Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Scientific belief and Religious belief

you may not respond , but you will read this. LOL




not hardly Bill , I used to think that science was right
about creation not being an option for the reason there is life.

during that time period of my life the information that
I had on creation was slight if any and was purely based on
faith.

in other words I questioned what was said in the Bible
about creation.

then , I started thinking about it from a logical viewpoint
and logic is what changed my mind about questioning what is said in the Bible about creation.

logic tells me that the only logical reason there is life
is because of intelligent creation.



I had no way to test creation.

so I based my study on the possibility of the elements gathering together
and forming a complete life form in the absence of life
all by themselves and with no direction or mechanism of
mobility or intelligence to guide and instruct each
individual atom on its precise location and function
in the life form.

logic flat out told me that it is not possible to
pile atoms up in a big pile in any arrangement that
could suddenly come to life.



what basis in any observation does science have that
causes science to believe that life developed?

has science observed life developing from non life?

can I ask my barn to paint itself red?

would it ever get painted if I wait for it to paint itself red?

wouldnt I have to buy the paint and the paintbrushes for my barn?

or should my barn create the paint and paint brushes?

first it will need a mind and really long arms to paint with.

Oh I'll bet you're not really sorry at all.
Let's look at the idea, that the observer affects the outcome. If that is true, then what is being measured is not the outcome but the nature of the observer, and what the outcome becomes according to the observer.

Objectivity is about looking at something without placing preconceived ideas upon that which is observed.

Take ten people who witness an accident, and not all of them see the same thing. It is not the accident that creates the differing observations, but rather the subjective programs of the individuals in affecting how they look upon the incident and make their own relative measurements.

That is what you would expect of all those that take a position relative to a standard.
When it comes to objectivity and morality, the universe doesn't take a position, rather it supports all positions.
Based on the idea and experience of expansion within the universe and evolution, religion and science agrees expansion means that everything is moving into greater or evolving conditions relative to what science and religion give meaning to as a beginning.
Morality is relative to levels of consciousness, in that greater awareness or expanded awareness (enlightenment) leads to greater intelligence and understanding of universal law in principle.

Observation of differing levels of conscious awareness exemplifies superior intellect and expanded moral understanding based on universal principles. Point of reference is Universal mind.

So how do you reconcile the above pile of waffle which almost says you don't make judgements with this judgement you passed



Look pretty much like a judgement based on a moral reference point to me or maybe you have split personality issues. Perhaps you would like to go thru the in depth observations and thinking that went into those judgements

I know the Dalai Lama does not like to make judgement at all and even he concedes you must make some and he tries to keep it to the bare minimum.

So perhaps a more simple question for you what is you view on the morality of Hitler?

No judgements.. Just referencing what you wrote and put into terms you are familiar with.

If you want to get into more of a discussion regarding the above, we can begin to analyze the statements you made based on value systems of your choice, yours, what you think are mine and what you think are those of others.

ROFL sure and so it's not a judgement because you declare it not to be, yep you have cemented what I thought

That was almost as funny as trapping Paul into having to put his belief in GOD on the line.

Bill, You tell us, Thanks for posting this thread with your comments to Paul about creationism. Paul, have you read about the following idea: EMANATIONISM? It bridges the gap between the creationism and evolution!
You describe traditional theism with its omni-everything Lord-and-Master kind of personal God with dimensions--not for me. May I ask Paul: Where was God, before the so called BIG bang? The Prophets do not all agree with one another.
For example, the prophet Isaiah (chapter 13) advocated holy wars against all Gentiles. God is presented as a god of war and revenge, over and over again.
Jesus sure changed many of the old teachings. So did Paul. The Bible has several kinds of gods. Read what Jesus says, about the role of people, in John 10:34: Jesus made the bold statement: "YOU ARE GODS."

There was a time when there was no life. Then there was time when there was primitive single celled life. Over time more complicated life forms developed from the early single celled life forms. The first life forms must have developed from something, so they must have developed from non-living chemicals. This is a simple and easily understood progression.

I notice that you did not provide any basis, even a simple progression, for your belief that life was created. You just waved your hands and said it was impossible for life to have developed without the intervention of Intelligent(?) Design.

As far as being able to create life. We can't do it right now, but just because we can't do something now is no reason to say we will never be able to do it. There was a time when it was know that organic chemicals could only be produced by living organisms. Then we found out we could do it in the laboratory, then in factories. Researchers are constantly finding ways to create more complex chemical forms. Extrapolating the results of current research I figure it is just going to be a matter of time until they figure out how to repeat what nature managed to do within 1 billion years of the formation of the Earth.

Bill Gill

No, what I said, is I have no judgment regarding the summary of what you claim science to be. The Hitler reference was in tune with what you made reference to as what morality is based on subjective ideals, (using your Hitler and dog example).

The Sock puppet reference was an elaboration to what you said scientists like yourself do. Take orders with the idea that you can't make changes within the authoritative system of rule, and receive the money for behaving yourself. I suppose I could assume you do care and just don't wanna admit it, because you feel helpless. But your being insistent to having no care for what anyone within the general public feels or says, leads me toward the idea that you want to make the "WE (speaking for all scientists) really don't care!"

In any case the ongoing conversations are just revealing more of the "YOU PISS US OFF" claim that you made previously, and maybe none of these conversations are really going to lead to anything productive.
So we're just mutually yanking chains?

As I elaborated upon the conversation, I figured you would either claim it to be false, or true.

Since you didn't make any claims to any of it being other than what I summarized, I'll assume you're turning the conversation toward the idea of me being judgmental.
Also being that you reference Paul, I'll make another wild assumption that you are choosing to spend time finding ways to play with me in the same way you do Paul, by releasing the stress you feel for being helpless in your position as a scientist without moral choices, and finding ways to pull others into your boat.

Certainly, I can make a judgment call, but I can also do it objectively. In this case I just did.

We having fun yet?

Sorry I was trying to work out if that was a comment or not or perhaps it is a post or not one never knows with you

Sorry TT you simply aren't worth wasting time on

ok , let me write that same progression.

There was a time when there was no life. Then there was time when there was primitive single celled life. Over time more complicated life forms developed from the early single celled life forms. The first life forms must have been created by intelligence , so they must have been created. This is a simple and easily understood progression.


you see when I change the words around to exclude the concept
or theory of evolution being involved in the development
of the first life form , you find that there is a distinct
gap between non life and life.

BTW , a gap is a gap it is not progression.

ie...



that gap is exactly what we find in the geological
records of life.

once again logic says that creation is the preferred
and only possible conclusion for the existence of life.

if there was progression from non life to life it would
have already been found and duplicated and documented.

Orac, my heart (PNEUMA) goes out to you. And take note of the suggestion I make to you after what you say next,
Orac, I truly agree with the point you make to TT, but may I suggest what I think could be a better way to put it: "TT, whoever you are, I assume and hope there are those who value you as a person. However, regarding what I call a pile of "waffle" , which you write in response to me and others at SAGG, I must say: What you write and how you write it is so boring and meaningless that I refuse to waste my time wading through this pile just in the forlorn hope there may be one meaningful point. BTW, Orac, if you choose to make a motion to this effect, I will be happy to second it, okay!

As one who thinks the Golden Rule is a good one and that it is Good, Optimistic & Delightful, I will be glad to add: AGAPE, Orac, TT and to all at SAGG. We must not forget ALL and who read what gets their interest, eh!

I must have missed that part , it almost sounds as though
you have accomplished something.

and that would be a first time event in the history of orac.

I wont ask where your proposed accomplishment occurred
because frankly I think your just trying to erroneously puff your ego up a little before it becomes completely deflated
by TT.

convincing yourself that you have achieved something seems to
be your greatest asset.

You say that only intelligence can create life. That implies that some intelligence that is much greater than humanity created life. Such an intelligence could only be God. Therefore your belief that life was created by an intelligence is definitely a religious belief, not a scientific belief.

By the way, that is not just my opinion, it is also the belief of the United States Supreme Court. They have ruled on this matter more than once and lower courts have agreed with them a number of times. And some of the judges who ruled on those cases were conservatives.

Bill Gill

EGO is a very western and Chinese disease it gets beaten out of you in other places. I think you and TT think to much about it, I am far more familiar with working for the collective good and I am not sure I would ever worry about my ego being deflated

However since you seem to be getting "the bottle up" as they say, care to put your GOD on the line on the result of the HMS Titanic? So do you have faith in your GOD and his physics or not Paul?

That is probably a situation I imagine Rev K could give you advice about under challenging GOD. If you are going to try and create a new physics based on your GOD you had better be very careful because it makes your GOD and his physics testable

At least you're being honest this time about what you were doing. I didn't think you had any intention of being serious.

It took you that long to work that out

I was just doing a TT back to TT didn't you recognize it, it's a really simple formula you just create a different value under everything. I created a different value under morality wasn't hard, you seem to think what you do is clever

It was pretty obvious from the get go. It just took this long for you to admit it. Regardless, its been entertaining to see science represent itself.

You haven't been serious, so there really is no value system when nothing is serious, unless you have a quality system to measure wasting time. I'll bet governments pay big money to find ways to perfect a method tho. Maybe you're on one of those test programs and that's why you spend so much time at Saggo flaming?

Not when something is that obvious.

Clever would entail having an honest conversation, rather than just wasting time.

As a government/corporate/military employee, you probably have a lot of time on your hands to waste, since much of it is spent here flaming Paul. Be honest.. Paul is a secret scientific project and you're in charge. Right?

So this would be like asking why Paul and TT spend time as religious nutters on a SCIENCE FORUM I think the religion forum with people remotely interested in your discussion are elsewhere.

No you have to come onto a science forum where most of the inhabitants are there to discuss SCIENCE because you are drop kick stupid trolls.

The deeper question dropkick is why you would expect me to answer you truthfully to your garbage it's hardly on topic.

Oh wait haven't you worked out your on the wrong forum?

It's always interesting to see the trolls posting on the wrong forum complaining of "flaming" and "flame wars" I thought that is what you were here for to get a reaction, what it wasn't the one you expected

That might be relevant if I were religious.

Actually there is a NQS section which is where I originally came upon the invite from the rev., who is religious.

The Topic is Scientific and Religious belief. If you weren't going to be serious or scientific, why are you here?
I think the forum is ok, but I question whether a few who participate can be objective enough to have a formal discussion without losing themselves in their personal beliefs.
If you are as you say the spokesman for we the forum, then I imagine that you have difficulty with any objectivity due to your religious and scientific beliefs, seeing as you have a need for speaking for everyone else and the way you lose yourself in a rage of ad hominem attacks like the rev.

Cool so long as this stuff stays out in NQS and we don't have religion and science is bad, science is evil garbage dragged into every post in the science sections I am a happy person and all I really ask.

Whether science is bad, evil etc may interest people fine take it out to NQS and discuss which is the purpose for this thread I believe.

Got me why the moderation doesn't just adopt that standard they have had to take that tack with Newton(Marosz) or at least make him keep his spam in his own threads and so it should be with these other things. Objectively it is actually unfair on Marosz at the moment because he is the only one moderated even though technically it is more science than say some of Paul's posts.

I don't wish to silence either of them it just needs control so discussion occurs if people wish to discuss but I think that is against what Paul wants. I have that relationship with Rev K and that is why he causes little issue as far as I can see.

If people want a flame war then so be it because it seems to be the only way to clear the air because if you try and ignore it you just get more and more posts. I had Marosz at one stage up to 3 posts back for every post. You had to go over an entire page to get back to what you were discussing with others and at that point Rose finally decided to act.