New evidence emerges on the origins of life

June 1, 2015, University of North Carolina Health Care
New research shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms in Earth's primordial soup. Credit: Gerald Prins

In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells. Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists - Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD - have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.

"Our work shows that the close linkage between the of amino acids, the , and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."

Their findings, published in companion papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fly in the face of the problematic "RNA world" theory, which posits that RNA - the molecule that today plays roles in coding, regulating, and expressing genes - elevated itself from the primordial soup of amino acids and cosmic chemicals to give rise first to short proteins called peptides and then to single-celled organisms.

Wolfenden and Carter argue that RNA did not work alone; in fact, it was no more likely that RNA catalyzed peptide formation than it was for peptides to catalyze RNA formation.

The finding adds a new layer to the story of how life evolved billions of years ago.

Its name was LUCA

The scientific community recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, of all living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have. From LUCA forward, it's relatively easy to see how life as we know it evolved.

Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence about how LUCA arose from a boiling caldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. Those chemicals reacted to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today.

"We know a lot about LUCA and we are beginning to learn about the chemistry that produced like amino acids, but between the two there is a desert of knowledge," Carter said. "We haven't even known how to explore it."

The UNC research represents an outpost in that desert.

"Dr. Wolfenden established physical properties of the twenty amino acids, and we have found a link between those properties and the genetic code," Carter said. "That link suggests to us that there was a second, earlier code that made possible the peptide-RNA interactions necessary to launch a selection process that we can envision creating the first life on Earth."

Thus, Carter said, RNA did not have to invent itself from the . Instead, even before there were cells, it seems more likely that there were interactions between amino acids and nucleotides that led to the co-creation of proteins and RNA.

Complexity from simplicity

Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding - when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

"Our experiments show how the polarities of amino acids change consistently across a wide range of temperatures in ways that would not disrupt the basic relationships between genetic coding and ," said Wolfenden, Alumni Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics. This was important to establish because when life was first forming on Earth, temperatures were hot, probably much hotter than they are now or when the first plants and animals were established.

A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties - the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids - were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.

The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity.

Wolfenden and Carter's findings imply that the relationships between tRNA and the physical properties of the - their sizes and polarities - were crucial during the Earth's primordial era. In light of Carter's previous work with very small active cores of tRNA synthetases called Urzymes, it now seems likely that selection by size preceded selection according to polarity. This ordered selection meant that the earliest proteins did not necessarily fold into unique shapes, and that their unique structures evolved later.

Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology."

He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.

"The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages - the first of which was relatively simple - may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted.

An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution.

"The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world."

Explore further: Insights into the geometry of genetic coding

More information: Temperature dependence of amino acid hydrophobicities, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1507565112

tRNA acceptor stem and anticodon bases form independent codes related to protein folding, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1507569112

Related Stories

Insights into the geometry of genetic coding

June 11, 2014

When proteins are produced in cells based on the "genetic code" of codons, there is a precise process under which molecules called transfer RNA (tRNA) bind to specific amino acids and then transport them to cellular factories ...

Study offers insight into the origin of the genetic code

August 26, 2013

An analysis of enzymes that load amino acids onto transfer RNAs—an operation at the heart of protein translation—offers new insights into the evolutionary origins of the modern genetic code, researchers report. Their ...

Biologists uncover a novel cellular proofreading mechanism

November 11, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- To make proteins, cells assemble long chains of amino acids, based on genetic instructions from DNA. That construction takes place in a tiny cellular structure called a ribosome, to which amino acids are ...

Chemists crack the chirality code

December 12, 2014

Chemists at Trinity College Dublin have cracked the chirality code. The chirality (or left/right-handed asymmetry) of amino acids presented a long-standing challenge that complicated efforts to create certain types of proteins, ...

Recommended for you

A protein that self-replicates

February 22, 2018

ETH scientists have been able to prove that a protein structure widespread in nature – the amyloid – is theoretically capable of multiplying itself. This makes it a potential predecessor to molecules that are regarded ...

Newly designed molecule binds nitrogen

February 22, 2018

Wheat, millet and maize all need nitrogen to grow. Fertilisers therefore contain large amounts of nitrogenous compounds, which are usually synthesised by converting nitrogen to ammonia in the industrial Haber-Bosch process, ...

290 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (23) Jun 01, 2015
Hissy fits from the creationists in 1---2---3--
gkam
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
We are the consequence of a self-organizing system, . . called the Universe.
Eddy Courant
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2015
What is preventing that from happening now?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (21) Jun 01, 2015
If they know how to create life, why not do it?
gkam
3.1 / 5 (19) Jun 01, 2015
"What is preventing that from happening now?"
-------------------------------------

How do you know it is not?
Thirteenth Doctor
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2015
Hissy fits from the creationists in 1---2---3--


JVK's copy and paste-a-thon you mean.
Thirteenth Doctor
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 01, 2015
If they know how to create life, why not do it?


I didn't read anywhere in the article that stated that they know how to create life.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2015
Hissy fits from the creationists in 1---2---3--


JVK's copy and paste-a-thon you mean.


He was the first to come to mind.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2015
If they know how to create life, why not do it?


I didn't read anywhere in the article that stated that they know how to create life.


Neither did I.
Thirteenth Doctor
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
If they know how to create life, why not do it?


I didn't read anywhere in the article that stated that they know how to create life.


Neither did I.


Than what's the point of your question?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2015
The strong RNA World hypothesis, of an RNA/RNA gene/ribozyme replicator before there were (the weak RNA World hypothesis of an) RNA/protein gene/enzyme one, is pretty well established. It predicts the quaternary base code of RNA which preceeded the triplet translation code of tRNA/rRNA/mRNA. It also explains the pure RNA core of the genetic system.

There really isn't any tension between the strong RNA World hypothesis and the long known chemical affinities of tTNA and amino acids that predates the later code. Amino acid production is highly exergonic and the early Earth was flooded with them. Nucleotide production is highly endergonic and it was the last molecules that went into the biochemistry of emerging life. (Lipid production is ~ 0 energy gain/loss.) Luckily, since exponential reproduction of genes else would have flooded early cells with genetic material.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2015
[ctd]

Maybe Carter is correct in his larger hypothesis. But I doubt it based on what is known at this time. Meanwhile, their observations strengthen the chemical selective coupling that later evolved into a genetic code.

And, oy, the creationists questions that are entirely based on their ignorance of that Pasteur and Darwin observed on why we don't see either spontaneous generation (making life emerge within a bacterial generation - doesn't happen, Pasteur showed that) or new emergence (may happen, but existing life has both changed the conditions and use biochemicals as nutrients, Darwin grokked that) _about 2 centuries ago_.

Read up, or shut up.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2015
Speaking of unrealistic demands (must cosmologist recreate the universe in the lab? must astronomers recreate stars in the lab? must geologists recreate sedimentation or volcanoes in the lab?), we can put that right back to the creationists:

If magic, for no good reason, can make life "in the lab", why don't you do your rain dance and prove it? You have had over 2 millenniums to demonstrate your 'superior' idea, depending on what magic belief you (or your parents, usually) have chosen to follow.

Meanwhile science has been around for 4 centuries and already know how the universe emerged, how planetary systems emerged, and in broad strokes how life emerged. And it is testing it and improving the knowledge all the time.

What has magic belief done lately!?
Thirteenth Doctor
4 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2015
If magic, for no good reason, can make life "in the lab", why don't you do your rain dance and prove it?


Because god works in mysterious ways. The same people who say "you cannot know the mind of god" do a pretty good job of telling us exactly what he did, is doing, is thinking, is going to think and is going to do and why. That's incredible.

Shootist
3 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2015
What is preventing that from happening now?


Nothing
dogbert
2 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2015
This is a science site. The preponderance of commentary against religion is both predictable and sad.

Science does not show us how life started. Scientists do not know how life started. Since they do not know, they feel compelled to attack God.

It is a symptom of any religion that the adherents of a religion tend to attack any other religion, particularly when they feel that their religion lacks substance.

Scientists would do better to practice science rather than proselytizing.
orti
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2015
"Evidence"? Sure, we even have a picture (above) of it happening. Helps to make it go down easier.
What kind of mind writes this crap?
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2015
dogbert calims
Science does not show us how life started
Not yet in total, its early days but, it has shown through disciplined enquiry all components of the universe self assemble reliably with the more complex entertained by immense numbers of permutations never considered by primitive cultures.

dogbert claims
Since they do not know, they feel compelled to attack God
No. Not so devious. As Science is the "Disciplined Acquisition of Knowledge" then it has proceedures that do NOT rely upon claim, Science is a process that connects observation, with theory and experiment.

Religion has NO discipline its ONLY claim & bibles ONLY state; Status, Authority & Punishment

dogbert describe how any claimed dog communicates ?

Is it better than lazy humans who seek power over others ?

Is the punishment of Eve by the deity a great example of how to act as a parent ?

Is there any education re alleviating suffering; eg first aid ?

Is there anything actually useful ?
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 01, 2015
Mike_Massen,
Since they do not know, they feel compelled to attack God

No. Not so devious. As Science is the "Disciplined Acquisition of Knowledge" then it has proceedures that do NOT rely upon claim, Science is a process that connects observation, with theory and experiment.

Religion has NO discipline its ONLY claim & bibles ONLY state; Status, Authority & Punishment

dogbert describe how any claimed dog communicates ?

Is it better than lazy humans who seek power over others ?

Is the punishment of Eve by the deity a great example of how to act as a parent ?

Is there any education re alleviating suffering; eg first aid ?

Is there anything actually useful ?


Thank you for confirming my statement by your statements.
hrfJC
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
I have strong doubts about the validity of these wildly speculative ruminations on the origin of life and the progression to more complex species. My rationally and fact grounded perspective as a lifelong industrial R&D scientist who is familiar with the meaning and requirements of scientific theories of which evolutionary complexity is an example simply rejects the idea of such random processes which are not observable currentlly and defy most known scientific principles. To me they look like philosophical fabrications as also believed by the late Professor David Stone, the atheistic author of Darwinian Fairytaless. And his opinion is seconded by the late molecular evolutionist Leslie Orgel who debunked several random molecular evolutionary schemes (PLoS 2008) as being based on "if pigs could fly chemistries". The key flaw is "random" since all cited evolutionary schemes require conscious rational input of the experimenter or else you get GIGO.
hrfJC
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2015
I have strong doubts about the validity of these wildly speculative ruminations on the origin of life and the progression to more complex species. My rationally and fact grounded perspective as a lifelong industrial R&D scientist who is familiar with the meaning and requirements of scientific theories of which evolutionary complexity is an example simply rejects the idea of such random processes which are not observable currentlly and defy most known scientific principles. To me they look like philosophical fabrications as also believed by the late Professor David Stone, the atheistic author of Darwinian Fairytaless. And his opinion is seconded by the late molecular evolutionist Leslie Orgel who debunked several random molecular evolutionary schemes (PLoS 2008) as being based on "if pigs could fly chemistries". The key flaw is "random" since all cited evolutionary schemes require conscious rational input of the experimenter or else you get GIGO.

verkle
Jun 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2015
The article copies the beginning of the Bible "In the Beginning...." but then immediately makes claims that cannot be substantiated, "...there were simple chemicals", "they became amino acids", "they became proteins", "they became cells", "they became plans and animals".

This is bogus science. No proof. No reproduction. No verification. Just wild thinking by people who exalt themselves over others and over God.



@verkle

Your proof of my prediction.

Your world view prevents you from weighing evidence, typical of religious fundamentalist.

If it isn't a 2,000 year old book of myths then it can't be true is your belief.

Sad.
wasp171
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2015
The title is wrong.
There is no evidence.
It's pure conjecture.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2015
verkle and wasp171,

It is unfortunate that so much which is presented as science today is only wild speculation with nothing to support the conclusions. The pressures to publish lead to publications devoid of information.

brodix
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2015
At the dawn of human civilization, medicine men, shamans, astronomy and astrology, etc. science and religion were the same effort to describe and explain the order of nature.

The split was that as new evidence and insights came along, the proto-scientists dropped old explanations in favor of new ones, while the early religions understood the strong social connections built up around the original explanations and so used them as the lens through which new information had to be filtered and only changed those origin stories to meet the needs of the community.

So now religion is viewed as having very deep social roots, while science is viewed as being shallow and subject to circumstance and impulse.

As the saying goes; The more you know, the more you know you don't know. I suspect we are really only scratching the surface.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
When science can't explain something, it either dismisses it, or treats it as an axiom and works around it.

Currently the accepted practice is to assume conscious awareness is an effect of cognitive thought, but that contradicts the premise of complexity arising from simple elements. Thought is a process of increasingly complex formulations, both of the individual, as it grows older and society as it grows more evolved, while consciousness is a base state that apparently all sentient creatures are born with. So it would seem logical to assume consciousness gives rise to thought, not the other way around.

This suggests that we should start considering consciousness as an axiom and work with it. Otherwise dismissing it as an ephemeral effect of rationality is counter to scientific best practices, likely brought on by bias against anything remotely spiritual.
hrfJC
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2015
My earlier comments questions the lack of science in molecular evolution. Indeed evolution looks more like a faith based belief much like the vilified faith of believers in a supernatural creation that is rejected largely because evolutionists deny the existence of God. Hence evolution could be classified as a faith not science supported anti-God religion diametrically opposed to pro-God religion, thus logically precluding a synthesis or compromise in a proposed Intelligent Design theory. Meaning we have no rational explanation of creation of the universe and all therein. Some honest evolutionists admit they cannot explain it now but hope to explain evolution and finding a rational substitute for the ludicrous Big Bang theory....some day.
jyro
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
And it's possible rocks can turn into computers but not yet. Maybe they need help to change.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
@hrfJC

Now that you've concluded your anti-science benediction do you want an AMEN?
simzy39
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
Why are their religious people on this website? There is no evidence for God. Get over it. There is a lot of scientific evidence for how life on our planet began, how our planet began, how our universe formed. Lawrence Krauss did a good job in his book 'A Universe from Nothing'. Nothing is a physical quantity now, not some quote from a dead philosophy. 'Nothingness is the stuff that rocks dream off." No, it isn't.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2015
dogbert claimes
Thank you for confirming my statement by your statements.
You MIISS the point, including the immense emotional hypnosis bulk of relgious "followers" ie robots operate to, one major reason the average IQ of religious adherents is lower than those scientifically trained to seek evidence in accordance with discipline.

You dogbert, still haven't answered my questions - why is that, why can't you give it your best shot ?
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
Ren82 stated
Furthermore, the proteins have a tendency to dissociate in an aqueous medium or under the influence of ultraviolet light.
Indeed, so its a good thing we have oceans to attenuate UV as well as Ozone to attenuate some UV.

Ren82, still ignoring widespread evidence of chemical self-assembly all over the place and people like you bark "well we can't make life", obviously any intelligent person NOT subject to inane emotional hypnosis can work through the Physics of chemistry's essentials in conjunction with the maths of permutations plus what has been learned in biology & catalysis from chemistry relating to enzymes etc etc

Understandably, its not helpful all gods are dead silent and ONLY come from claims of men, so sad :-(

It is also understandable the issues are a little too complex for the average follower because they "follow" ie thye do NOT lead thought, the follow a hope the deity exists & will give them immortality despite FACT we change daily
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
Mike_Massen,
You MIISS the point, including the immense emotional hypnosis bulk of relgious "followers" ie robots operate to, one major reason the average IQ of religious adherents is lower than those scientifically trained to seek evidence in accordance with discipline.


You don't have to keep showing that my statement was correct. Let me repeat it, however, in the hope that you will read it and stop:

This is a science site. The preponderance of commentary against religion is both predictable and sad.

Science does not show us how life started. Scientists do not know how life started. Since they do not know, they feel compelled to attack God.

It is a symptom of any religion that the adherents of a religion tend to attack any other religion, particularly when they feel that their religion lacks substance.


antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2015
What is preventing that from happening now?

Everything.

Anything that starts out now has only one type of name: lunch. It'd be so far behind the evolutionary curve that it would stand no chance.

To make it more plain: For something to evolve now from scratch would mean it would have to be isolated/protected for a long period of time from anything that can use amino acids/unprotected proteins (which is basically everything alive). These first 'organisms' would be the ultimate easy food source as they would have no kind of evolved defense, yet. Extinction would be near instant.

It's very unlikley that a place currently exists on Earth where this could go on uninterrupted for the time it takes until a new organism would be up to speed to stand any kind of chance (outside of a lab, that is).
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
The people certain mindset who are addicted to the idea that the God of the happy chance stay behind the emergence of the universe and life on earth, are sitting on their eyes and ears and are not interested in the reality. Ostrich syndrome is their main life philosophy. It is interesting that put minimum rating for proven truths that can be verified in a serious scientific literature which demontrate their undignified position.and emtional motivation. They just do not like reality as it is because it requires changes and disturb them. They want freedom from moral norms, but whether they understand the price of such freedom? God gave the ten commandments to the people to be happy and to live in a just society that gives equal chance for personal development and prosperity.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
@Mike_Massen

Do you sympathize to the idea that if you wait enough time in a bowl of chicken soup placed in a sterile environment will emerge living organisms?
Kedas
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
We are the consequence of a self-organizing system, . . called the Universe.

And we all know that we only need a simple set of (any) rules to get an self-organizing system.
http://en.wikiped..._of_Life
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
Simple set of rules does not mean real acting in nature physical laws? With simple set of rules which awlays are product of intelectual efort of inteligent being you can create the whole Imaginary world and chess game for example.
DavidTheShepherd
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2015
Why are their religious people on this website? There is no evidence for God. Get over it. There is a lot of scientific evidence for how life on our planet began, how our planet began, how our universe formed. Lawrence Krauss did a good job in his book 'A Universe from Nothing'. Nothing is a physical quantity now, not some quote from a dead philosophy. 'Nothingness is the stuff that rocks dream off." No, it isn't.

You can substitute "evolution" or "spontaneous generation" for God and it would perfectly describe anyone who believes that life arose all by itself on earth.

There is ZERO evidence that life arose all by itself on earth. This is exactly why this paper was written - to speculate even more how the impossible could ever occur.

The only "evidence" you find is whatever it is that you wish to interpret as such in the face of the abysmal lack of true physical support for the idea of abiogenesis.

You play with the words and suddenly "nothing" becomes something!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
What is preventing that from happening now?

Everything.

Anything that starts out now has only one type of name: lunch. It'd be so far behind the evolutionary curve that it would stand no chance.

To make it more plain: For something to evolve now from scratch would mean it would have to be isolated/protected for a long period of time from anything that can use amino acids/unprotected proteins (which is basically everything alive). These first 'organisms' would be the ultimate easy food source as they would have no kind of evolved defense, yet. Extinction would be near instant.

It's very unlikley that a place currently exists on Earth where this could go on uninterrupted for the time it takes until a new organism would be up to speed to stand any kind of chance (outside of a lab, that is).

If all it takes is time, 4,500,000,000 years is quite a long time.
DavidTheShepherd
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2015
Let's look at things from another perspective - that of real, physical, repeatable observations as required by the scientific process:

For about 6000 years, humans have observed and experienced unassailable, undeniable and total physical evidence that once a person[or other living thing] dies, it stays dead. All current observations show that there has not been ONE case where the dead arises from the dead all by itself. That is a documented fact. You've all probably witnessed that in your own community. So it's irrefutable. And you evolutionists are the main antogonists to the idea that there will be life after death in future.

Now, suddenly, because you deny that there is a God and you need somehow for life to appear from somewhere, you make the dubious unobserved claims that life arose from the dead!

That is contradicting yourselves! On the one hand it's impossible for life to arise all by itself - as observed - on the other hand you NEED it to do so for your RELIGION!
DavidTheShepherd
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2015
What is preventing that from happening now?

Everything.

Anything that starts out now has only one type of name: lunch. It'd be so far behind the evolutionary curve that it would stand no chance.

To make it more plain: For something to evolve now from scratch would mean it would have to be isolated/protected for a long period of time from anything that can use amino acids/unprotected proteins (which is basically everything alive). These first 'organisms' would be the ultimate easy food source as they would have no kind of evolved defense, yet. Extinction would be near instant.

It's very unlikley that a place currently exists on Earth where this could go on uninterrupted for the time it takes until a new organism would be up to speed to stand any kind of chance (outside of a lab, that is).

Speaking of "food", what exactly would the first organism have been eating? And just "how" would it have been eating anything?
BUT- HOW did it come to life at all?
DavidTheShepherd
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
People who believe in abiogenesis are simply willfully ignoring two very simple facts which rule out abiogenesis:

1. It's impossible to get the components of life arranged in the right way spontaneously - to name an example - the simple facts of exclusively left -handed amino acids and exclusively right-handed sugar bases. No way to separate those from the other-handed isomers without extreme outside input. This is plain simple chemistry 101. Period.

2. Even if by the greatest of miracles [you'll need it!] you have everything assembled spontaneously, you still have to kick off life in the right order. To explain - when something or someone dies all the required components for life are present, beautifully assembled. Yet, not matter what you do or for how long you leave that body isolated and preserved - no one has EVER seen the dead arise all by itself to live again.

I would gladly accept any documented and verified evidence to the contrary.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2015
You can substitute "evolution" or "spontaneous generation" for God

Look up the word "evolution". It has nothing to do with the inception of life (that is abiogenesis)

There is ZERO evidence that life arose all by itself on earth.

This is actually true. But that is not the same as saying that life did not arise spontaneously on Earth. Nor is it an argument for any kind of god. At present we just don't know (and since we cannot go back and take a look we will never know with final certainty). However we can explore how easy it would be under the conditions prevalent at the time and draw from that some probabilistic conclusions.

You play with the words and suddenly "nothing" becomes something

As long as it's 'playing with words' that is also true. but you must realize that papers like these can give us hints as to how to set up experiments so that we might see abiogenesis in the lab. (Note: Evolution has already been demonstrated in the lab many times)
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2015
viko_mx with a really bad idea of strawman divergence
Do you sympathize to the idea that if you wait enough time in a bowl of chicken soup placed in a sterile environment will emerge living organisms?
Of course that, thats one of the mosy stupid artificially narrow bound exoerimental guesses you have ever come up with.

You are clearly a complete idiot why, because I have told you before and offered links which show clearly DNA bases arise naturally via common chemicals from simple chemical reactions.

You STILL refuse to answer my question, how your claimed deity communicates ?

Focus man, get to grips with irrefutable observable FACT universe is made of components that self-assemble and do so always without fail - what you and religiously blind cannot appreicate are permutations AND the foundations from Physics & Chemistry which are everywhere.

Biology & computational approaches are in their infancy, all religious do NOTHING other than make you accept suffering !
DavidTheShepherd
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
It has nothing to do with the inception of life (that is abiogenesis)

Anti- you are playing with words here. In order for evolution to happen, it needs life.
But if there is no God then abiogenesis is a requirement of evolution. So you can't separate the two no matter what you do.
Consider this - if you do not know how life arrived on earth then how can you be sure that it didn't appear in mature form, more or less the way we know it now, minus a few truly evolved [ from existing information ] new species? You can't, because no one was there to witness and document the fact. No amount of digging up fossils is going to give you the confirmation of evolution since you can only observe organisms in the state they died, not in the living state of change.
So you remain stuck - if you express a belief in the godless Darwinian evolution, then you imply and require abiogenesis. The two are inseparable.
To try and separate the two is disingenuous - to duck the impossible.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2015
@david the sheep

From the another perspective you didn't read the article and no one has claimed life arose from something that died, but that logic has totally escaped you. Humans have been witnessing death for much longer than 6,000 years, much, much longer.

We do agree on one thing though," that once a person[or other living thing] dies, it stays dead."
That of course includes anyone ever crucified.
DavidTheShepherd
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
This is actually true. But that is not the same as saying that life did not arise spontaneously on Earth. Nor is it an argument for any kind of god. At present we just don't know (and since we cannot go back and take a look we will never know with final certainty). However we can explore how easy it would be under the conditions prevalent at the time and draw from that some probabilistic conclusions.

However, we already have very good knowledge of the basic sciences - Chemistry, Physics and biology. Those basics already point us very, very definitely to the contradiction of life arising spontaneously. The dice is stacked impossibly high against the idea of abiogenesis.
Two very prominent scientists - Wickramasinghe, along with his collaborator Fred Hoyle,- have already gone thru the probabilistic exercise and arrived at the conclusion that it's not going to happen.
So in spite of the already calculated odds, the religious belief of abiogenesis persists. Religiously.
DavidTheShepherd
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
@david the sheep

From the another perspective you didn't read the article and no one has claimed life arose from something that died, but that logic has totally escaped you. Humans have been witnessing death for much longer than 6,000 years, much, much longer.

We do agree on one thing though," that once a person[or other living thing] dies, it stays dead."
That of course includes anyone ever crucified.


Friend, the very reason people are going thru this speculative exercise is to show how life could have arisen from DEAD things spontaneously. Perhaps that very clear idea escaped you when your read the article?

As for no one claiming it - you are sadly mistaken. The very reason we're having this discussion is because those who deny the existence of God have the problem that they have no intelligent person who could have created life using superlatively advanced techniques and tools.
So YOU as evolutionst is making the claim that life arose from the dead by itself.
Joker23
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
Where have I heard this before?..........We hear this over and over..........so why haven't one of these scientists done it? "This is how it happened".... but we can't do it???? Get to it a do it. Then tell us. Ya think it might have taken "something else''............like a superior power?
DavidTheShepherd
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
As long as it's 'playing with words' that is also true. but you must realize that papers like these can give us hints as to how to set up experiments so that we might see abiogenesis in the lab. (Note: Evolution has already been demonstrated in the lab many times)

If you have to set up experiments in the lab to show abiogenesis just how much of the "spontaneous" is left over after the scientists have fiddled with with the conditions to make it favourable for life? How can their experiment be credible when people start questioning the assumptions they've made about conditions in the past?
But, nevertheless, they can go ahead and do the lab work - I am confident that they won't be able to demonstrate abiogenesis in any credible way.
It reminds me of the magicians of Pharaoh meeting with Moses. Good luck with that.
As for evolution having been demo-d in the lab - it all depends on your definition of evolution.
Perhaps you'd like to name specific examples of this evolution?
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
"Throughout his career, Wickramasinghe, along with his collaborator Fred Hoyle, has advanced panspermia, the belief that life on Earth is, at least in part, of extraterrestrial origin.[27] The basic propositions[28][29][30] of the Hoyle–Wickramasinghe model of panspermia include the assumptions that dormant viruses and desiccated DNA and RNA can survive unprotected in space;[31] that small bodies such as asteroids and comets can protect the "seeds of life", including DNA and RNA,[32][33][34] living, fossilized, or dormant life, cellular[35][36] or non-cellular;[32][33][34][35][37][38][39][40] and that the collisions of asteroids, comets, and moons have the potential to spread these "seeds of life" throughout an individual star system and then onward to others.[37][40] "
http://en.wikiped...masinghe

@dave the stupid sheep

It's best you leave now before you embarrass yourself any further.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
.so why haven't one of these scientists done it?

Because it's hard, and it doesn't work over night. We're not entirely sure what the right preconditions for the test is. It also takes a lot of iterations. You can't just expect to replicate something in the lab in a few days (or months, or even years) that may have taken a few million years in a lab that was effectively the size of this planet until it took off.

Jumping from that to the conclusion "superior power" is like going to the beach, cupping a hand full of water, finding no fish in there - and from that concluding that there are no fish in the oceans. Not a sensible (and certainly not a scientific) approach.
DavidTheShepherd
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
We do agree on one thing though," that once a person[or other living thing] dies, it stays dead."
That of course includes anyone ever crucified.

Here of course you are referring to Jesus. Well, the answer is simple:
If you look through the comments I've made, I've been careful to state that these scientists are trying to show how life could have arisen from DEAD material all by itself. Those last three words are the key distinction between believers in Christ and believers in abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution.
Christ arose from the dead because he was RAISED by God.
Evolutionists however, have no such help. As a consequence they have to believe that life arose from the dead materials ALL BY ITSELF. Which contradicts your own observed confirmation that NOTHING arise from the DEAD materials all by itself. So how now, brown cow? Your actual, real life, physical and well documented observation contradicts your religious belief.
DavidTheShepherd
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
Throughout his career, Wickramasinghe, along with his collaborator Fred Hoyle, has advanced panspermia, the belief that life on Earth is, at least in part, of extraterrestrial origin


The reason he believed in panspermia is simple: he'd already figured out that it's impossible for life to have arisen from dead materials all by itself here on earth. Hence, he knew that it had to have come from somewhere else.
The only sheep here is the one who denies that life cannot arise from the dead materials all by itself - in total contradiction of his/her own factual, real life observations that people die and never arise again all by themselves. Once something is dead, it STAYS dead.
So how then can life somehow miraculously arise from the dead materials billions of years ago in the past but not in the present? Can you spot the obvious contradiction here?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2015
@dave the stupid sheep.

For something to have died it must lived first, get it?

Abiogenesis isn't based anything dead. Damn, you're dense.
DavidTheShepherd
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
Because it's hard, and it doesn't work over night. We're not entirely sure what the right preconditions for the test is.

and yet, anti-, you are SURE that life can arise from the dead materials all by itself!!!.

How do you explain the self-observed fact that once something is dead, it stays DEAD in total contradiction of your confidence that life can arise spontaneously from the dead materials all by itself? What is there in the past that somehow made this miraculous contradiction possible?

Is that which we observe in the present - that nowhere has life arisen from dead materials all by itself , EVER - not sufficient evidence for you that it could not have done so in the past?

What spurs you on to look for the impossible contradiction?
bluehigh
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
AA, lost vital body parts in a bet recently, seems it might have been his brain. Not to worry, mix up some amino acids, wait a very long time, and by magic, AA could have evolved a new brain.
DavidTheShepherd
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
@dave the stupid sheep.

For something to have died it must lived first, get it?

Abiogenesis isn't based anything dead. Damn, you're dense.


Errrr, Vietvet, what exactly is your understanding of the word "ABIOGENESIS"?

Do you not get it that that word says exactly that you want to have LIFE from DEAD things?
Of course if the logic escapes you that since we observe that things that died are now dead forever and cannot ever arise all by itself to live again, it also means that any OTHER dead things cannot also then arise to life all by itself?

By what miracle do you suppose that the DEAD materials in the past somehow managed to contradict the daily observations you are making in the present?

Perhaps the real stupid person here is not me......?!
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
"Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."

http://www.medici...ey=33438

"Death: 1. The end of life"

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2015
and yet, anti-, you are SURE that life can arise from the dead materials all by itself

No. As I said: we don't know yet. That's why it's still an area of active research. And we will continue not to know until/unless we can do it in the lab...or until we can show convincingly that it is not possible.

I, personally, think it's likely that it's possible...as I find no known law of physics or chemistry that is against it*. And history tells us that when something is not forbidden by those laws then it will eventually happen (barring ignorance of other laws/constraints).
Note that this _opinion_ is in no way a conclusive argument.
(Just the like the personal opinion "god did it" is in no way an argument for/against anything).

* The terms 'alive' and 'not alive' are merely human-made qualifiers of a quantitative nature. Naure itself makes no QUALITATIVE difference between the two.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
@dave the stupid sheep

No one is proposing that life arose from dead things. Of course logic isn't a strong point for religious fundamentalists.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
The most likely places for the continued abiogenesis is in undersea black smokers.
They should be able to find silicon based or other based life if abiogenesis holds.
bluehigh
Jun 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
I, personally, think it's ....
- A Tard

So, sometimes you think for other people and not personally?

Or maybe you don't think at all nowadays and just shoot your mouth off, to pretend to be clever.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
So, sometimes you think for other people and not personally?

In this case I wanted to make it abundantly clear that it's just an opinion backed by nothing else (a hunch if you so will). It is not the result of (to me) plausible research or experiment I'm aware of. (And given the nature of some of the people posting in this comment section you can't be too careful making things clear. Though there is no pleasing the willfully ignorant, eh blurbhigh? )

Or maybe you don't think at all nowadays and just shoot your mouth off, to pretend to be clever.

No. I'd actually be interested if somene has more than a hunch either way. That's why I put it in the form out there that I did.
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
Consciousness and intelligence do not seem synonymous. It's taken life 4 billion years to get this far, so what if we were to split the argument and say there was some primal motivating impulse, which through billions of years of feedback, in a physical context, projected to this point of sentient beings now trying to deduce their origin? While there seems some emotional rejection of this among strict physicalists, it might be interesting to run as a program and see how well it explains life and even if it could be eventually explained away. Isn't that how science is supposed to work?
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
Also the issue of time comes into play. We experience it as a sequence of events and so think of it as the point of the present moving from past to future, which physics codifies as measures of duration. Yet the reality is change creating and dissolving these events, such that they go future to past, within the context of the present. Duration being the state of the present, as these events come and go.

Consciousness thus only exists in the present, while thoughts are the forms it manifests, which constantly recede into the past, as new ones are generated.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
As events have to occur, in order to be determined, i.e. in the present before the past, with the past as residue of this process, this refutes the premise of determinism. Only energy is causal, not temporal sequence. Yesterday didn't cause today. The sun shining on a spinning planet created this effect called days.

So consciousness functions like energy, moving and motivating the forms of thought, within the physical present.
hrfJC
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2015
In my 50y career as an industrial R&D scientist, in contrast to academics, my science was rationally grounded in empirical observations and proven scientific theories which both evolution and the Big Bang clearly do not meet. Re molecular evolution, may I suggest you look at a Chart of Metabolic Pathways depicting the hundreds of highly specific enzymatic reactions between complex enzymes and smaller chemical substrates. And consider further that these pathways are essential for life, occur in most cells of living bodies and ALL MUST have instantaneously evolved, not over billions of years from primordial mud or gases. Every reader especially evolutionists should download a free copy and paste it over their desks as a constant reminder of the folly of evolution. So why do so many normally rational scientists believe in evolution? It is simply explained by the Emperor's subjects believing that he wears non existing clothes....or get zapped as most academics would if denying evolution.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
hrfJC - and others who would dismiss the theory of evolution - as to be without empirical evidence. Are you aware of the process of sedimentation - and how through multiple lines of evidence - science has shown that as we look back through geological time - we find the fossil record not only changing, but showing very clear lines of evolutionary development?

How do you explain such a volume of evidence?
DJ Crowe
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
hrfJC - Where do you keep your Nobel prize? Because if you think you have proof evolution never happened, your name would be a household name.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
@hrfC: "My rationally and fact grounded perspective as a lifelong industrial R&D scientist who is familiar with the meaning and requirements of scientific theories of which evolutionary complexity is an example simply rejects the idea of such random processes which are not observable currentlly and defy most known scientific principles."

If you had even tried to understand biology, you would know that evolution isn't "random" (variation is indifferent, selection is deterministic and so is largely fixation under selection), that it is the most and best observed process we know of, and that it hasn't defied "scintific principles" (which?) in soon 2 centuries.

But with that lede you can only be a creationist. [And your erroneous description of the accepted basis for biology confirms that.] Speaking of an idea that displays random poofing of species instead of branching by ancestry, that has never been observed, and is defying _all_ known scientific principles... =D

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
[ctd] Looks like it is time for the old encyclopedia again: "There is scientific consensus among biologists that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established of all the facts and theories in science.[27]" [ http://en.wikiped...volution ]

That evolution works, is science and is accepted can no one sane deny.

"And his opinion is seconded by the late molecular evolutionist Leslie Orgel who debunked several random molecular evolutionary schemes (PLoS 2008) as being based on "if pigs could fly chemistries"."

Oh, I love this! _Don't you know Orgel was wrong!?_ Keller et al showed 2014 a non-enzymatic "if pigs could fly chemistries" to glucose and penthose, in 2015 it was shown "if pigs could fly chemistries" to _every major cell component_ (genetic, enzymatic, membrane), and last month it was verified that redox-processes of alkaline hydrothermal vents do "if pigs could fly chemistries" too.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
[ctd] Both of the first was as efficient as modern metabolism (just slower), the last had a reasonable faradaic efficiency.

Why was Orgel wrong? Because he had no means to test it, he couldn't look into the sky for all the pigs flying there! They couldn't model it, Keller et al's pathway was stumbled on with the latest sensitive analysis instruments, and the many pot pathway (which has a perfectly sound impact environment context) to all basic cell components is, well, complicated.

More basically, the enzymatic pathways are using conformation changes on surfaces to make organics with irreversible steps so without side products. And who knows (yet) why the non-enzymatic works and is just out there to be co-opted by later enzymatic metabolism? But they do!

"Life ... uh ... finds a way." =D
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
@DTS: "you make the dubious unobserved claims that life arose from the dead".

No, you claim that. The claim is that geochemical systems are ancestral to biochemical, since they share so many traits. Evolution, you know.

A "dead" geochemical system would be akin to the moon, which no one but creationists claim life could arose from. (If we have regolith playing the role of the mythical "mud" that creationist magic poofed life in, according to their texts.)

"willfully ignoring two very simple facts which rule out abiogenesis".

Except those are not 'facts' or pertain to the observed pathways. The article discuss selection for function, not spontaneity or 'right order [for what?]'.

"In order for evolution to happen, it needs life."

If you call the biomolecules of the article, or virus, life, yes. But that would be silly, because it would be creationist vitalism. They are, however, close enough to life to be under selective pressures.
hrfJC
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
Evolutionists correctly have focused on flaws in unscientific creationism, but fail to see that molecular evolution from nothingness and the Big Bang explosion of a gigantic mass formed again from nothingness similarly cannot explain the universe and all therein. Meaning there is NO rational explanation. Ditto for ET imports since there were no galaxies in empty space.
And evolutionists deceptively lump Darwin's perfectly scientific first theory of evolution WITHIN species by environmental selection AND the totally unscientific molecular and INTER species evolutions, actually philosophical ruminations that cannot explain random increase in complexicity contrary to natural laws. The result is a hybrid evolution theory lumping facts and fiction that has been foisted on the gullible public and surprisingly even most scientists. But as I said before, employed scientists cannot openly deny foolish evolution without losing their funding or jobs. I suspect many are closet creationists.
pauljpease
5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
What is preventing that from happening now?


First, it might be happening now, but Earth is big, molecules are small and to look for this happening "in the wild" would be expensive, so no one is looking, and finding it without specifically looking for it would be impossible.

Second, the life that exists now is so voracious and efficient at consuming any and all available resources that it may not be happening now. In other words, the molecules that are described in the article wouldn't last long out in the wild because they are food for other living things. Also, the physical and chemical environments on Earth are very different now, so that is another thing that could be preventing it from happening now.

Satisfied?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
What is preventing that from happening now?


First, it might be happening now, but Earth is big, molecules are small and to look for this happening "in the wild" would be expensive, so no one is looking, and finding it without specifically looking for it would be impossible.

Second, the life that exists now is so voracious and efficient at consuming any and all available resources that it may not be happening now. In other words, the molecules that are described in the article wouldn't last long out in the wild because they are food for other living things. Also, the physical and chemical environments on Earth are very different now, so that is another thing that could be preventing it from happening now.

Satisfied?


No. Where is the data?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
"Perhaps the most far-reaching idea to
come from these hotsprings is that life itself
may have originated within these dynamic
systems, in which geological, chemical, and
biological processes are intimately linked."
Black Smokers: Incubators on
the Seafloor
Deborah S. Kelley
pauljpease
5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2015
Evolutionists correctly have focused on flaws in unscientific creationism, but fail to see that molecular evolution from nothingness and the Big Bang explosion of a gigantic mass formed again from nothingness similarly cannot explain the universe and all therein. Meaning there is NO rational explanation.


I don't think you understand science very well. It is true that science can't explain, yet, how the Big Bang occurred or how life emerged from chemical reactions. But the thing about science, and scientists, they don't pretend to explain what they don't understand. Anyone who tries to denigrate science because it doesn't explain everything should be even more critical of religion, as religion makes claims without any knowledge. As Jefferson said, it's better to believe nothing than to believe what is wrong. Scientists admit they can't explain the Big Bang. Isn't that preferable to an ideology that claims to have the answers to everything yet has proof of nothing?
pauljpease
4.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015


No. Where is the data?


Data for what? No one is looking for what you think should be happening, why would there be any data? Anyways, if there is any data, it's most likely on the internet. Stop being lazy and post something of value to others.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
hrfJC and others - I noticed that you failed to answer the question. As a non scientist - i must depend on a different way of understanding a subject as complex as evolution. I have never studied the detailed genetic mutations that an evolutionary biologist has. I can look at things from a more general perspective - and in some ways I think that is easier to defend. I have walked across layers of sedimentary rocks - that have been uplifted - and laid on end. I have talked with geologists - who could discuss in great depth the age of the different strata - and how each strata contains different kinds of fossils - telling us much about the state of the earth - travelling back in geological time. It seems like much hubris to me - to believe that all the millions of hours of research that have gone into cataloguing all of this fossil record - is somehow made up..
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
hrfJC
similarly cannot explain the universe and all therein. Meaning there is NO rational explanation


So what kind of an explanation of the univers, and all therien would you like? Perhaps an irrational one, or a made up one? Science tries to take the information that we have, and use that information (evidence) - to build our understanding of our universe. No one says that we know everything - despite what people like Ryggy try to assert. The one question I cannot get an answer to from people like Ryggy - is this. If you do not use an evidentiary way to understand the universe - what system do you use to decide what is true, and what is not true?
hrfJC
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2015
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is clearly one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment..in opposing creationism:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism......no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow God a foot in the door of science."
Proving my point that blind faith in evolution science trumps reason as it does in religious Creationism. Q.E.D.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015

Proving my point that blind faith in evolution science trumps reason as it does in religious Creationism. Q.E.D.


@hrfJC

You've proved you don't know how science works.

Richard Lewontin is correct. There is no room for the supernatural in science.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
hrrJC
Proving my point that blind faith in evolution science trumps reason as it does in religious Creationism.


Quoting one individual - and then generalizing that to the whole world of science - shows up your lazy thinking. I posed a very real question - regarding the vast body of evidence that supports the current understanding of evolution. It is not blind faith - it is a willingness to be disciplined - in terms of having a framework for deciding what you accept as truth.

The religionists have no parallel to this discipline - as they accept claims without evidence - and then of course cannot support such claims - so by default - fall back on baseless ideas such as faith.
viko_mx
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2015
When you are talking for religionist you mean exactly yourself, because as evolutionist you have no idea how the life began on Earth thanks to random events which is equivalent to the question how information in the system is increasing over time by random events. When you are talking about lazy thinking is good to demonstrate your not lazy thinking and expalin which are the machanisms that allows the emergence of life from non living matter with ideas adequate to currently available scientific knowledge.
It is typical for evolutionist (the true religionist) to use declarations that demonstrate their whishfull thinking and luck of scientific knowledge, instead explanation. Because they have no explanations. Only pure hope that God does not exists because the ten commandments and the God's judgment day disturb permanently their mental and spiritual comfort. Tha sad thing is that they do not realize that God did this for them to be happy.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
The religionists have no parallel to this discipline - as they accept claims without evidence -


No, they do not.
How can YOU generalize? That's lazy thinking.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
No, they do not.


Yes they do - that is the whole basis of your word faith. Here is a dictionary definition for you Ryggy. "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
viko
When you are talking for religionist you mean exactly yourself


No I don't. Scientific thinking requires evidence. That is the central construct. If you have evidence for the existence of your God - then go ahead and present your evidence. Did you read my post on the existence of the geological/fossil record that provides very extensive evidence for the process of evolution? If you have counter evidence - please present it.

Religion is sloppy thinking - science is evidence based - it has a defined and consistent framework.
mayslandingmel
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2015
Science is what I put my faith in and this "The origins of life from a single cell" is fascinating. But yikes! I must consider now that when we explore other planets and take samples from them back to earth, we could be removing that single cell and prevent evolution of life on another planet.

Please, no God responses to my thinking.

Our beliefs and faith belong to earth. Science belongs to the universe.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
mayslandingmel - did you have to bring the word faith into it? The religionists keep jumping on that habit - to claim that science is also a religion. Can we stick to a clear definition of faith - as belief in things for which there is no evidence? Then we can see science as an evidence based framework of thinking - and there is no overlap.

Ryggy keeps telling me how I think - insisting that I have faith. I keep asserting that I do not have faith - but it is like talking to the back end of a cow.

Thanks.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2015
Religion is sloppy thinking

I think you're giving religion too much "benefit of the doubt", here.

Religion is where thinking doesn't even start.
mayslandingmel
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
greenonions -

I understand science more than I understand an argumentative nature. I choose not to argue or debate the use of a word. I apologize and shall not use it here again.

Hence... Science is what I put my trust in and this "The origins of life from a single cell" is fascinating. But yikes! I must consider now that as we explore other planets and take samples from them back to earth, we could be removing that single cell and prevent evolution of life on another planet.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
Religion is sloppy thinking -


"Thomas takes "philosophy" to be an umbrella term which covers an ordered set of sciences. Philosophical thinking is characterized by its argumentative structure and a science is taken to be principally the discovery of the properties of kinds of things. But thinking is sometimes theoretical and sometimes practical. The practical use of the mind has as its object the guidance of some activity other than thinking—choosing in the case of moral action, some product in the case of art. The theoretical use of the mind has truth as its object. It seeks not to change the world but to understand it. Like Aristotle, Thomas holds that there is a plurality of both theoretical and practical sciences. Ethics, economics and politics are the practical sciences, while physics, mathematics and metaphysics are the theoretical sciences. "
If not for St. Thomas Aquians sloppy thinking, science may never have been invented.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
CS Lewis was a REAL sloppy thinker.

"Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning."

C. S. Lewis

How can science determine the meaning of life?

This is real sloppy right greenie?

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

C. S. Lewis

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
"As a prisoner Frankl observed that those with the greatest chance to survive, were not the most physically fit. More important than physical fitness, was the strength of a persons´ belief system. The prisoners that found a meaning in their desperate life situation developed a mental force that combated hunger, thirst, physical, and psychological terror. Science has later demonstrated the connection between a person´s psychological state and the immune system's ability to fight disease."
"Frankl argues in his book, The Will to Meaning, that life has no meaning in itself, unless you actively create an existential purpose. "
http://www.popula...ppiness/

The common theme in the Bible is faith. Abraham trusted God even though he was ordered to sacrificial his only son.
Those who followed Paul had to have faith as God did not directly speak to them as he did Paul.
Frankl demonstrated the value of faith to survive.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
"According to Frankl we can actively train ourselves in reinforcing our positive experiences and emotions, while at the same time increase our tolerance for negative feelings. You have probably noticed that it is of little help to simply rationally decide to accept negative feelings. In order to increase your tolerance for negative feelings, you rather need to actively train your ability not only to accept, but also to embrace the inherent meaning of a negative emotion. Some incidents have no meaning whatsoever, but adding meaning to the meaningless may actually help overcoming the negative psychological emotions that are tied to the situation."
http://www.popula...ppiness/

Religion helps millions to overcome those negative emotions.

Why do atheists want to attack and destroy what helps people?
(See Lewis's comment above about tyrannies.)
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
The prisoners that found a meaning in their desperate life situation developed a mental force that combated hunger, thirst, physical, and psychological terror.


Newsflash Ryggy - finding meaning in life - does not necessitate the belief in a sky fairy. We can, and are very fulfilled people, with great meaning in our life - and yet we are atheists.

Harris says it well - https://www.youtu...cMmnZo9o
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
Ryggy
Why do atheists want to attack and destroy what helps people?


Wow - a wonderful demonstration of the sloppy thinking I was referring to. Think about radical Islam. Folks beheading other people - and posting videos. But by your logic - we should not criticize their 'religion' - as it gives them meaning in life. On balance Ryggy - it is my estimation (and many other ateists) that Religion has done, and continues to do - far more harm in the world - than it does good. Would you support socialism - if we argued that socialism gives people meaning - would you accept that as an argument to not criticize socialism? What a lazy thinker.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
it is my estimation

Not very scientific.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2015
The same people who say "you cannot know the mind of god" do a pretty good job of telling us exactly what he did
Really? God wrote a book about people we know never existed and events we know never happened.

Archeologists, some of them very religious, have been digging in the middle east for a century. And they have found only evidence that convinces them that the bible stories could never have happened, that other things were going on back then which would have made them impossible.

Lots of evidence. An overwhelming amount of evidence AGAINST, and absolutely none FOR.

And the only way your pundits and salesmen can explain this, is by lying about it. Just as the people who wrote your book did.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2015
"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel... that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

-Period. You can assume that your god didnt know the past and choose to fabricate it, or that he knew but chose to lie about it, or that he obliterated centuries of evidence and replaced it with totally convincing contrary evidence.

Which means he is a liar. Or more likely he himself is fake.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2015
When you are talking for religionist you mean exactly yourself, because as evolutionist you have no idea how the life began on Earth
Scientists are still looking. We have increasing confidence based on past performance, that they will eventually figure it out.

Confidence is not faith. Confidence is evidence-based. Faith is belief DESPITE evidence.

You guys have stopped looking because you already have an answer which explains nothing. Further, the most committed of you would halt further exploration because you consider it blasphemy.

Because that is what your books SAY it is.

And you would cut funding, deem illegal, incarcerate, persecute, or murder in order to have your way, as you always have.

THIS is why religion can no longer be tolerated. Your selfish fantasies endanger us all.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Not very scientific.


Oh - now all of a suddent you demand rigourous science. Well I do not need rigourous science to tell me that what ISIS is doing is bad (or any number of evils that are done in the name of some stone age god). You want to be an apologist for ISIS - go right ahead. I am very comfortable understanding that our world will be much better off when we leave behind the need to worship stone age - imagiary gods.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
now all of a suddent you demand rigourous science.

You are the one claiming you don't believe anything unless it is based upon science.

Why is ISIS bad? They are murdering Christians for you.

That 'stone age' God was used as justification to end many human atrocities like slavery, of all sorts. Including being a slave to the state and a subject of a king (or queen), as Brits still are, correct?
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Otto
THIS is why religion can no longer be tolerated. Your selfish fantasies endanger us all.


Otto is of course correct on this one. Do you need scientific rigour to understand that this kind of nonsense (trying to breed a red cow - so you can usher in the apocolypse) has no place in a modern - educated world? There are of course many many other similar examples.

http://www.jta.or...israel-2
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
You are the one claiming you don't believe anything unless it is based upon science.


Based on evidence - Ryggy - evidence. There is plenty of evidence for me that relion is a destructive force in our society.

Why is ISIS bad?


You really asked that question - didn't you? Great how you point out that you are a relativist with your morality - while others are consistent - and willing to call evil - evil.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
Great how you point out that you are a relativist with your morality


Science is amoral, and greenie claims he believes nothing unless based upon amoral science.

How do you define evil with science greenie?

If it is destructive forces you are so worried about, then you should be quite opposed to socialist governments as socialist governments murdered tens of millions of their own 'citizens' in the 20th century, and continue to do so today. Evidence is quite clear.
You seem quite selective in how you define evil.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
"Modern progressive college students have become so militant they're frightening their own like-minded professors,"
""I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to 'offensive' texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain," he says. "That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either."

The shift in attitudes doesn't just menace professors, but also undermines the education of students, Schlosser says. Students are no longer learning to challenge their own beliefs, and in fact are learning to lash out at those who penetrate their ideological bubble."
"If that conception isn't somehow moderated, he says, the final result is inevitable: a surge of "tremendous" conservative electoral backlash."
dailycaller.com
Not worried about standards, only backlash.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
Ren82
Exactly the opposite happened


Do you have any support for your flawed hypothesis Ren?

Here - from a quick google search.

The correlation is clear and strong: the more secular tend to fare better than the more religious on a vast host of measures, including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, etc.


From - https://www.psych...ocieties

Of course - just looking around the world will tell you - that just because a society is more secular (scandanavian countries) - they do not devolve into lawless chaos.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2015
You seem quite selective in how you define evil.


No Ryggy - not like you - not an apologist for evil groups like Isis. Evil is evil - whether talking about Hitler, Mao, Pot, Isis, Slavery,or King Leoplod of Belgium. I am not selective in how I define evil. I also think that lying to children about how they will go to hell if they don't worship the deity of choice appropriately is evil. And yes Ryggy - I am opposed to socialist governments like those of Stalin and Mao - who murdered untold millions of people. I am also opposed to the Catholic church (and many many other religious organizations) - that have destroyed the lives of countless individuals with evil acts such as child molestation (covered up by the highest ranks of the organization).
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2015
Exactly the opposite happened and you can check the statistics... replaced with secularism and humanism (lutsiferian religion), lawlessness in society grew exponentially because people were "liberated" from christian morality
Well of course these are lies which can't be substantiated.

And one statistic proves them lies. According to the justice dept the vast majority of people incarcerated in the US are religious and were raised in religious families.

This shows that at the very least, religion is ineffective in keeping people honest and decent; and at the most, it encourages victimization of unbelievers and those outside the group.

Religion strengthens the 'us vs them' mindset which is the tribal dynamic; internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity. It was invented to exploit this dynamic against enemies IT designates.

Today we call this criminal and incarcerate those who do this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
I am also opposed to the Catholic church (and many many other religious organizations) - that have destroyed the lives of countless individuals


And give no credit to the evidence that those religious organizations that have saved the lives of millions.

Atheist socialists are evil and not perfect but you expect those with religious faith to be perfect.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2015
I am also opposed to the Catholic church


"Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; "
"The scientist credited with proposing in the 1930s what came to be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest."
" On the Church's view, science and faith are complementary to each other and mutually beneficial. "
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
"As Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray notes, "Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don't see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I've never seen a conflict." [5] In order to understand the complementarity of faith and science, indeed faith and reason more broadly, it is important to consider their relationship in greater depth.

A sign hung in Albert Einstein's office at Princeton University that read: "Not everything that can be counted counts; not everything that counts can be counted.""

" By contrast, defenders of abortion and lethal embryonic stem cell research hold that it is permissible to kill some human beings in order to benefit others. "
http://www.cathol...ion.org/
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Atheist socialists are evil and not perfect but you expect those with religious faith to be perfect.


Never said that. Stop lying. What I hope is that rationalism will win out over superstition - and the curve will continue away from religion - and towards a secular world. I also expect an honest accounting of history - which you are clearly not capable of. Evil is evil Ryggy. I am sure you could find some good that ISIS has done somewhere. Does not mean you overlook the evil they are doing?? Sorry to confuse you with consistency Ryggy - must hurt the brain.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2015
Never said that.

You attack ALL religion and lump them ALL into the 'evil' bin.

What I hope

Why when religion has done so many good things?
What does 'hope' have to do with science?

I also expect an honest accounting of history -

I just provided one yet you will still attack Catholics.

overlook the evil they are doing?

It's your 'liberal', secular buddies that are ignoring the evil of ISIS because they are cowards. Like you, they have been attacking Christians, because they won't fight back, but, be critical of Islam, they will kill you.
Where are the courageous secular atheists standing up against ISIS?
Thirteenth Doctor
4.3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
The same people who say "you cannot know the mind of god" do a pretty good job of telling us exactly what he did


Really? God wrote a book about people we know never existed and events we know never happened.


I think you might have misunderstood my meaning in that sentence. When I said pretty good job, I was being really sarcastic. I thought that much was clear lol.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
You attack ALL religion and lump them ALL into the 'evil' bin.


Correct. How is that the same as saying that I expect those with religious faith to be perfect? these are two very different positions - not in any way the same. Stop lying - idiot. I don't expect any one to be perfect. I attack religion - and I stand by my attack of religion. Our world will be better off when we outgrow the childish need to believe in a sky fairy. See the scientific article I referenced above -about more secular societies being better off. Do you support the behavior of Isis Ryggy? Do you support the pedophilia of the Roman Catholic church? (defended by the highest levels of the church? ALL religious people have something in common Ryggy. A superstitious framework for thinking. I oppose superstition Ryggy - and stand by my condemnation of superstitious thinking.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2015
What does 'hope' have to do with science?


Hope has nothing to do with the process of science. I hope - that we will move away from superstitious thinking - towards a more rational, and secular society. Never said that hope has anything to do with science. Learn to think Ryggy. Stop being lazy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
Never said that hope has anything to do with science


How can you hope if hope has no basis in science?
Were you lying before about not doing or being if it is not based on science?

more secular societies being better off.


Faith is an individual trait, not a societal one.

"Among the most recent findings in this area: People who attend religious services at least once a week are less likely to die in a given period of time than people who attend services less often. These results -- published in the August 1999 issue of the Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences -- came out of a study examining almost 4,000 North Carolina residents aged 64 to 101."
http://www.webmd....e-longer
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
Do you support the pedophilia of the Roman Catholic church?


Do you support pedophilia among Muslims?
The 'secular' Brits do don't they?

So we have priests who violate their oath and there is a effort by the organization to cover it up.

There are physicians, lawyers, politicians, ....who violate their oaths and are covered up by the AMA, the ABA, ....

So greenie must support the abolition of ALL human social organiazations as all humans fail to live up to standards.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
"Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world may still know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. "
"For the first time in my life, I was able to understand the words, "The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory." "
"My mind still clung to the image of my wife. A thought crossed my mind: I didn't even know if she were still alive, and I had no means of finding out (during all my prison life there was no outgoing or incoming mail); but at that moment it ceased to matter. There was no need to know; nothing could touch the strength of my love, and the thoughts of my beloved."
http://www.rjgeib...nkl.html
Viktor Frankl
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
Frankl's observation above and Carl Sagan's characters in Contact relate to what Max Planck said about science:

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

I note that greenie keeps talking about 'society' or mankind, not individual human beings (typical for socialists).
How can science study a human soul?
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2015
Do you support pedophilia among Muslims?

Of course not.
The 'secular' Brits do don't they?

I don't know - you will have to ask them wont you?
So greenie must support the abolitionof ALL human social organizations as all humans fail to live up to standards.

Ryggy is on a roll today. I have been very clear Ryggy -you just have a reading comprehension problem. I would support a consistent and honest reckoning of history. Call evil evil. How hard is that for you to understand? I also hope for the end of religion - as I see clearly that our world will be much better off when we lose our need to believe in an imaginary sky fairy. Nothing to hard about that - unless your name is Ryggy I guess. Yes - I oppose religious institutions because the do things like tell children that they will go to hell if they don't worship an imaginary deity - and they promote ignorance like the teaching of intelligent design in our schools. The problems are systemic.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2015

How can science study a human soul?


Maybe you can go catch one - and bring it in for study. Let us know how it goes....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2015
I would support a consistent and honest reckoning of history.


Except those parts where religion invented science and saved Western civilization.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
I don't know - you will have to ask them wont you?


They must as they have allowed Muslims to rape girls for years.

"Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness"
http://www.forbes...ectness/
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
Except those parts where religion invented science and saved Western civilization.


No one invented science - dummy - science is a process - it belongs to no one.

Do you not realize that many civilizations - prior to your precious 'western civilization' had very advanced scientists? My basic understanding of history tells me that the chinese, arabic, greek, mesopotamian, S. American, Egyptian, etc. etc. cultures had some pretty advanced science going on. Boy you love to show your limited knowledge of the world - and your western bias.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
"Do you have any support for your flawed hypothesis Ren?"

In do not know in which parallel universe you are living but you can read the statistics. Noting more.


@ren

You made the claim, it's up to you to provide the data. You wont because the statistics don't show any correlation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
cultures had some pretty advanced science going on.


So why didn't the Enlightenment happen in those cultures?

prior to your precious 'western civilization'


You claimed to be a Brit. It's YOUR history. What don't you like about the history of English speaking peoples?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
"The Invention of Science: Why History of Science Matters for the Classroom introduces readers to some of the developments that were key for the emergence of Eurocentric science, the discipline we call science"
http://www.spring...60915253

" Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. "
"modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden."
http://blogs.natu...xscience
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2015
"In the years immediately after the fall of Rome, there was a period of readjustment, where medieval society was more concerned with keeping peace and empire building than nurturing centers of learning. Despite this, Charlemagne tried to establish a scholastic tradition, and the later Middle Ages saw advancements in the philosophy of science and the refinement of the scientific method. Far from being a backwards medieval society, overshadowed by Islam and Byzantium, scholasticism acted as a nucleus for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment."
https://explorabl...-science
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
Ren82
In do not know in which parallel universe you are living but you can read the statistics. Noting more.


I gave you statistics Ren - as did Otto. You did not provide any support for your conjecture.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
So why didn't the Enlightenment happen in those cultures?


Just duck the point right Ryggy? You made the claim that religion invented science. You showed how you have no understanding of history. Science has been going on for 10's of thousands of years. Stop moving the goal post.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
You made the claim that religion invented science


Yes, St. Thoma Aquinas, a Catholic, was instrumental in the invention of modern science.

Science has been going on for 10's of thousands of years.


No, it has not.
Engineering has been going on for tens of thousands of years.

Stop moving the goal post.


Like a typical socialist, you keep redefining terms.
Science demands precise definition of terms for effective communication.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2015
Atheist socialists are evil and not perfect but you expect those with religious faith to be perfect
Ryggy the assumed catholic will extend this bigotry to all those religionists who don't believe that Mary is the mother of GOD or that the Eucharist is not the actual dripping blood and body of Christ. In the flesh.
I gave you statistics Ren - as did Otto. You did not provide any support for your conjecture
Theyre not conjecture, they're lies, presented as fact by people who continuously ignore and suppress the evidence which proves them as such.
So why didn't the Enlightenment happen in those cultures?
Fundamentalism defeated it in these cultures, returning the people to medieval ignorance and feudalism. Many collapsed as a result.

This is a warning to all who think that the religious should ever be allowed the chance to do this HERE.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2015
aquinas was instrumental in the invention of science
Ha no, he did acknowledge reason but the church condemned him for it.

"In 1277 Étienne Tempier, the same bishop of Paris... One aim of this condemnation was to clarify that God's absolute power transcended any principles of logic that Aristotle or Averroes might place on it.[61] More specifically, it contained a list of 219 propositions that the bishop had determined to violate the omnipotence of God, and included in this list were twenty Thomistic propositions. Their inclusion badly damaged Thomas's reputation for many years."

-The thing ryggy always fails to admit is that EVERYONE back then had to be religious. ANYONE who was educated and allowed to have a voice, was religious. The irreligious were persecuted, banished, executed.

The church at that time was faced with the need to develop war tech to defend itself. Science was forced upon them of necessity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2015
engineering has been going on for 10s of 1000s of years
You know, it amazes me how religionists can lurk around a science site for years and still not develop an understanding of what science is.

Science ryggy, is the study of cause and effect. That's it. We interact with the world, we observe how things work, and we use this knowledge to improve our chances of survival.

'Science' is an intrinsic aspect of life. Engineering is only the application of science.

RELIGION is a mechanism whereby people can be convinced to suspend their reliance on science, on their appreciation of cause and effect.

The dog doesn't consider that their is no obvious benefit to jumping through a hoop apart from the faith he has in the human who will give him a biscuit for doing so. After a while he will do it without the biscuit. Again on faith.

Religionists believe in an afterlife because they get biscuits for expressing that belief. So did aquinas. So do you.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
Me -
Science has been going on for 10's of thousands of years.

Ryggy
No, it has not.


Well - as you correctly point out - science does depend on clear definition of terms. Here is as good a definition of science as any.

the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms


From - http://www.thefre.../science

So it is your contention that this activity as defined above - was invented by religion (your words.) When of course the reality is that many cultures - for 10's of thousands of years - have been practicing science. I am not a historian - but just for example - i know that the Greeks (among many other older cultures) studied the planets and the stars. You have probably never heard of the Antikythera Mechanism. Look it up Ryggy.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
"For decades, Cuba enjoyed the generous moral and financial support of the Soviet Union. But when communism collapsed in Moscow in 1989, Cubans found themselves suddenly on their own to confront the deficiencies of their system, as well as the atheistic ideology that upheld it."
"Some speculate that the party's gradual loosening of its iron control of church activities may come from the realization that new values are needed to inject hope into Cuban culture. Fidel Castro ignited a media firestorm in 2010 when he quipped: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore.""
"Cuban youth seem disillusioned with the dearth of values in Cuban society, a worrisome phenomenon perceived by both religious and political leaders. "
{The result of atheist secularism.}

http://www.breitb...-poland/

Antikythera Mechanism

Looks like a great piece of engineering.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
Looks like a great piece of engineering.


And is evidence of the Greek study of the cosmos - that would be called science.

Cuban religious leaders are concerned by the lack of religiosity of the youth of Cuba. Who'd of thunk that one Ryggy - I am sure you are just shocked - no one would have predicted that outcome (sarcasm).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
Greek study of the cosmos


The Greeks began Western Civilization.

Cuban religious leaders


It's Cuban political leaders that are worried.

And that has been the pattern for thousands of years, as the Jews documented.
Follow God, things go well, don't follow God, the people suffer.
Socialists destroy capitalism, things go bad and they have to dust off capitalism to keep from collapsing.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
Do you sympathize to the idea that if you wait enough time in a bowl of chicken soup placed in a sterile environment will emerge living organisms?
@viko
first off: why would Mike wait in a bowl of chicken soup?
2- IF mike is in a bowl of soup in a sterile environment, then there WILL emerge living organisms from the soup transferred from Mike's skin as well as possible transfer from other sources
that is Biology, forensics as well as logic because Mike will contain any billions of organisms (internal and external) in said environment so the probability that transfer will occur is 100%

It seems that you do not live in the real but in some isolated fantasy world.
@ren
WTF?
this coming from a guy who proselytizes about an invisible non-detectable sky faerie who controls all and lies about the history of the universe while deceiving the masses through intentional misrepresentation and false physics?

really?
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
The Greeks began Western Civilization.


But your quote is that "religion" invented science. I just picked the Greeks, because I am aware of their science in terms of cosmology. I guess then it is your position that the Chinese did not know any science either - man you are incredibly stupid. Here is a quote for you Ryggy. You should think on your limited knowledge of the world - and your staggering stupidity and bias.

Ancient Han Chinese scientists, engineers, astronomers, philosophers, mathematicians and medical doctors made significant innovations, scientific discoveries and technological advances in science, technology, engineering, medicine, military technology, mathematics, geology and astronomy.


From - http://en.wikiped...in_China
Thirteenth Doctor
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
Follow God, things go well,


Like war, murder, infanticide, genocide, rape, pillaging, subjugation, slavery. Seemed to go well for the Jews only. My guess is that the Jews used god to justify their hostile takeover of territory with the excuse that God gave them the land. God also sanctioned the slaughter of every man woman and child of the places they pillaged.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
Let's look at things from another perspective - that of real, physical, repeatable observations as required by the scientific process:
@davidthe sheep
ok, lets
start here in the not only repeated experimental evidence, but validated experimental evidence through multiple experiments and secondary parties

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

http://extavourlab.com/

http://www.eecis....arth.pdf

http://archives.a...c_id=443

creationist dogma is NOT science, it is religion using political arguments to try and force delusional non-science based belief systems down the throats of those who lack scientific literacy

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
I will put it this way, without the Catholic Church, would modern science exist today?
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
I will put it this way, without the Catholic Church, would modern science exist today?


Absolutely yes - it would very possibly be further ahead than it is.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2015
Yes, while we were bogged down by the Church and the Dark Ages, Muslims were inventing mathematics and medicine.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
I agree, it is not correct to say that religion invented science.

It is accurate to say the Catholic Church has aided and abetted science for over 1000 years.

Absolutely yes - it would very possibly be further ahead than it is.


How? By whom? When?
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
How? By whom? When?


Well - obviously the whole thing is speculative - but what if the west had not embarked on the crusades - perhaps much of the knowledge of the Arabic cultures would not have been lost. While very much a part of the development of knowledge during the renaisance - the church was also very oppressive - keeping knowledge and education very exclusive to the elite priest class. That is why Luther nailed his letter to the door right? To declare that regular folks should be allowed to read the holy text - right?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
hat if the west had not embarked on the crusades

It wasn't lost.

"Arabic cultures" That's amusing. They were MUSLIMS. A very oppressive religion even in its day.
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
Soggyring2, completely clueless about history.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
"The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 10, 732 between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and a massive invading Islamic army led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman, near the city of Tours, France. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. This battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from the Iberian peninsula, and is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it halted the Islamic conquests, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith in Europe, during a period in which Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires. "
"Later scholars, such as Edward Gibbon, would contend that had Martel fallen, the Moors would have easily conquered a divided Europe."
{Which is happening now.}
http://www.thelat...urs.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
"Santosuosso makes a compelling case that these defeats of invading Muslim Armies, were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monastaries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. He also makes a compelling case that while Tours was unquestionably of macrohistorical importance, the later battles were at least equally so. Both invading forces defeated in those campaigns had come to set up permanent outposts for expansion, and there can be no doubt that these three defeats combined broke the back of European expansion by Islam while the Caliphate was still united. "
http://www.thelat...urs.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
"The Crusades (and the accompanying Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula) changed all of this. For two hundred years, Christian soldiers voyaged eastward and into Spain, ostensibly attempting to free these areas from Muslim control, but in reality, opening Christian Europe to Muslim works. Or more precisely, they reacquainted Europe with her own culture heritage. After Muslim preservation, the works described above were translated from Arabic into the dominant European language, now Latin. Literally thousands of manuscripts appeared, quite an impressive number before the printing press. Abelard of Bath (b.1075), for example, completed translations of al-Khwarizmi and Euclid from Arabic into Latin. Gerard of Cremona (b.1114) translated dozens of works, including Ptolemy's Algamest. And Averroes (b. 1126) remains an important figure in the history of Western thought for his popularization of Aristotle. "
http://www.crisis...crusades
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
Ryggy -
Arabic cultures" That's amusing. They were MUSLIMS. A very oppressive religion even in its day


It is so weird trying to have an exchange with you. You finally admit that your comment about religion inventing science is stupid - and you turn right back around and say the next equally stupid thing. Do you know anything about the brutality of the Christians? Ever heard of the Inquisition?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2015
. Do you know anything about the brutality of the Christians?


Muslims are the religion of peace, though?

Brutality compared to ...what Rome? Secular Rome crucified 6000 slaves who rebelled.

Or atheist Mao who murdered tens of millions.

"Maher also issued a general challenge to all liberals who vigorously police the words and actions of Jews, Christians and non-religious people — but who won't criticize Islam.

"If we're giving no quarter to intolerance," Maher asked, "shouldn't we be starting with the mutilators and the honor killers?""
http://www.thebla...uralism/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2015
"Some in the media, along with our President, have recently been accusing those who led the Crusades of being the worst mass murderers in history. Conservative estimates cite approximately 1.7 million who were killed in the Crusades over a period of 200 years. That would be 6,000 deaths a year. As for the Inquisition, a total of about 3,000 were judged and sentenced to death.

Hitler slaughtered over six million in six years. Communist regimes massacred almost 100 million since 1917. I cite these statistics, not to diminish the tragedy of anyone's death at the hands of misguided Christians, but merely to bring these exaggerated comments into proper focus. "
"Conservative estimates of the number killed by Islam's Jihadists reaches approximately 270 million."
"It has been conservatively estimated that some 70 million Christians have been martyred since the beginning of Christianity, with 45 million of these being in the 20th century. "
http://www.chattanoogan.com/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
""Lord, God of all men and women, in certain periods of history, Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our resolve to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. We ask this through Christ Our Lord."
(Prayer for Forgiveness, Day of Pardon, 12 March, II; ORE, 22 March 2000)"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
"Today, the most dangerous place on the planet to live is not Harlem or a Pakistan terrorist ghetto. It is in a mother's womb. It is a treacherous time in history to be an infant.

I feel that modern society has a lot of housekeeping to do before it proclaims itself to be the moral compass of history. So far 45,000,000 babies like the one above have died in North America since abortion was legalized in 1973.

In a way, it appears to me that the Catholic Church is making amends for the atrocities of the Inquisition. It is pretty well the only united and loud voice attempting to stop this holocaust of unborn babies. "
http://catholicbr...tion.php
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
"

"There never was such a thing as a Church-wide inquisition, a terrifying monolith comparable to the NKVD or the Gestapo. It is more accurate to think of inquisitions that operated extensively in some areas in a highly decentralized way, although they notionally acted under papal authority. Inquisitions were important at certain times and places but never existed in other areas."

"The main problem about speaking of 'the Inquisition' is that it suggests that religious repression of this sort was a Catholic prerogative. In fact, before the Enlightenment, virtually all religious traditions on occasion acted similarly when they had the power to do so..This indictment of religious savagery and intolerance applies to all the Protestant nations, even relatively liberal ones such as England and the Netherlands. Equally blameworthy would be Muslims, Hindus, and even Buddhists. "
http://catholicbr...tion.php
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
@rggy

You've dragged this thread way off topic, nothing unusual for you, so I might as well add to it.

The Catholic church has long accepted evolution, do you have a problem with that?

Pope Francis has urged toleration of gays( "who am I to judge"), criticized income inequality and judging by his past statements will soon release a sweeping call to combat AGW.

His he a socialist?
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
Ryggy -
.This indictment of religious savagery and intolerance applies to all the Protestant nations, even relatively liberal ones such as England and the Netherlands. Equally blameworthy would be Muslims, Hindus, and even Buddhists.


I would encourage Ryggy to read the quote that he himself has just pasted - but it really seems pointless. Compare this quote with what Otto said above about ALL religions being unaccptable. I have spent a week - arguing with Ryggy about my view that all religion needs to go in the dustbin of history. And then Ryggy posts that gem above - if only he could read it and understand what it says.....

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
The secular, atheist Inquisition:

"Aborted babies accounted for more than a quarter of all deaths in England and Wales in 2013, official figures reveal."
http://www.breitb...england/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
"For three centuries, philosophers and politicians have tried to organize society as if God did not exist. They sought to govern man according to the Enlightenment premises of secularism, relativism and autonomous individualism. The result has been not an increase, but a contraction of freedom and an increasing subordination of the individual to the interests of the state which is liberated from any law higher than itself. "
""On net balance, it is fair to say, the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was the institution in Western history that did the most to advance the cause of constitutional statecraft." "

http://www.acton....-freedom

Refusing to acknowledge the obvious demonstrates the true intent of evangelical atheists, socialist tyra
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
"One reason why relativism is a foundation of totalitarianism is "the effect of relativist theory in devaluing the individual, in denying all grounds for considering the human person worthy of respect. "

{Denying the individual is a constant theme on these boards when so many here claim their imposition tyranny is to save 'mankind' or 'society'. NOT individuals.}
"The supposed neutrality of the state entails in fact an aggressive promotion of that secular creed especially in the area of morals. School children cannot be told that premarital sex is morally wrong. They cannot be allowed to see the Ten Commandments on their classroom wall. But the secular religion requires that they be given condoms and instruction in how to use them. And they must be taught to be non-judgmental about the homosexual lifestyle and other manifestations of the new paganism. "
http://www.acton....-freedom
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
"the "worship of physical nature is glaringly evident in the chief political movement of the day– environmentalism." In contrast, "[i]t was the religion and metaphysics of the Bible that overthrew the pagan state, then was subjected to a neopagan onslaught at the era of the Renaissance, redoubled by the French Enlightenment and its offspring. "
http://www.acton....-freedom

Worship of physical nature...scientism, AGWism,

And of course the 'neo-pagans' here will squeal they don't worship science....
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
There never was such a thing as a Church-wide inquisition

"The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud-Amaury, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, thirty years later was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."—"Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own." The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[59] What remained of the city was razed by fire."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
The inquisition were more like Einsatzgruppen. The church had its own waffen SS.

"The Library of Constantinople was destroyed. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, even nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries, and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors who had sworn to fight in service of Christendom without question."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
The result has been not an increase, but a contraction of freedom and an increasing subordination of the individual to the interests of the state which is liberated from any law
So ryggy prefers feudalism to democracy? Feudalism was the abandonment of communal farming. Instead, the people were forced to farm their own little plots and give much of what they grew to church and state. This kept them on the verge of starvation which limited family size.

Such draconian measures are necessary in religion-dominated cultures which would otherwise grow past the point of stability, leading to revolution against whoever was in power at the time.

The only way to end this viciousness was to end the hold that religion had on the people. The French Revolution was an example of the amount of effort needed to do this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
The secular, atheist Inquisition:

"Aborted babies accounted for more than a quarter of all deaths in England and Wales in 2013, official figures reveal."
Well what do you expect ryggy? Elsewhere, religion-fueled growth is fueling wars and revolutions. The Mediterranean is full of floating bodies. Free market entrepreneurs are locking 1000s into ships hulls and then scuttling them at sea.

This is the result of religion-fueled growth. "Give no thought for the morrow... Children are a gift unto god" -they ALL say.

If people were being taught instead to live within their means, and women weren't being forced to make babies until it killed them, then there would be room enough for everybody.

The ONE BILLION abortions since the 1950s are a response to religions designed to outgrow and overrun their enemies. Otherwise 1000s of boats full of the devout would be littering ocean floors around the globe.

Without religion, prenatal infanticide would be rare.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Ryggy
The secular, atheist Inquisition:


So in your world - religious women do not have abortions - right Ryggy? Except that the data shows the exact opposite - and the majority of women who have abortions are religious.

https://www.guttm...ents.pdf

See the chart on page 6. Approx 72% of abortions in America - were to women who reported having religious affiliation.

Hard to argue with data - right Ryggy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015


Brutality compared to ...what Rome? Secular Rome crucified 6000 slaves who rebelled.

Or atheist Mao who murdered tens of millions
The only way you religionists can maintain this farce is by ignoring facts. Protestant/catholic wars and pogroms dominated Europe and the colonies. The 30 years war killed off 1/3 of the German population.

Elsewhere 95% of indigenes died as a result of the conquistador invasions. And yes disease was spread purposefully; biowarfare had been used throughout history.

More recently the Taipei rebellion killed 20 million. This was started by southern baptist missionaries.

And Joseph kony is murdering whole tribes and conscripting child soldiers in the name of Jesus Christ.

Again, Communism is a pseudoreligion replete with saviors, a chosen people, and a promised land devoid of the middle class. The STRUCTURE is indistinguishable from Catholicism which is also a one-party dictatorship.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
OMG Ryggy and Otto - you gotta read this article. Let me share a quote -
When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies.


http://www.thegua...religion
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015


""In all truth, Britain's clean-shaven atheists aren't serious about children's rights, or they'd be launching venomous attacks against the United Nations, in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."[3]"
http://www.conser...e_note-2

"When the Pope tells bishops in Kenya - the global centre of this crisis - that they should defend traditional family values "at all costs" against agencies offering safe abortions, or when he travels to Brazil to denounce its contraceptive programme, he condemns women to death. "
http://www.thegua...religion

What is really causing the problem in poor countries is the poverty created by socialist govts.
The 'liberal' 'solution' to poverty is NOT to do what has been proven to increase wealth and prosperity, free markets. The 'liberal' solution is more state control and to attack all who speak this truth.
Multivac jr_
4 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
What is the ultimate purpose of trolling science articles with religious ideology?

It's not like the God the trolls claim to be whorshipping [sic] wouldn't know "the truth" (by definition!) so if they assume that God exists then how do they justify supporting their beliefs with lies about or misrepresentations of history, evolution, and even the very same religion that supposedly inspires their faith?

Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: "My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly." This stranger is a theologian.
(Denis Diderot)

Do they think God is going to give them a pat on the back in Heaven for trying to blow out everyone else's "candle?" And weren't our 'candles' given to us by God?
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
greenonions,
When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies.


Citation?

Do a simple search. Asia is extremely high in abortions. So is Cuba. China and India are so high that you can't even get comparison figures.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
I will put it this way, without the Catholic Church, would modern science exist today?
@rygg
it likely would have flourished far earlier, considering the history of the catholic church to burn scientists as heretics
in fact, given the influences of ALL RELIGIONS on science, science would have been far more advanced had not the church/religion interfered and started killing off opposition to their "good book" and the spread of their "loving god and forgiving religious practices"
( heavy satire, hyperbole and sarcasm used)

Muslims were inventing mathematics and medicine
@gkam
until one muslim seeking power over others and using the doctrine of the religion decided that all math was the work of the devil...

religion is all about power and control
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
Dogbert -
Citation?


Already provided - when you see something that starts with http:// - that normally means it is a url (uniform resource locator). If you click on it - it will take you to a web page.....

Once again - http://www.thegua...religion

Multivac jr_
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015

Worship of physical nature...scientism, AGWism,

And of course the 'neo-pagans' here will squeal they don't worship science....


Well that is completely asinine, though I do appreciate it whenever someone takes the time to project lunacy like that.

Responses like yours are even more effective than logic at pushing the undecided/skeptical away from these tired old transcendental pyramid-schemes that have kept people wandering around in the dark for far too long.

That's because it's one thing to have a logically-sound (and valid!) counter-argument to present against a bizarre claim, but it's something else entirely to undermine one's own position via patently-absurd claims since such need no counter-arguments to justify dismissing them.

Or in other words, your pro-religion arguments are so lacking in substance that they're self-debunking and fall apart all by themselves, without the need for anyone else to engage them in a debate. It's a real time-saver; thanks!
Multivac jr_
4 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
After skimming back over this thread, I have a question for ryggesogn2: Have you ever articulated a thought that was your own, and not merely a quote or a re-phrasing of of a quote?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
OMG Ryggy and Otto - you gotta read this article. Let me share a quote -
When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies.


http://www.thegua...religion


What a news flash!
People who believe in God sin.
The atheist solution then is to abolish God, abolish sin. Abolish prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, .... all moral standards as because atheists need no standards to live by.
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
greenonions,
Citation?


Already provided - when you see something that starts with http:// - that normally means it is a url (uniform resource locator). If you click on it - it will take you to a web page.....

Once again - http://www.thegua...religion


Your citation merely makes the same statement you made without facts. China and India are not in the comparison. Nor are most of the countries with very high abortion rates.

Your statement that "When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies." is simply not true. Providing a link to someone else who makes the same misstatements compounds the error.

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
Well that is completely asinine,

The squeal begins.

What is the ultimate purpose of trolling science articles with religious ideology?

Ask the atheists who keep attacking Judeo-Christian religion on science sites.
The don't say much about Muslim atrocities or care to discuss scientism.
So it's not 'religious ideology' in general that is attacked, it is primarily the Christian religion.

Multivac jr_
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
Well that is completely asinine,

The squeal begins.

What is the ultimate purpose of trolling science articles with religious ideology?

Ask the atheists who keep attacking Judeo-Christian religion on science sites.
The don't say much about Muslim atrocities or care to discuss scientism.
So it's not 'religious ideology' in general that is attacked, it is primarily the Christian religion.


So in other words, you have no cogent arguments.
Multivac jr_
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015

Your statement that "When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies." is simply not true.


One fact that can't be disputed is that if you assume an omniscient Creator exists then it follows that said Creator must be guilty of terminating more pregnancies than any individual human, group of humans, or political ideology adopted by humans ever has (or will).

Why, God? Why??

Or... is God not omniscient? "Free will" is not the answer since there's nothing willful about a miscarriage.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
ryggesogn2 claims
What is the ultimate purpose of trolling science articles with religious ideology?
Ask the atheists who keep attacking Judeo-Christian religion on science sites
ryggesogn2 forgets that Science= "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge" whereas religion has NO discipline as well as the obvious fact for most people it is completely untestable. It is however littered with philosophy as a collection of borrowings from many cultures, ie a Hodge podge !

Eg. Jesus, maybe a nice guy but, not a god - stated "do unto others", the so called golden rule, also a nice idea but many cultures considered this long before but, sad it wasn't in old testament...

ryggesogn2 claims
The don't say much about Muslim atrocities or care to discuss scientism.
So it's not 'religious ideology' in general that is attacked, it is primarily the Christian religion
Arbitrary belief not backed by evidence is doubtful & especially where it claims immortality
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Dogbert
Your citation merely makes the same statement you made without facts


Except that the article provided a source for the assertions - that could be checked very easily. I did a google search on 'abortion study published in the lancet' - and this was the first hit - which gives you all the facts you want. http://www.thelan...abstract

Monbiot explains the reasoning behind his conclusions. Monbiot also quotes the Pope - who laments that the drop in abortion rates between 1995 and 2003 -coincides with the "globalised secular culture". I was refuting Ryggy's assertion that abortion is "the secular atheist inquisition". I think the references provided do a bang up job of showing Ryggy up for the clueless troll that he is.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Ryggy
What a news flash!


The one that your assertion that abortion is "the secular atheist inquisition" - shows you up for being a clueless troll.

Ryggy
So it's not 'religious ideology' in general that is attacked, it is primarily the Christian religion


Maybe you could have someone with some reading comprehension skills read the comments for you. Look carefully at Otto's comments. Otto is VERY specific about attacking 'religionist' cultures. No favoritism at all there Ryggy - NONE. I have specifically called out the Catholic church - but have also talked extensively about ISIS - and have no problem in recognizing that in today's world - militant Islam is by far the biggest evil. But I am an equal opportunity - religion basher. Just as you are an atheist basher.
richard_dress
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
:Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron. There is nothing scientific about a collective belief.

"A majority of scientists believe ... such and such" is what the author meant to say.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
richard_dress claims
:Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron. There is nothing scientific about a collective belief
Surely NOT about belief, its about "balance of probabilities" & your odd wording type approach might not be helpful to others trying to understand Science, can you clarify please as we don't want to label you as an antiscience denier - don't know either way as not clear, this is first comment from you I've seen ?

richard_dress suggests
"A majority of scientists believe ... such and such" is what the author meant to say
Disagree, to be consistent with the progress of Science overall - which is not about beliefs suggesting they can arise from anything & not the scientific method, that the more appropriate word is 'accept'

ie. "A majority of scientists accept .." etc

Eg. We all accept items fall but, what do we believe; a force either Einsteinian or entropic in nature & thus accept theory is well correlated with experimental observations ?
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
greenonions,
Your citation merely makes the same statement you made without facts


Except that the article provided a source for the assertions - that could be checked very easily. I did a google search on 'abortion study published in the lancet' - and this was the first hit - which gives you all the facts you want. http://www.thelan...abstract


The link does not provide information in support of your assertion that "When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies.".

The abstract does not even speak to the countries which are highest in abortions such as China, India, Cuba, etc.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
greenonions, cont.
Here is the content of the abstract:
An estimated 42 million abortions were induced in 2003, compared with 46 million in 1995. The induced abortion rate in 2003 was 29 per 1000 women aged 15–44 years, down from 35 in 1995. Abortion rates were lowest in western Europe (12 per 1000 women). Rates were 17 per 1000 women in northern Europe, 18 per 1000 women in southern Europe, and 21 per 1000 women in northern America (USA and Canada). In 2003, 48% of all abortions worldwide were unsafe, and more than 97% of all unsafe abortions were in developing countries. There were 31 abortions for every 100 livebirths worldwide in 2003, and this ratio was highest in eastern Europe (105 for every 100 livebirths).


Asia, China, India, Africa, Cuba, etc. were not even mentioned.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
dogbert
The link does not provide information in support of your assertion that "When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies.".


This is not my assertion. This is a direct quote from Monbiot's article. After the quoted section - there is a paragraph long explanation for how the conclusion was arrived at. It certainly does support the assertion. I note that you have done nothing in terms of providing counter data - just personal assertions.
Multivac jr_
3.4 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
Asia, China, India, Africa, Cuba, etc. were not even mentioned.


How about God? He deserves the most blame (by far!) for killin' more "babies" AND already-born children than any mortal human or human-created institution ever has (or ever will, since God has shown no sign of stopping the carnage).
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
Well that is completely asinine,

The squeal begins.

What is the ultimate purpose of trolling science articles with religious ideology?

Ask the atheists who keep attacking Judeo-Christian religion on science sites.
The don't say much about Muslim atrocities or care to discuss scientism.
So it's not 'religious ideology' in general that is attacked, it is primarily the Christian religion.


So in other words, you have no cogent arguments.


Review the posts and you will find that 'vietvet' a 'liberal' atheist begins the religious trolling in the FIRST comment.
Ask the 'liberal' atheists why they are trolling science articles for their religious ideology.

I suspect they do so because they still have no answer to the question of what is life. What is the measurable physical difference between a living thing and that same living thing one second after it dies.
Multivac jr_
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015

Review the posts and you will find that 'vietvet' a 'liberal' atheist begins the religious trolling in the FIRST comment.
Ask the 'liberal' atheists why they are trolling science articles for their religious ideology.


It's not trolling if it's an accurate prediction of future events based on empirical observation of similar events in the past. Which it was.
Multivac jr_
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
I suspect they do so because they still have no answer to the question of what is life.


Maybe you could enlighten the world, then. So... What is "life?"

What is the measurable physical difference between a living thing and that same living thing one second after it dies.


Hmm, my guess would be that it's dead.

If you want a more detailed/substantive answer, you'll have to define what you mean by "death."
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015




Ask the 'liberal' atheists why they are trolling science articles for their religious ideology.

Atheists, whether liberal or conservative are free from religious ideology. We don't think there is a god, it's that simple.

dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
greenonions,
The link does not provide information in support of your assertion that "When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies.".


This is not my assertion. This is a direct quote from Monbiot's article. After the quoted section - there is a paragraph long explanation for how the conclusion was arrived at. It certainly does support the assertion.


When you quote it and assert that it is true, it becomes your assertion. I copied the paragraph from your link. It made the same assertion you did while plainly not including the areas of the world with the most abortions and the least religion.

My point remains that your assertion is plainly not true and you have no data to show that it is true.
Multivac jr_
4 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015

When you quote it and assert that it is true, it becomes your assertion. I copied the paragraph from your link. It made the same assertion you did while plainly not including the areas of the world with the most abortions and the least religion.

My point remains that your assertion is plainly not true and you have no data to show that it is true.


You sure pick the weirdest points to focus on, as if playing rhetorical 'gotcha!' about statistics related to a tangential digression of a discussion means a damned thing.
verkle
Jun 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Dogbert
When you quote it and assert that it is true, it becomes your assertion.


I disagree - but what ever. The point is that Ryggy claimed that abortion is the atheist secularist inquisition. I provided a link to an article by Monbiot - that directly refuted such an absurd suggestion. IF - abortion was the atheist, secularist equivalent of the inquisition - then there would of course be a correlation between the level of atheism in a society, and the level of abortions. This is patently false - and I supplied links to 2 sources that support the understanding that there is NOT a correlation between abortions, and secularism. Here are the references again.

https://www.guttm...ents.pdf
http://www.thegua...religion

Again - if you read Monbiot's article - you will see that he defends his assertion with data.

Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
The article copies the beginning of the Bible "In the Beginning...." but then immediately makes claims that cannot be substantiated, "...there were simple chemicals", "they became amino acids", "they became proteins", "they became cells", "they became plans and animals".

This is bogus science. No proof. No reproduction. No verification. Just wild thinking by people who exalt themselves over others and over God.



@verkle

"who exalt themselves over others and over God."

That is your problem right there. You have deep religious convictions that conflict with scientific evidence. You wave away evolution, calling it a failed science, yet you only offer faith in your bible, not once have you offered ANY science to refute evolution.

https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=
ScholarAbout 4,580,000 results (0.03 sec

Notice how much evidence for evolution has been published in peer reviewed journals?

Cont.

dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
greenonions,
I supplied links to 2 sources that support the understanding that there is NOT a correlation between abortions, and secularism.


You did not. You provided links to support your assertion that "When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies."

The links you provided to support your assertion that abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies did not include the societies which have the highest abortion rates, the atheist societies of Asia and China, for example.

A true scientist does not cherry pick data to support a political agenda. You know this and are being disingenuous in promoting the idea that religious and conservative societies have more abortions than atheist societies.

Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
Cont.
@verkle

You've demonstrated numerous times a lack of reading comprehension, at least when it involves biology. IMHO it's because you're threatened by evidence counter to your religious beliefs.

I recommend you carefully reread the article, it builds on previous work and what is known about LUCA.

I doubt you'll take my recommendation but even if you do I expect your usual hand waving, knee jerk response.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2015
So... What is "life?"


If science can't answer, how can I?

" In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?

The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. "
" So you end up getting this cycle. I'm not sure we've gotten very far down the road to understanding how that really happens."
http://www.pbs.or...gin.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
That is your problem right there. You have deep religious convictions that conflict with scientific evidence.


Projecting?

Most people of faith don't have much of a problem integrating science with their faith.

But the evangelical atheists, especially biologists, seem to be extraordinarily hostile to the Christian faith.
I suspect it stems from their feelings of inadequacy in explaining how inherit matter comes alive and reproduces itself.
Early natural philosophers accepted God as the Creator of life and proceeded to try and figure out how He did it.
Today, atheist scientists, are closed to such a possibility. Even the possibility that life could have been seeded by more advanced intelligences.
Too many scientists in all fields have blind spots, some conscious, some unconscious, which limit their research.
http://spotthebli...he-book/
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
Dogbert - I was responding to Ryggy - claiming that abortion is the secular/atheist equivelant of the inquisition. In other words - abortion is something special to secular/religious societies. I proved that point wrong. Here is the relevant paragraph from the Monbiot.
In largely secular western Europe, the average rate is 12 abortions per 1,000 women. In the more religious southern European countries, the average rate is 18. In the US, where church attendance is still higher, there are 23 abortions for every 1,000 women, the highest level in the rich world. In central and South America, where the Catholic church holds greatest sway, the rates are 25 and 33 respectively. In the very conservative societies of east Africa, it's 39. One abnormal outlier is the UK: our rate is six points higher than that of our western European neighbours.


It is not necessary to include data on every country in the world to prove this point - you obviously are logic challenged. cont.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
cont. - However - if you want to look at data that includes asia - look at this guttmacher data

http://www.guttma...099.html

Although the official rate in China is 26 abortions per 1,000 women, the true rate is probably between 30 and 35 per 1,000, close to the world average, when the undercount is considered.


The overall abortion rate in Asia (33 per 1,000) is similar to that in Latin America.


I hope you see how this all goes to demonstrate that accusing atheism/secularism for being responsible for some 'inquisition' is plain stupid - being that it can be demonstrated with data - that there is actually a correlation between high rates of religiosity, and high rates of abortion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
laiming that abortion is the secular/atheist equivelant of the inquisition.


Socialist, atheist (and racist) Margret Sanger started the Inquisition against the unborn by promoting the killing of babies.

It is the religious, not socialist atheists, who are opposed to these murders and work to prevent more.
brad_210000
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2015
The article copies the beginning of the Bible "In the Beginning...." but then immediately makes claims that cannot be substantiated, "...there were simple chemicals", "they became amino acids", "they became proteins", "they became cells", "they became plans and animals".

This is bogus science. No proof. No reproduction. No verification. Just wild thinking by people who exalt themselves over others and over God.



@verkle

Your proof of my prediction.

Your world view prevents you from weighing evidence, typical of religious fundamentalist.

If it isn't a 2,000 year old book of myths then it can't be true is your belief.

Sad.


What is sadder is you don't know how to spell "you are".
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
laiming that abortion is the secular/atheist equivelant of the inquisition.


Socialist, atheist (and racist) Margret Sanger started the Inquisition against the unborn by promoting the killing of babies.

It is the religious, not socialist atheists, who are opposed to these murders and work to prevent more.


@ryggy

Abortion was being practiced for thousands of years before Sanger. The Puritans learned from Native Americans what herbs to use to induce an abortion at the" quickening time", 13-25 weeks after conception.

"According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' "Pro-Life Activities" website, the Catholic Church has condemned procured abortion as immoral since the 1st century."
http://en.wikiped...abortion

Abortion didn't begin with Sanger. It began with women desperate to end a pregnancy for whatever reason.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
@brad
Nice catch. I do know how to spell "you're" and "you are". My negligence was in not proof reading before submitting.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
greenonions,
It is not necessary to include data on every country in the world to prove this point - you obviously are logic challenged.

In the US, where church attendance is still higher, there are 23 abortions for every 1,000 women

Although the official rate in China is 26 abortions per 1,000 women, the true rate is probably between 30 and 35 per 1,000, close to the world average, when the undercount is considered.

The overall abortion rate in Asia (33 per 1,000) is similar to that in Latin America.

...there is actually a correlation between high rates of religiosity, and high rates of abortion.


Again, your own data shows a much higher rate of abortion in atheist countries than in religious countries. Yet you continue to say the opposite.

Just saying something repeatedly which is not true does not magically make it true.

greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2015
Again, your own data shows a much higher rate of abortion in atheist countries than in religious countries.


No it does not.
In largely secular western Europe, the average rate is 12 abortions per 1,000 women. In the more religious southern European countries, the average rate is 18. In the US, where church attendance is still higher, there are 23 abortions for every 1,000 women, the highest level in the rich world. In central and South America, where the Catholic church holds greatest sway, the rates are 25 and 33 respectively. In the very conservative societies of east Africa, it's 39. One abnormal outlier is the UK: our rate is six points higher than that of our western European neighbours.


You are right - just saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

HOWEVER - the specific rates is not the point. The point is that Ryggy asserts that abortion is some how a secular/atheist inquisition. Not true. Religious countries practice abortion. Enough said...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
Abortion didn't begin with Sanger.


Socialist, atheist, racist Sanger was a cheerleader for abortion.

Why do socialist, atheist racists support and defend the murder of babies?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
The Catholic Church, and other religious groups, are pro life opposed to birth control and abortion, euthanasia, and support the concept that human beings should use their reason to control their animal instincts.

Atheist/socialists who claim to support reason yet encourage human beings to submit to their animal passions: drug use, no consequence sex, 'if it feels good, do it', no morals, no judgements, ....state sanctioned suicide, ...in other works, atheist/socialists promote death of individuals, humanity and the human species.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2015
Why do socialist, atheist racists support and defend the murder of babies?


My good friend is a devout Christian. She had an abortion. Why do devout Christians support the murder of babies?
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2015
atheist/socialists promote death of individuals, humanity and the human species.


The Catholic church deliberately covered up the systematic rape of children. http://time.com/4...over-up/

Why do religious people promote such evil behavior? I as an atheist would never condone such evil.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2015
Why do devout Christians support the murder of babies?


Who said she is a devout Christian?

I as an atheist would never condone such evil.


Other atheists do support and promote such evil.

Now you are judging doctrine of a society by the actions of its members.

When lawyers like the Clintons lie, cheat and steal and are not reprimanded the ABA, you you attack the ABA?
When EPA bureaucrats lie, cheat and steal, do you condemn the EPA?

Your 'devout' Christian friend will have to live with her decisions and face God. If she truly repents and asks to be forgiven for her sins, God's grace will forgive her her sins.
The same thing applies to Catholics who have tried to protect the Church by covering up its failures.

What high moral goals and standards to socialist/atheists set and strive to achieve?

Multivac jr_
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
It seems that framing these types of discussions (I use the term loosely) exclusively around "babies" (as a concept, not any specific babies) or how socialists and atheists are implicitly evil 'n' stuff is the intellectual limit of the anti-choice zealots' ability to parse this issue.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
Will greenie now attack the EPA?

"Scientists may have lied about the EPA's involvement in a recent study put out earlier this year claiming Obama administration regulations on carbon dioxide emissions will save thousands of lives every year."
http://dailycalle...-agenda/

If high priests of science lie about science to further an objective greenie supports, will his head explode?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
anti-choice


It is 'pro-murder'. Babies, before and after birth, are unique members of the human species and are alive. If it's murder for a mother to kill her baby after birth why is it not murder to kill it before birth?

Why do proponents of suicide call it 'euthanasia' and not killing? People take their pets to a vet to be euthanized (killed) because they don't want to care for them any more.

Why are 'liberals' afraid to use precise, accurate terms to promote their ideology?

Multivac jr_
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
[
Why are 'liberals' afraid to use precise, accurate terms to promote their ideology?


Why do you write the word liberal with scare quotes? Is it a bad thing to be one? I mean, wasn't Jesus a liberal?

If high priests of science lie about science to further an objective greenie supports, will his head explode?


Your density is impressive. I'm still trying to figure out if your ignorance is incidental or willful.

But anyway, how are these alleged lies you're alluding to exposed so that you can allude to them? By peer review, perhaps? You know, that profoundly-useful tool for keeping science as honest as possible and that is utterly lacking among the pious (who happily follow whatever unbased dictums they're given by the Alpha God Whisperer of their congregation).

And the link you posted in no way challenges any of the science. It's just more of that "gotcha!" political crap promoted by the many partisan pseudo-news sites shillin' for their benefactors.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
Why do you write the word liberal with scare quotes? Is it a bad thing to be one?


Because 'liberals' are not liberal.

100 years ago, socialists in the USA started calling themselves 'progressive' and launched many socialist policies in the US, like the 16th amendment.
When 'progressive' Hoover was running for re-election, FDR started calling himself a 'liberal' to differentiate his brand of socialism.
Not long ago, democrats were afraid of being called the 'L' word.

By peer review


You mean 'pal review'.

greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2015
Who said she is a devout Christian?


She does - do you cast the first stone Ryggy?

What high moral goals and standards to socialist/atheists set and strive to achieve?


Well - speaking for myself as an atheist (not a socialist). I try to honor the golden rule. I am endeavoring to leave the world a better place than I found it. I work hard. I endeavor to keep learning, and keep trying for as long as I live. Priorities in life - family, learning, exercise and health, dog, garden, motorcycle.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2015
I try to honor the golden rule.


So you say.

Yet you support a corrupt govt agency, the EPA, that follows the rule, 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.

" the EPA creates a fake e-mail account for its administrator to avoid scrutiny; it doesn't produce any of the fake e-mails even though they are required by law to do so; when specifically required by court order, the EPA seeks endless delays; and, when the delaying tactics prove fruitless, EPA fails to provide either the number or the type of e-mails required. "
http://www.breitb...thought/

do you cast the first stone Ryggy?

Nope. God will judge.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
Yet you support a corrupt govt agency, the EPA, that follows the rule, 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.


And you support a corrupt and evil organization - that endorses the rape of little children. I guess the point there is that we have to make our own beds -and we have to lie in them. As far as this site is concerned - you make statements that are provably false - "science was created by religion" - and in my process of wanting to leave the world a better place - i advocate for honesty, and the hope that we will continue moving in the direction of a rational, and secular society.

Nope. God will judge.


There is no evidence for your God - so your statement is meaningless - and you should expect push back when making such unsupportable statements.
Multivac jr_
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
I'm greatly encouraged by the fact that the decline of religion has been accelerating in terms of the number of believers, its political influence, and its cultural dominance (thereby proving the existence of cultural evolution, too).

Better late than never!
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
Dogbert - read the paragraph carefully.

In largely secular western Europe, the average rate is 12 abortions per 1,000 women. In the more religious southern European countries, the average rate is 18. In the US, where church attendance is still higher, there are 23 abortions for every 1,000 women, the highest level in the rich world. In central and South America, where the Catholic church holds greatest sway, the rates are 25 and 33 respectively. In the very conservative societies of east Africa, it's 39. One abnormal outlier is the UK: our rate is six points higher than that of our western European neighbours.


Secular western European societies have an average rate of 12 abortions per 1,000. The U.S. that is much more religious - has a rate of 25. Now - to make the point that abortion is NOT an atheist/secular phenomena (as asserted by Ryggy) - that is all the data you need. That data stands alone - and disproves Ryggy's assertion. Abortion is NOT (cont.)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2015
There is no evidence for your God - so your statement is meaningless


"Devout Christian" is meaningless to you so why do you bring it up?

There is no evidence for your God -


Of course there is. But none you want to accept.

I'm greatly encouraged by the fact that the decline of religion


Of course socialists are happy. They support increased state power over the individual.

greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
some evil inquisition by the atheists - as there is a country that is more religious - and yet has a higher rate of abortions. The logic is very simple. Yes - China is an atheist country - and has a high rate of abortions. India is a highly religious country - and has an equally high rate of abortions. Conservative African countries are highly religious - and have the highest rates of abortion. All going to support the understanding that Ryggy is wrong. I feel like I am trying to explain a very simple piece of logic - to the back end of a cow.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
"Devout Christian" is meaningless to you so why do you bring it up?


To make a point. Sorry you are not smart enough to have understood that. It was pretty simple logic. You ask why do atheists support abortion. I counter by giving you an example of a devout Christian who also supports abortion. Point is - abortion is NOT exclusive to atheists - so just nonsense on your part to try to conflate the two.

Of course there is. But none you want to accept.


Obviously you do not know what we mean when we use the term 'evidence'
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
nonsense on your part to try to conflate the two.

Except the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading promoter of abortion in the US was founded by an atheist, racist socialist.

Obviously you do not know what we mean when we use the term 'evidence'


Of course I do.
Carl Sagan raised the issue in Contact. Max Planck also discusses the issue.
This is why your 'science' is a limited heuristic.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
Except the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading promoter of abortion in the US was founded by an atheist, racist socialist.


And you continue to be incapable of understanding the point. Here is an organization that is a coalition of close to 30 - religious groups - that support abortion. http://rcrc.org/h...e/about/ So how come you are so stupid that you cannot understand a very simple point. Abortion is NOT exclusive to atheists - so to conflate the two is ignorant.

Of course I do.


No you don't. If you knew what we mean by the term evidence - you would understand that there is NO evidence for God. There is conjecture - but not evidence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
There is conjecture - but not evidence.


If, like Saul of Tarsus, God spoke to you, what evidence could you provide?

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." Max Planck

greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2015
If, like Saul of Tarsus, God spoke to you, what evidence could you provide?


I have never heard a voice in the way you describe. If I did hear a voice - how would I know it was God? Many people have hallucinations. How do you distinguish between a hallucination, and a real voice? One of the requirements of evidence - is repeatability. Extraordinary claims - require extraordinary evidence. You do not understand what we mean by the term evidence. If you believe that God speaks to people - why do you think he speaks to some people - and not to everyone. Seems kind of stupid to me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
Greenie is an eyewitness to a murder.
But all the physical evidence to support his observation are removed by the murderer.

Greenie would have no data to support his claim, assuming he wanted to file a report.

Science couldn't prove it so how could greenie believe it happened?

He would have convince anyone else based upon his word alone. They would have to have faith in greenie.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
"You rarely see anyone in Britain stating the pro-life position with any ferocity. It's normally done apologetically in newspaper columns and in Catholic magazines. Even less frequently do you see anyone take to the streets with placards. I wonder why that is. Is the reason we don't even talk about this subject that there's no strong religious conservatism in our public life?

Because there really isn't, is there. The Catholic Church is almost as bad as the Church of England when it comes to speaking plainly about God. Our bishops would much rather bleat on about climate change — driving away thousands of young people, who come to the church seeking spiritual enlightenment, not green propaganda."
http://www.breitb...bortion/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
"Even were it not the case that children from challenging backgrounds often become transformative figures in politics, philosophy and the arts, you have to be pretty arrogant to think you know what sort of life is "worth living." Don't you think?

Liberal abortion laws disproportionately affect minorities and the poor, so it's a mystery why the political Left in both the UK and US is so fanatical on the subject. Normally they're the first ones to complain when a policy punishes one of their beloved minority groups, but it seems the right of a woman to kill her child in the womb trumps any unintended consequences in black ghettoes."

"Say what you want about that country's religious right ....they do at least make the case, vehemently, for the rights of the unborn, in the face of appalling slander, violence and discourtesy from the pro-choice lot.

Would that we had their courage, frankly."

http://www.breitb...5/06/07/
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2015
They would have to have faith in greenie.


Or not. And my task would be to convince the jury. But without corroborating evidence - it is one person's word. That is how the world works Ryggy - shame you don't understand things.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
That is how the world works Ryggy - shame you don't understand things.


Yes.

If the only truth one accepts must be based in science, then many truths will be ignored limiting one's knowledge of the universe.

Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
greenonions observed/ reminded me of self (conditioned) hypnosis
I have never heard a voice in the way you describe. If I did hear a voice - how would I know it was God? Many people have hallucinations. How do you distinguish between a hallucination, and a real voice?
Hits nail on Head :-)

Eg mohammed says he heard a presumed god say word "recite" to him in a cave

Been studying lucid dream techniques for ages & esp since post grad in food science & re supplements honing biochemical state efficiently to enhance higher cognitive function...

Anyway, plus mind-writing technique & specific meditation you can will yourself to hear ANY type of voice at all, for inexperienced it IS scary, could feel like an outside influence ie god/demon/whatever, in my experience repeatable & useful

IMHO its our 'primed' subconscious which we have set in motion & doesn't much to do it, Moses/mohammed etc may have been sincere but, no idea of psychology or how pliant we really are !
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2015
If the only truth one accepts must be based in science, then many truths will be ignored limiting one's knowledge of the universe.


And so you demonstrate the difference in terms of the way we use language. When I talk about truth - I talk about things that are based on evidence. If there is no evidence - then we cannot know if something is truth or not. You - on the other hand - do not depend on evidence - so you are intellectually - a leaf blowing in the wind. You have no framework for thinking - and so vulnerable to every trickster and charlatan who blows your way. I hope you are sending for Pastor Popoff's magic spring water Ryggy - it will heal every ailment - and bring you great wealth...https://www.youtu...TspFrbik

And they have evidence too Ryggy - God spoke to them.....

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
ryggesogn2 claims
If the only truth one accepts must be based in science, then many truths will be ignored limiting one's knowledge of the universe
No, you Dill !

It PROVES your NIL knowledge of Science, ie the particular discipline evolved to 'throw out the f..king idiot trash' by way of; observation to hypothesis to experiment to evidence back to observation

Alternative seems to ryggesogn2 WANTs to believe arbitrarily, NIL discipline & fully open to all emotional manipulation by mere claim, obviously because HE wants to do that to US ie Here !

ryggesogn2 a politically motivated obfuscator of best methods to advance knowledge ie ugly !

What can ryggesogn2 possibly articulate in ANY framework of ANYTHING in ANY way EVER more successfully advancing than Science at its highest ideals of development ?

Sadly, ryggesogn2 who claims to be a Physicist & Demanded I supply my creds claiming he would do likewise (I did) he's NEVER been honest in any reply !

A Dill !
TehDog
5 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2015
"Yes.

If the only truth one accepts must be based in science, then many truths will be ignored limiting one's knowledge of the universe."

Is this a quote from some time before the 20th century?
Ah, I googled the phrase, and got a whole lot of creationist hits. Makes sense, figured Ryygy was a fundy. He's well fed with links, wonder who's responsible :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
If there is no evidence - then we cannot know if something is truth or not.

There IS evidence, you are an eyewitness. You KNOW what happened.
But that is all the evidence that exists.
What will you do? Lie to yourself regarding your evidence? If you do, then how can you ever trust any observations you make?

This was the plot in Carl Sagan's 'Contact'.

greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2015
There IS evidence, you are an eyewitness. You KNOW what happened.


No there is not evidence. See how you do not understand what we mean when we say evidence? Our senses are unreliable. Sometimes we think we saw A, but we actually saw B. There has been so much research on this topic Ryggy - once again you are just wrong. When people are shown videos of car accidents, and then asked to recall what they saw - they get things all mixed up. What I saw is not evidence. How is it that you can be on a science site - and not know something as basic as what a scientist means when using the word evidence. We have no evidence for a soul - cuz you cannot bring me a soul and let me test it. You may well have a memory of a soul - but you may be halucinating. You have to bring me something I can test.....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2015
There IS evidence, you are an eyewitness.
if there is one thing that has been proven with alarming clarity, it is that eye-witness testimony is the absolute worst and lowest form of evidence and is subjective to the individual

eyewitness testimony is nothing more than a window into the bias and delusions of the individual and usually has very little to do with actual reality, especially if there is a fundamental religious believer involved

AND
i can prove that even your own eyewitness testimony to what is happening in front of you is SUBJECTIVE as well as not necessarily the truth, let alone something you can KNOW

best example is:
optical illusions (actually, brain failures)

in modern society we actually KNOW that people who hear disembodied voices need medical attention

historically, they were either mad or prophets- depending on the power they sought

just because you believe something is true or happened, doesn't mean it really did, ryggy-TROLL

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2015
Our senses are unreliable.


Then you agree with Max Planck:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
How do you trust the data from any instrument designed and read by fallible humans?

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
" If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can't detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model? How are scientific claims about them any different from any other untestable — but useful — explanations of reality?"
"Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?"
http://mobile.nyt...tml?_r=0

Expanding our understanding of the universe demands a paradigm shift.

It won't come from 'scientists' like greenie.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2015
Then you agree with Max Planck:


Actually no. I find his construct of the "ultimate mystery of nature" to be meaningless. But my agreement or disagreement with a particular individual - is pretty irrelevant - don't you think?

Expanding our understanding of the universe demands a paradigm shift.


Really? How do you know that? What do you mean by that? Please tell us more about this paradigm shift. It seems to me that we are doing a great deal in terms of expanding our understanding of the universe. Isn't that what CERN is all about?

It won't come from 'scientists' like greenie.


I am not a scientist. How do you know what kind of scientists it will take to bring about your magical paradigm shift. I would say that following a disciplined - evidence based system of exploration - is doing a good job of expanding our understanding of the universe - it beats astrology. How's that magic spring water working out?

greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2015
How do you trust the data from any instrument designed and read by fallible humans?


Damn Ryggy - are you really asking such basic questions as this? Do you really not know the answer?

Because they are repeatable - so can be verified over and over - by yourself, and others.

Why do you think that a video tape of a person committing a crime - is much better evidence than an eye witness account?

Ryggy - these questions are fundamental to science. Why do you want to comment on a science site - when you seem to have NO understanding of what science is. You baffle me!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
Our senses are unreliable.


How do you test your food?

You can't trust your senses to tell you food is spoiled so how to you survive?

If you trust the USDA or the FDA for food safety, hundreds of people have died eating food approved by a US govt agency.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2015
the pope... Priests in Kenya... Family values
"Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka was notorious during the 1994 genocide of 800,000 Tutsis for wearing a gun on his hip and colluding with the Hutu militia that murdered hundreds of people sheltering in his church. A Rwandan court convicted the priest of genocide and sentenced him in absentia to life in prison. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda spent years trying to bring him to trial."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
"While most of what Americans eat is the responsibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Food Safety and Inspection Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees meat and poultry.

Every USDA-inspected food on the market – including steaks, chicken potpies and frozen pepperoni pizzas – carries a government seal indicating the food is "safe, wholesome and correctly labeled."

The stamp was on the 8.9 million pounds of meat and poultry products 21 companies recalled last year because of fears it contained deadly pathogens. Five of the recalls were linked to 312 illnesses reported nationwide."
- See more at: http://foodsafety...Ze9.dpuf
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2015
"It's not an isolated case. After the genocide, a network of clergy and church organisations brought priests and nuns with blood on their hands in Rwanda to Europe and sheltered them. They included Father Athanase Seromba who ordered the bulldozing of his church with 2,000 Tutsis inside and had the survivors shot. Catholic monks helped him get to Italy, change his name and become a parish priest in Florence.

"After Seromba was exposed, the international tribunal's chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, accused the Vatican of obstructing his extradition to face trial. The Holy See told her the priest was "doing good works" in Italy. Another Rwanda priest taken on in Italy is facing charges of overseeing the massacre of disabled Tutsi children."

-ryggy fails to appreciate the difference between Vatican PR and what it is actually RESPONSIBLE for. What it DOES is far more indicative of its nature than what it SAYS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2015
"Mother Teresa wasn't so very saintly, a new study reports.
Canadian academics trawled through 96 per cent of all originally researched literature on the Catholic icon and concluded that her reputation as one of the holiest women of the twentieth century was the product of hype.
Researchers allege missing funds for humanitarian work and homes for the poor that did not offer the medical care they required, leaving many to die."

-MT, as hitchens pointed out, was no friend of the poor, she and her church are friends of poverty. They encourage unrestricted reproduction and forbid birth control, thereby creating the very conditions of poverty and despair that they are so gleefully eager to treat.
gkam
4 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2015
god did it.

Now,we only have to figure out which one of the tens of thousands we have invented out of pathetic fear.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
How do you test your food?


Probably the same way you do. The fact that our senses are unreliable - does not mean that we cannot do things. Are you really that stupid - to think that is what I was implying? I would encourage you to read the second page of the introduction on this site - but I am really suspecting that you are not capable of complex thought. Again Ryggy - please answer this question - If you are so ignorant - that you do not even understand a concept as fundamental to science as evidence - what motivates you to comment on a science web site. Please answer in your own words - no cut and paste.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
I forgot to put the link

https://books.goo...;f=false
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
ryggesogn2 asked
How do you test your food?
We have systems in place, one of which is HACCP
http://en.wikiped...l_points

which has developed from US space program & Science & management controls

ryggesogn2 claims
You can't trust your senses to tell you food is spoiled so how to you survive?
Spoilage bacteria don't cause disease. There are Pathogens. Besides these days we have lower probability of problems with food via competing suppliers that need to be seen as reliable & safe or they go out of business very quickly !

ryggesogn2 asked
If you trust the USDA or the FDA for food safety, hundreds of people have died eating food approved by a US govt agency
Evidence ?

It the food or the idiots who fail at HACCP, or lie and cheat about their qualifications to handle food - Hmmm ?

Like your claim ryggesogn2 you are a Physicist which you made approx 16 months ago,

You sure don't write like ANY uni graduate !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2015
The fact that our senses are unreliable - does not mean that we cannot do things.

How do you trust YOUR senses to do things?

You chose to ignore the part of my hypothetical where I said you KNOW someone was murdered, but you could not provide evidence.
In Contact, the characters KNEW they traveled to another solar system but could not provide evidence.

To a follower of scientism, if you know something and can't provide evidence, it didn't happen, ... but it really DID. Therefore, science has limits you don't care to acknowledge.
Thirteenth Doctor
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2015
To a follower of scientism.


First, lol @ "scientism". Cute little buzzword you probably got from your apologetics sites.

Second
if you know something and can't provide evidence, it didn't happen


Damn right. My 13 yo cousin likes to use the phrase from the interwebs "Pics or it didn't happen"? Yeah but here its "Evidence or it didn't happen". Why cant you grasp that if it cannot be tested by some means, you cannot prove it with science. Einstein's SR didn't actually become really accepted until someone could observe his predictions on an eclipse which took years.

Third
but it really DID.


You still haven't provided anything other than "you know". That doesn't cut it in science and I'm 100% sure you know that.

cont...
Thirteenth Doctor
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2015
Therefore, science has limits you don't care to acknowledge


I think we can all acknowledge science has limits. The ability to test some theories and hypothesis are just out of reach either because scientists just cant either replicate in a lab or go back through time to observe. Some things are better understood from a distance (black holes). Sometimes progress is just held back by lack of technology.

So in essence, it is YOU who don't care to acknowledge science limits and seek to say "Science doesn't have all the answers so they are wrong". That's a grade school argument.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2015
ryggesogn2 misunderstood yet again - where did he do Physics I wonder with this gem
How do you trust YOUR senses to do things?
Your sense don't do much at all, its your brain that actually exercises Science at its most fundamental level in terms of 'whats the chance' that "this input is correct and my neurons should act upon it" ie Balance of Probabilities - doh !

ryggesogn2 says
You chose to ignore the part of my hypothetical where I said you KNOW someone was murdered, but you could not provide evidence
Not heard of circumstantial ie Only person in room, you had a knife, he was stabbed - doh !

ryggesogn2 says
In Contact, the characters KNEW they traveled to another solar system but could not provide evidence
They can't KNOW objectively doh !

However, evidence was the hrs long record of static - doh !

ryggesogn2 claims
Therefore, science has limits you don't care to acknowledge
Crap. Name ANY better, any discipline or GUH religion, mere claim !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2015
Why cant you grasp that if it cannot be tested by some means, you cannot prove it with science


I can grasp it.

Can YOU grasp that you can know something is true without using science?

I think we can all acknowledge science has limits.


Not according to those who believe in scientism.

"Science doesn't have all the answers so they are wrong".


No, science doesn't have all the answers so science cannot always be 'right' about all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
What apologists?

"Too many of the defenders of science, and the noisy "new atheists," shabbily believe that they can refute religion by pointing to its more outlandish manifestations. Only a small minority of believers in any of the scriptural religions, for example, have ever taken scripture literally."

"The second line of attack to which the scientizers claim to have fallen victim comes from the humanities. ...But some scientists and some scientizers feel prickly and self-pitying about the humanistic insistence that there is more to the world than science can disclose. It is not enough for them that the humanities recognize and respect the sciences; they need the humanities to submit to the sciences, and be subsumed by them. "

http://www.newrep...cientism
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2015
ryggesogn2 with immense confusion
Why cant you grasp that if it cannot be tested by some means, you cannot prove it with science
I can grasp it
LOL - the issue is "Proof" you can't seem to grasp that communication re Science to make it definitive is about (objective) proof, not mere claim, you can easily convince yourself an observation via your senses alone means something & keep it to yourself

ryggesogn2 asks
Can YOU grasp that you can know something is true without using science?
Oh really - you don't understand, you don't "have to use Science" to grasp the sun came up, it comes down to the issue of balance of probability - in that even you have history and the probability you are wrong is VERY low, thats one key aspect of Science you miss from not knowing Probability & Statistics

Asked you before, you STILL cannot/refuse to answer my questions, something wrong, suffering from; denial, confirmational bias etc ?

What is more exact than Science ?
Thirteenth Doctor
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
Can YOU grasp that you can know something is true without using science?


That's the same as a belief. Jut because you "know" doesn't mean its true. I "know" Jennifer Lawrence wants to bang me. How do you think that will turn out if I ever meet her and tell her that?

No, science doesn't have all the answers so science cannot always be 'right' about all.


It is right about things it can successfully suppose, test and repeat. The great thing is that it is malleable to allow for mistakes, misreading's, technological failures, people who fudge results, bad science, misrepresentation of research, no results etc....This is why science has advanced faster in 150 years than any religion has in 10,000 years.

Not according to those who believe in scientism.


You can keep up with the creationist/apologetics buzzwords though. It's entertaining. I'm going to share that with my buddies. Got anymore?

Thirteenth Doctor
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2015
Only a small minority of believers in any of the scriptural religions, for example, have ever taken scripture literally.


This is such a crap sentence I can feel the lie from here. I have grew up in the church and been to many others who claim all the crap in there is real up to and including zombie ghost jesus. I find that when confronted with the absurdness that book has in it that is the exact answer you give. I don't blame you. It is very convenient.

ALL the major religions believe that there was a worldwide flood and that some animals crossed oceans to the middle east to fit neatly into one ship and then crossed back with no issues and returned back to normalcy. I knew that was absurd when I was 13.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2015
That's the same as a belief.


No.

Jut because you "know" doesn't mean its true.


Why not?

This was exactly what Carl Sagan said in 'Contact'.

So we have another member the the great church of scientism who asserts that ONLY science can determine truth.

Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
ryggesogn2 still confused
Why not?
Human mind ephemeral & fallible, this is why mere claim without support of evidence cannot & should not ever be trusted, evidence for this is overwhelming.

ryggesogn2 claims
This was exactly what Carl Sagan said in 'Contact'
No. Recall the movie more clearly, there were several hours of static confirming the period of time she was 'away', that is objective, what she felt or heard is subjective & subject to vagaries of memory.

ryggesogn2 states
So we have another member the the great church of scientism who asserts that ONLY science can determine truth
Very likely indeed but, it might not be the case, one needs to test the variuos forms and seek EVIDENCE.

ryggesogn2 what else is better than Science in terms of objectivity in any way shape or form ?

Or are you so subjective in all things to escape the brutal reality we actually live which only seems harmonious re nature because we don't live long or isolated etc
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
Ryggy
How do you trust YOUR senses to do things?


You just do it Ryggy - stop being so damn stupid. When I am hungry - I cook up some food - and eat it - just like you - and everyone else. However - if I tell someone that I was talking with my dead grandfather last night - they will probably ask me for evidence.

I am done playing wack a mole with you now Ryggy - I have learned enough to satisfy my need to smash my head against a brick wall for a couple of decades. maybe someone else needs a turn on the wall.

Troll on there.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
I cook up some food - and eat it -


Then you don't use science and have faith your food is safe eat.

It's interesting you mentioned ghosts.

I have never seen the ghost we have in the farmhouse I was raised in, but my mom, my wife, over night guests of my brother, and after we moved out, a farmhand from South Africa say they saw a man dressed in bib overalls and a beard standing by their bed a night.
This happened over a period of many years, no one who saw the man knew each other and no one in our family told them of the man.
Given the consistent description and the fact that my great grandfather died in the house, and wore bibs and had a beard, I have no reason to doubt them and I have no reason to doubt that somehow human consciousness persists after death.
We suspect the ghost appears only to non-blood relatives as none of his blood relatives have seen him.

Of course your eyes are rolling, but, as you say, our perceptions can be inconsistent...(cont)
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
Recently it was reported false memories were implanted in mice.
http://www.smiths.../?no-ist

This is more than enough for a science fiction writer to create a good story or a courageous scientist to explore the hypothesis that there is a quantum consciousness that can linger in our plane of existence and on occasion, interact with us, directly in our minds, as Sagan described in 'Contact'.

Atheists will attack an prevent such research as it will threaten their theories.

There is a very interesting book called 'Stalking the Wild Pendulum' that can tie some of these concepts into our present understanding of physics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
How ...test your food?
@ryggTROLL
i don't know about you but i use modern technology and advanced tools that are far greater at measurement and actually performing tasks than my senses... then i eat it.
the ultimate litmus test: if i die, it is not good food
i hate it when that happens, though, so i tend to use a lot of technology based upon the scientific method
How do you trust YOUR senses to do things?
by utilizing the scientific method in it's most pure form: trial and experimentation and validation
you KNOW someone was murdered, but you could not provide evidence
you do realize that the ONLY way to provide or present evidence that is considered acceptable is SPECIFICALLY by using the scientific method, right?
Can YOU grasp that you can know something is true without using science?
no, you can BELIEVE it to be true (faith)

the only way to validate it is to use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
that is how babies/children learn

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Atheists will attack an prevent such research as it will threaten their theories.
@ryggTROLL
not likely
they're not fundamentalists like some xtians
plus, the scientists performing the experiments validating the mouse memory thing are most likely atheist
Then you don't use science and have faith your food is safe eat
Uhm... no
science is about repeated experimentation and validation of data, and one of the best ways to demonstrate that simple fact is a cookbook, as it has repeatable experiments that are validated
PLUS< it uses technology that is specifically based upon the scientific method, be it an electric, propane or other cooking device (hypothesis, prediction, experiment, repeat, adaptation if necessary, evidence, validation- repeat)
This was exactly what Carl Sagan said...
this is what you BELIEVE him to have meant...
pics or it didn't happen (evidence? links/proof?)

your links are predominantly political and fundamental xtian
NOT SCIENCE
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
no there is not evidence
There is a TON of evidence that the judeo/xian/Moslem god doesn't exist. You only read what you post? Posting lies and ignorance doesn't help the cause.


Socialist, atheist (and racist) Margret Sanger started the Inquisition against the unborn by promoting the killing of babies.

It is the religious, not socialist atheists, who are opposed to these murders and work to prevent more
??? Abortion is a prehistoric practice. People have always been desperate to mitigate the effects of overgrowth, ever since we began eliminating those natural elements which had kept our numbers in check.

Midwives used to school women on the ancient practices of abortion and contraception. The church deemed them witches and burned them at the stake.

This is because religion designers learned that overgrowth was its friend. The resultant misery and unrest could be blamed on its enemies and used to spark wars and pogroms for its benefit.
Thirteenth Doctor
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
So we have another member the the great church of scientism who asserts that ONLY science can determine truth.


Not science but the METHOD it employs to determine truth is miles better than just "knowing" without any evidence at all. I can know all I want who a murderer is but a detective still needs evidence to affect an arrest and charge an individual with murder. Then the state has to gather further evidence just to convict the suspect in court (juries are notoriously shaky but that's another topic). "Knowing" is not enough unless it comes with some type of evidence. Whether it is science, private investigation or just checking your significant others phone to see if they are cheating on you.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
greenonions offered re ryggesogn2
.. stop being so damn stupid. When I am hungry - I cook up some food - and eat it - just like you - and everyone else
Indeed & the fortunate issue is when cooking we kill a host of pathogens & gain a sense of appreciation beforehand as to how long we had the food in the first place under safe conditions. FACT we adapted to refrigeration escaped ryggesogn2 too !

Seems ryggesogn2 missed my post re HACCP or post re balance of probabilities. He seems attached to confirmational bias pattern.

greenonions said
I am done playing wack a mole with you now Ryggy, Troll on there
Seems ryggesogn2 has a serious cognitive deficit, he used to lumber that CO2 isnt rising its all a plot, he dropped that & seems he also dropped related issues

HATE ryggesogn2 for trying to obfuscate from his earlier anti AGW stance !

ryggesogn2 is there ANY alternative to Science after you crane your neck listening to dead relatives ?

Anything ryggesogn2 ?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
ryggesogn2
Then you don't use science and have faith your food is safe eat
With fridges/cooking its "Balance of Probabilities" & its not faith, its born of expectation given our adapting to technology, else we use food tasters !

ryggesogn2 claims
I have never seen the ghost we have in the farmhouse I was raised in, but my mom, my wife, over night guests of my brother, and after we moved out, a farmhand from South Africa say they saw a man dressed in bib overalls and a beard standing by their bed a night.
This happened over a period of many years...
Common pattern but, Prove it ?

Same senses people use to see/hear are enhanced with instruments but, mind is very pliable

ryggesogn2 states
I have no reason to doubt that somehow human consciousness persists after death
With billions dead there are a heck of a lot of ghosts missing !

Would your god allow people to see any ghosts ?

Maybe its punishment, your god's action very consistent with a Devil !
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
ryggesogn2 claims
.. explore the hypothesis that there is a quantum consciousness that can linger in our plane of existence and on occasion, interact with us, directly in our minds, as Sagan described in 'Contact'
Brain is physical ryggesogn2, look up information theory re means to maintain it, quantum realm far less certain in huge ways than at our scale, any subtle consciousness likely dissipated re entropy via heat...

ryggesogn2 claims
Atheists will attack an prevent such research as it will threaten their theories
No !
Prove it ?

It would give lots of fence sitters some comfort, so your claim is not just wrong is stupidly out of touch !

ryggesogn2 claims
There is a very interesting book called 'Stalking the Wild Pendulum' that can tie some of these concepts into our present understanding of physics
Prove it, find & post an extract ?

Does ryggesogn2 really know intent of the author's goals, income, status, phenomenological research, what :-)
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2015
Ren82 has claimed
I pointed out the number 10 ^ 40 000 and you still talk to me about permutations. You really do not understand the magnitude of this problem. Number of such size as 10 ^ 40 000 have no physical meaning in our universe
How "Pointed out" Ren82, show the Provenance of your claim, how this number is arrived at & the precise basis on which it is founded but, NOTHING !

Why cannot Ren82 respond intelligently, he has a habit of asking leading questions of scientists who accept evolution and its principles yet refuses to answer simple questions about the nature of the deity he claims is the 'creator' and especially so how his claimed 'creator' who he believes to be human oriented communicates with us ?

Why is Ren82 unable to answer question which challenge his emotionally led belief in a deity ?

The deity that punished all of creation due to a setup of entrapment of a young woman which clearly shows the deity he claims acts just like an evil Devil !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.