Quote from: {TNP}Dukie on October 26, 2007, 01:06:28 PMQuote from: {TNP}Dukie on October 26, 2007, 01:06:28 PMscience, which changes it's mind about things as soon as the textbooks are printed is no more reliable in predicting the beginning or the end of our existence as religion.O Rly?Science did predict the beginning of our existence, and VERIFIED the predictions:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE"Data from COBE showed a perfect fit between the black body curve predicted by big bang theory and that observed in the microwave background."Name any religious creation story that comes anywhere near as close to matching real world observations.
science, which changes it's mind about things as soon as the textbooks are printed is no more reliable in predicting the beginning or the end of our existence as religion.
Quote from: dahangThere is 0 information about god, as there is for the flying spaghetti monster. This is not something to relish in.if I consider life to genreally be good, personally I consider god to be good. by zero information, I presume you mean you can't prove he is good or exists. everyone can disagree on how much evidence there is for a god, I think there is enough evidence for god, that god is likely. I know many here discount this evidence, and believe there to be none.
There is 0 information about god, as there is for the flying spaghetti monster. This is not something to relish in.
you have said that we should draw a conclusion that there is a simple beginning, and not a complex entitity behind the formation of the universe. I was saying, we are not at that point, that to make such a statement, you need to first get rid of the probability problems for life, amont other things.
Maybe there are mulitple big bangs, and we know because of theory x, or y. I think these theories should be much more convicing before we go about deciding that we know the beginning is simple. right now, we know the numbers don't add up for life. we do not know why, it's not likely that X theory is true, versus god existing.
Well, this should be fairly easy to test.
CURE MY SLICE!
quadz, you don't even address much of what I say, so it's pretty obvious what's going on.
Yeah, I would hope we could stick to science instead of pretending you know what natural selection is, realizing you didn't really know what it was, and giving responses indicating some unknown relationship between "random mutations" and natural selection.
pretending you know what natural selection is, realizing you didn't really know what it was
quadz, you don't even address much of what I say, so it's pretty obvious what's going on.DaHanG, how do you have extremely complex functional systems (which aren't even well understood at the genetic level) from a big bang then? We're not talking about evolution here, we're talking about primordial systems like bacteria. How do they originate?
I extremely complex functional systems by evolution through natural selection.As for bacteria "originating", we do not know how life itself is created from non-life. Urey and Miller performed an interesting experiment in the 50's where they simulated the Earth's early atmosphere (and used electric bolts to simulate lightning) and spontaneously organic molecules appeared. These were building blocks for life, not life itself. We do not know how life itself was created, but given the fact that the early earth conditions could have naturally created the building blocks of life, perhaps after millions or hundreds of millions of years single celled organisms emerged. Once that single-celled organism emerges, we have good science to explain pretty much everything else in biology. The only gap is the creation of life itself from non-life.I do not know how they originate, do you?