are you to say I have not made these conclusions or that my conclusions are invalid or unjustified, just because my ontology is derived differently than yours?

Who is REALLY the closed minded one?

There are none so blind as those who do not see; spirituality is rooted in consciousness. There are three modes of consciousness material, mental and spiritual.

Only the human can be spiritually conscious, so if you are not you are as blind to spiritual consciousness as any other animal.

I look at natural science and see a movement that would have us believe we are no different to the animals and the lifeless "matter" in the universe and that is something i wont believe in because i dont see the truth in it and that is something goes beyond a requisite for proof or "evidence"; the ability to assign values to anything that can be experienced is my entitlement.

I can observe someone else accidentally stepping on a tac on the floor resulting in a feeling pain, this observation is subjective; does that mean the individual im observing is not in pain? NO!

No, it's not subjective. If that person says he is in pain, there is no way he could be misconstrued as not being in pain.

An understanding of God can never be met through natural science; that is fact.


That's not a fact. That is a logical fallacy you've constructed after years of backpedaling and shifting the burden of proof. I know, I know, its easier just to declare God somehow "outside" of science, but the fact is you have no idea whether God as you know him is a natural phenomenon or not, so stop saying that you do.

An understanding of God can never be met through natural science; that is fact.


Prove it ;-)

This is kind of what I was trying to say. We may never understand what God is through scientific means, but it does not mean we should not try. And perhaps trying to prove that it does not exist is the best way to prove that it does.

Making conclusive statements such as this places the burden of proof upon the sponsor. This is what I was trying to illustrate in my last few lines when I childishly claimed to be able to cause a universal cataclysm with my mind. Never use the words 'that is fact' in a debate. We cannot prove anything, therefore fact does not exist; that is fact.



Who is REALLY the closed minded one?


I totally agree. Who IS this closed-minded individual? We should identify him and put cigarettes out on his toes. Together, I am sure we can solve this mystery!!!

:-)

Please do not make a judgement of my character based on one debate. THAT is closed-minded. I can take on whatever persona I desire and argue any standpoint. For all you know, I could be arguing on both sides currently. I am not. Furthermore, I am open to the idea of God, I have merely accepted that he does not exist. If it transpires that the mighty creator is in fact a real being, then he/it has much to answer for.

Firstly, I want to ask it some questions about the disappearance of my dignity!

No, it's not subjective. If that person says he is in pain, there is no way he could be misconstrued as not being in pain.
^^
This is the typical misunderstanding.

We can see a person is in pain but we cannot see pain itself; we see the symptom of pain; that is not pain itself.

Similarly you can see a color when it is imposed on an object; but we cannot see the color white in and of itself.

Similarly in the material world we can see God's qualities but we cannot see God himself.

That's not a fact. That is a logical fallacy you've constructed after years of backpedaling and shifting the burden of proof. I know, I know, its easier just to declare God somehow "outside" of science, but the fact is you have no idea whether God as you know him is a natural phenomenon or not, so stop saying that you do.

The universe we live in is temporary and changeable/malleable and has changed significantly over time; whilst it is debatable the universe or the totality of material existence has always existed it is undeniable it has changed.

An understanding of God goes far beyond creation which is all i see natural science relating to in terms of God. (or at least ever embracing; i dont see science ever embracing God as more than a creator).

God is simply a word; an abstraction that is symbolic of meaning and can mean something different to me than to you which is why definitions are important.

God is an eternal (personal) spirit soul to whom all experience is derived. God is eternal; unchanging, everlasting and infinitely existing. God can only be perceived through God's qualities; that is a fact and that is how science [spiritual] can be used to understand God (scientific method aka the science of the soul, not natural science).

God is a theory, and fundamental to the theory of God is the soul; in a way polarized from the objective criteria natural science demands. Because the soul is innately spiritual therefore subjectively interpreted because it is subtle (itself it cannot be seen but its qualities can e.g intelligence, ego).

Spirituality can be objectified through the scientific method but i am HIGHLY pessimistic that natural science will acknowledge this.

that is my justification.

Similarly in the material world we can see God's qualities but we cannot see God himself.


1. All complete fucking irrelevant since your claims in this thread encompass more than just "God himself". You attacked the validity of empirical theories of Science, namely evolution and the Big Bang, among other things.

2. If we can see "God's qualities" they can still be tested by Science.


3. The point, which you missed, is that you said "I can observe someone else accidentally stepping on a tac on the floor resulting in a feeling pain, this observation is subjective; does that mean the individual im observing is not in pain? NO!" implying that we cannot conclude that he is in pain which is wrong because we definately can once the person established that for us. That we cannt feel his pain itself does not mean that we cannot determine he is in pain.


--

In short, you keep avoiding the fact that the majority of your claims in this thread, if not all of them, can be tested, questioned, refuted or substantiated through empirical means.

I just thought of this and i might sound like an idiot but when you combine the big band and crunch theories isn't it conceivable that this process has been going on for longer then even the life of our current galaxy?

I just thought of this and i might sound like an idiot but when you combine the big band and crunch theories isn't it conceivable that this process has been going on for longer then even the life of our current galaxy?

Yes; and not just our current galaxy, but the entire known universe.

However, we see the expansion of the universe accelerating, not slowing down, which puts the Big Crunch theory into question.

We can see a person is in pain but we cannot see pain itself; we see the symptom of pain; that is not pain itself.

Err, yes we can. Pain is a symptom. That's it.

Similarly you can see a color when it is imposed on an object; but we cannot see the color white in and of itself.

Well, that's all a color really is. Colors don't exist. Wavelengths of light exist and our brain interprets nerve responses based on those wavelengths of light as colors. There is no such thing as color, only the perception of color.

Similarly in the material world we can see God's qualities but we cannot see God himself.

Sorry, you're gonna need to elaborate: how is this relevant?

Spirituality can be objectified through the scientific method but i am HIGHLY pessimistic that natural science will acknowledge this.

that is my justification.

Well, that's not a justification at all. Of course that is the case. Natural science is only concerned with things in the material universe!

Well, that's not a justification at all. Of course that is the case. Natural science is only concerned with things in the material universe!

not only that but concerns itself with a small portion of human reality; the objective- and still claims to be "open minded" with closed minded criteria.

I will admit fault that i mislabelled abiogenesis as evolution; although i defined it perfectly in the original post- which alot of people probably did not read at all.

As for God's qualities they are everywhere and everything by definition; although sometimes taken out of their original context.

That is my understanding- i dont expect you to understand but know that i have come to understand this through duplication understanding contemplation and realization- not puled out of a hat.

^ Yes. You are right. Science "limits" itself by not making shit up.


http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2008-12-17.jpg

^ Yes. You are right. Science "limits" itself by not making shit up.


http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2008-12-17.jpg

I lol'd

not only that but concerns itself with a small portion of human reality; the objective- and still claims to be "open minded" with closed minded criteria.

Right, so you're saying that science is closed-minded because science only concerns itself with objective truth.

Do you realize that there is no such thing as subjective truth? In order for something to be true, it must be objective. Things aren't "true for you but not for me". Something that is subjective cannot be considered true or false, do you understand?

Right. Refusing to make stuff up or make claims that cannot be objectively verified is what makes science closed-minded.

I think I've made it fairly obvious why your claims in this topic are fundamentally flawed.

Oh yeah, OP:
Forget about the definition of science for a little bit. You said before that you have applied the scientific method to something subjective in order to scientifically prove God, or words to that effect. It's the damndest thing - you haven't summarized your findings anywhere in the thread!

I, for one, would like to see the conclusive results of your research, so if you would kindly write them up and post them here, that would be great.

ATTN: Fucktard-

abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different things. Maybe a comet landed with basic life on it, like microbes, and they evolved into life as we know it. BAM- evolution.

you might find this link interesting OP
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html

The universe we live in is temporary and changeable/malleable and has changed significantly over time; whilst it is debatable the universe or the totality of material existence has always existed it is undeniable it has changed.

An understanding of God goes far beyond creation which is all i see natural science relating to in terms of God. (or at least ever embracing; i dont see science ever embracing God as more than a creator).


Science doesn't even do that. But God outside his role as a creator has fuck all to do with this thread.



God is simply a word; an abstraction that is symbolic of meaning and can mean something different to me than to you which is why definitions are important.

God is an eternal (personal) spirit soul to whom all experience is derived. God is eternal; unchanging, everlasting and infinitely existing. God can only be perceived through God's qualities; that is a fact and that is how science [spiritual] can be used to understand God (scientific method aka the science of the soul, not natural science).

God is a theory, and fundamental to the theory of God is the soul; in a way polarized from the objective criteria natural science demands. Because the soul is innately spiritual therefore subjectively interpreted because it is subtle (itself it cannot be seen but its qualities can e.g intelligence, ego).

Spirituality can be objectified through the scientific method but i am HIGHLY pessimistic that natural science will acknowledge this.

that is my justification.

That is no justification. That is simply you saying, "God is outside of natural sciences because I define him to be so", which is nothing more than what I pegged your for in your last post.

Lets say you're right, lets say the concept of God is outside the natural sciences. That's all well and good, there are plenty of sciences outside the natural ones, and all of them still rely on scientific, objective, empirical data. What you have here is an argument for why God should be outside science all together, a point you and I will agree on.


Spirituality can be objectified through the scientific method but i am HIGHLY pessimistic that natural science will acknowledge this.


Then please share how spirituality (and, by extension, God, and the soul) can be objectified through the scientific method.

Ahhhhh.

Geez guys, i originally made this thread in MGCBSOYG which i frequently visit and it got moved here so i haven't been monitoring this thread.

I have pointed out in the past i am a young person and i try to keep an open mind, the concept of God is something im exploring not devoted too.

The reason i created this thread is because ive always favored the theory of evolution as containing truth but really it is not polar to creationism what i meant when i made this thread was Abiogenesis although they are somewhat related.

I am perplexed because there is no experiment which actually creates life from chemicals, ive seen the attempts and they failed to do so. Also at the same time there is no material/objective evidence for God creating the universe.

The fact is based on contemplation evolution, abiogensis and creationism seem as rediculous as each other; thats why we need knowledge to help us understand.

What im saying is creationism requires a spiritual quality of knowledge just like evolution requires a material quality of knowledge.

An understanding of creationism requires an understanding of God and spirituality, just like evolution requires an understanding of abiogenesis and biology without the components its an incomplete understanding.

If you are looking for sources of spiritual science then the science of the soul and the science of self-realization are key, just like you need related concepts to understand evolutionism.

Science of the soul (29 part seminar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSPgr_RMsUk&feature=channel_page

Science of self-realization( not very related and a long read)

http://causelessmercy.esotericteaching.org/SSR.htm

If we can see "God's qualities" they can still be tested by Science.

That we cannt feel his pain itself does not mean that we cannot determine he is in pain.

We cannot "see" God's qualities, that was not the correct articulation.

What i meant was perceive.

I realise we can sense/perceive pain in others but we can NEVER EVER see pain itself in others, we cannot taste it, we cannot touch it, we cannot hear it, we cannot smell it; we cannot perceive it with the material senses. We can only see the symptoms of pain.

Does that mean pain does not exist? Logic says no.

Perhaps pain is not the best example; look at the subtleties of our being ego, intelligence. Can you perceive a persons ego or intelligence through the material senses? You can perceive the symptoms and be conscious of them for example you can see a person has high self-confidence and high self-esteem because of his ego; these are symptoms of the ego but not the mechanism by which the ego is determined and it is not the ego itself. Can you really see the ego itself? or intelligence itself? By definition you cannot because they are subtle senses; which by are defined by their inability to be perceived by the material senses and even then something like the symptoms of intelligence or ego are not always easily quantifiable. If you think otherwise or know otherwise i would be interested in your explanation.

What im trying to put forward is science uses the objective; quantity and the quantifiable and indeed natural scientific quality is derived from quantity .

What im suggesting is quality can come form the subjective not just the objective. Quality in itself is an abstraction/social construction so to say and percieve quantity is quality (natural science) is a social construction as is perception of quality via subjective (or quality itself).

Similarly we cannot see the soul; but we can see the symptoms or qualities of the soul.

How will science ever understand the soul if they are busy quantifying everything? The soul has qualities but not quantities. This is what i mean when i talk about spiritual context, and certain quality of questions requiring a certain quality of answers. The soul is imperative to God.

If you wish to inquire further i suggest watching the video i sourced and make up your own mind about it rather than go off my abstraction and imperfect understanding of it.

[QUOTE=T-zone;10828024] Natural science is only concerned with things in the material universe!

Exactly, by definition God is is beyond the material universe because of his omnipotence; that is the theory.
Just because i say so doesnt make it true, and just because natural science says the material and quantity are all that matter does not make it so.

In order for something to be true, it must be objective. Things aren't "true for you but not for me". Something that is subjective cannot be considered true or false, do you understand?


I believe their is only one reality, but we have an imperfect understanding of this reality. According to this definition there are many things i do not understand about existence and experience but that does not they do not exist or are not able to be experienced.

To say the objective is the only truth is to say anything subjective is not true.

Something which is objective in and of itself is true all the time, but when we place it in a context it becomes true some of the time.

Example "rain is comprised of water molecules" true all the time. But rain always exists in a context and that context is in a climate. So if we say "it is raining all the time" it is not true. The truth is it is only raining sometimes so it is sometimes true.

The same can be said for the subjective, because the subjective is derived from experience or to be conscious of our environment.

How dare you say because what i am feeling right now is subjective it is not true?

Objective and subjective can both be relative truth because in a context they are true some of the time.

Just because something is true some of the time does not detract from its moment/(s) of truth.

Indeed it is pure ontological ethnographic bias to claim different kind of truth are superior whether it be absolute, relative, subjective or objective. It is just as dogmatic for science to claim absolute truth as religion.

Do not dismiss the subjective; the subjective as well as objective facets of life that has brought us to where we are today.

Subjectivity is everything that makes us human, and if that has brought us suffering throughout history the objective can do nothing for that. That is science's proposition.

We are subjective being's, that is our nature in this material world.

Although subjectivity causes (or maybe even just the impression or illusion of great things) things of great evil but it also causes things of great beauty.

And i am grateful that i have been given life and consciousness, and a subjective ability to create my own ontology and see beauty in our experiences, and indeed experience itself.

Because that is something anything exclusively objective is never capable of.

Oh yeah, OP:
Forget about the definition of science for a little bit. You said before that you have applied the scientific method to something subjective in order to scientifically prove God, or words to that effect. It's the damndest thing - you haven't summarized your findings anywhere in the thread!

I, for one, would like to see the conclusive results of your research, so if you would kindly write them up and post them here, that would be great.

Well ive written about it alot in MGCBTSOUYG where i post quite frequently (this is the first time Ive been to mad scientists lol).

Basically there is an practically endless spiritual knowledge found in the Vedas particularly the science of the soul.
There are over 10,000 pieces of Vedic literature. Many of which can be "verified"(i use quotation marks because i use it in a non-natural scientific sense) using the scientific method.

The spiritual knowledge that is scientifically verified is known as "Esoteric teaching" based on the Vedas.

It is not exclusive to the Vedas, but its in the name. Esoteric means rare or deviated from the norm, and to my knowledge there aren't any other scientific approaches to spirituality ( certainly not as comprehensive). However the science of the soul and the science of self-realization is a knowledge known to the "east" for a very long time. India is the home of the Vedas and as such is all done in Sanskrit.

Esoteric teaching is translated into English.

http://joomla.esotericteaching.org/joomla/

see the video i posted previously also.

Note: As a follower of science i doubt you will take the time to look at this but you asked.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2008-12-17.jpg

^^ good good.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2hxruqc.png

thought id follow suite :D

ATTN: Fucktard-

abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different things. Maybe a comet landed with basic life on it, like microbes, and they evolved into life as we know it. BAM- evolution.

Maybe speculation isn't very scientific.

Ganja Fett: I will read the article.

TL/DR: The media monkeys and the junkie junkies will invite you to their plastic pantomime; throw their invites away.

Ganja Fett:

I just read it.

It's interesting no doubt and well wait and see how it turns out, it doesnt seem to be much more conclusive than all of the other studies ive seen ( the atheists in MGCBTSOOYG gave me them).

I share the same pessimistic views as the researcher :D

"But UCSD's Bada pointed out that it as unlikely we [natural science] will ever know how life actually began."

"[Szostak's] point, and how we all view it, is that it's a nice model, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it happened that way,"

Science of the soul (29 part seminar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSPgr_RMsUk&feature=channel_page

Science of self-realization( not very related and a long read)

http://causelessmercy.esotericteaching.org/SSR.htm

I watched that stuff. I wasn't angry before, but now I'm a little irritated. How dare you call that science!

This is pseudo-science. This is the same bullshit that people use to "prove" the Ancient Astronaut theory or that Stoned Ape bullshit. This is not science. This is not science. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

I realise we can sense/perceive pain in others but we can NEVER EVER see pain itself in others, we cannot taste it, we cannot touch it, we cannot hear it, we cannot smell it; we cannot perceive it with the material senses. We can only see the symptoms of pain.

That is simply not true. We know the neurological basis for nociception and we are able to detect it and OBJECTIVELY VERIFY it with our medical technology. It can now be CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that someone is in pain.

Similarly we cannot see the soul; but we can see the symptoms or qualities of the soul.

Okay, I get what you're saying now.

Unfortunately, the argument is circular reasoning. You are making the assumption that the soul exists, and then using inferences based on that assumption to prove that the soul exists. That's ridiculous. Why, I could use that argument to prove absolutely any old thing, even something that is blatantly untrue.

How will science ever understand the soul if they are busy quantifying everything? The soul has qualities but not quantities. This is what i mean when i talk about spiritual context, and certain quality of questions requiring a certain quality of answers. The soul is imperative to God.

Yes, that's all very well and good, but this is all assuming the soul exists, which you have failed to demonstrate.

Exactly, by definition God is is beyond the material universe because of his omnipotence; that is the theory.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Evolution has lots of empirical evidence. What have you got?

To say the objective is the only truth is to say anything subjective is not true.

No, that is absolutely incorrect! To say the objective is the only truth is to say that anything subjective is not capable of being true OR untrue, that is, it holds no truth value. It's like saying the objective is Boolean and the subjective is int.


Example "rain is comprised of water molecules" true all the time. But rain always exists in a context and that context is in a climate. So if we say "it is raining all the time" it is not true. The truth is it is only raining sometimes so it is sometimes true.

What?! This is absurd. You are making Socrates roll over in his grave.

Example: "Rain is water," this is true all the time. Rain always exists in a context, and that context is a climate. If we say, "when it rains, it rains water," that is true all the time, because rain is always water.

The truth is it is only raining sometimes, but "it is only raining sometimes" is ALWAYS TRUE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOMETIMES TRUE! Do you understand this? You are driving me crazy.

How dare you say because what i am feeling right now is subjective it is not true?

It's subjective, so it can't possibly be true, and it can't possibly be false.

Objective and subjective can both be relative truth because in a context they are true some of the time.

No, that's not true. Objective truth is true all the time; that's the definition of "objective"!

Indeed it is pure ontological ethnographic bias to claim different kind of truth are superior whether it be absolute, relative, subjective or objective. It is just as dogmatic for science to claim absolute truth as religion.

"The true scientist is quite imaginative as well as rational, and sometimes leaps to solutions where reason can follow only slowly; if he does not, his science suffers."
-Isaac Asimov

Basically there is an practically endless spiritual knowledge found in the Vedas particularly the science of the soul.
There are over 10,000 pieces of Vedic literature. Many of which can be "verified"(i use quotation marks because i use it in a non-natural scientific sense) using the scientific method.

The spiritual knowledge that is scientifically verified is known as "Esoteric teaching" based on the Vedas.

It is not exclusive to the Vedas, but its in the name. Esoteric means rare or deviated from the norm, and to my knowledge there aren't any other scientific approaches to spirituality ( certainly not as comprehensive). However the science of the soul and the science of self-realization is a knowledge known to the "east" for a very long time. India is the home of the Vedas and as such is all done in Sanskrit.

Esoteric teaching is translated into English.

http://joomla.esotericteaching.org/joomla/

see the video i posted previously also.

This is not science. This is philosophy. This does not even follow the scientific method, and you have STILL not summarized your alleged findings using the scientific method.

Maybe speculation isn't very scientific.

Was that a joke?!

"But UCSD's Bada pointed out that it as unlikely we [natural science] will ever know how life actually began."

"[Szostak's] point, and how we all view it, is that it's a nice model, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it happened that way,"

Yes, but here's the thing - the current scientific theories of the origin of life are plausible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, remember? So the "God did it" theory is, by its very nature, less probably than the "primal earth was full of energy and carbon and conditions were ripe for replicating organic molecules to develop over millions of years" theory.

^ T-zone I'd appreciated if you didn't make me look like a fucking moron, and change that "Rust" in the second quote of your post to killallthewhiteman who was the one who said that stupid shit. Thanks.


We cannot "see" God's qualities, that was not the correct articulation.

What i meant was perceive.


"See" and "perceive" are synonymous in this context, jackass. Percieve: to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perceive)

If we can perceive god's qualities as you claim, then we can be aware of, know, identify and test these qualities by means of the senses.

I realise we can sense/perceive pain in others but we can NEVER EVER see pain itself in others, we cannot taste it, we cannot touch it, we cannot hear it, we cannot smell it; we cannot perceive it with the material senses. We can only see the symptoms of pain.

Does that mean pain does not exist? Logic says no.Irrelevant. We cannot see dark matter either, yet we can perceive it's effects and thus study it. If you claim we can see/perceive the qualities or effect of god then we can study a substantial part of god.

But again, this is unimportant. What is important, and what you keep avoiding, is the fact that the majority of your claims in this thread, if not all of them, can be tested, questioned, refuted or substantiated through empirical means. Stop being dishonest and either provide evidence for your claims or admit that you have none and stop wasting our time.

^ T-zone I'd appreciated if you didn't make me look like a fucking moron, and change that "Rust" in the second quote of your post to killallthewhiteman who was the one who said that stupid shit. Thanks.

Shit! Sorry! I must not have deleted your quote within my quote of his quote. (phew)

BTW - it suddenly struck me how ridiculous it is that someone would come into a forum marked "Mad Scientists" and start making claims about something being outside the realm of science.

ABSURD!

Doesnt my post even get a mention? I posted sources that life can come from non-life...yet it must've been too much information for some of your small minds to comprehend....