Fossilized life found in meteors! Groundbreaking!

Hespera · Mar 11, 2011

Matthijs said:
Yeah, it is one of the main reasons I am not a believer. People who want to tell me about their faith always end up saying in one way or another that I have the believe first, and that it will make sense after. That never really worked for me.

Although evidence is not the only thing that could work. A desire to believe would work as well. It is faith, after all.

The only objection I have is that people then take that faith and make positive statements about our shared reality, because I don't think that can be justified. If science tells us that the world works in a certain way, then what does that have to do with faith? Why the need to reject it on the basis of your subjective interpretation of what you chose to believe is the word of God? Can the Bible not be your truth, and Science have a scientific truth?

IF god made the world, then his works are written directly by his hand.

The bible on the other hand, is written by men. Inspired, as it may be, by god; but it was men who wrote it, men who translated and retranslated, edited parts out, and so on.

Now, which should a devout person believe is inerrant? The earth and the sky, or, an old book?

it seems to me awfully disrespectful to say nope, the works of god are wrong coz the works of man say he is.

Amusing and sad, i guess, but still very disrespectful.

Doveaman · Mar 11, 2011

Matthijs said:
Yeah, it is one of the main reasons I am not a believer. People who want to tell me about their faith always end up saying in one way or another that I have the believe first, and that it will make sense after. That never really worked for me.

It never worked for me either. I could never understand how one can believe without evidence.

If science tells us that the world works in a certain way, then what does that have to do with faith?

Your faith is in the scientific claim. Do you have evidence of the big bang, or do you just have faith in the scientific claim?

Why the need to reject it on the basis of your subjective interpretation of what you chose to believe is the word of God? Can the Bible not be your truth, and Science have a scientific truth?

'Scientific truth' is often falsified. Therefore 'scientific truth' is meaningless.

Hespera · Mar 11, 2011

Doveaman said:
It never worked for me either. I could never understand how one can believe without evidence.
Your faith is in the scientific claim. Do you have evidence of the big bang, or do you just have faith in the scientific claim?
'Scientific truth' is often falsified. Therefore 'scientific truth' is meaningless.

"Scientific truth" is a made up term used by people who know nothing about science.

There is in fact considerable evidence for the big bang.

If say you like evidence, and believe in god but dont believe evolution, you have a very odd disconnect between what you say and what you do.

Doveaman · Mar 11, 2011

Hespera said:
IF god made the world, then his works are written directly by his hand.

The bible on the other hand, is written by men. Inspired, as it may be, by god; but it was men who wrote it, men who translated and retranslated, edited parts out, and so on.

There are two possible conclusions here:

Either God failed in His intent for inspiring the bible, or the inspired bible is still around somewhere.

I hold to the view that the inspired bible is still around somewhere and it is recognized by those who themselves are inspired by God to recognize it.

God not only inspired those who wrote the bible, but He also inspires us who now read it so we may know and understand His intent for inspiring it to be written in the first place.

Now, which should a devout person believe is inerrant? The earth and the sky, or, an old book?

The earth and sky are too unpredictable. That's why scientists can't seem to agree on what they see on earth and in the sky.

Doveaman · Mar 11, 2011

Hespera said:
"Scientific truth" is a made up term used by people who know nothing about science.

Tell that to the scientists.

There is in fact considerable evidence for the big bang.

Yes I know. 96% of the evidence is hypothetical evidence.

If say you like evidence, and believe in god but dont believe evolution, you have a very odd disconnect between what you say and what you do.

I do believe in evolution, just not the brand that magically create birds from dinosaurs or humans from apes.

Hespera · Mar 11, 2011

Doveaman said:
There are two possible conclusions here:

Either God failed in His intent for inspiring the bible, or the inspired bible is still around somewhere.

I hold to the view that the inspired bible is still around somewhere and it is recognized by those who themselves are inspired by God to recognize it.

God not only inspired those who wrote the bible, but He also inspires us who now read it so we may know and understand His intent for inspiring it to be written in the first place.
The earth and sky are too unpredictable. That's why scientists can't seem to agree on what they see on earth and in the sky.

There are a lot more possibilities than those two unlikely ones.

The earth and sky are too unpredictable

i guess i should avoid any sort of metaphor. You "forgot" to respond to this tho...

Now, which should a devout person believe is inerrant

when the earth so plainly tells them they are wrong?

Delphiki · Mar 11, 2011

Doveaman said:
What kind of evidence would you expect of a God who is Spirit?

Provide evidence that spirits exist. The same sort of evidence should be useful to prove your god exists.

There are different definitions of the word "spirit", but I somehow doubt you mean you worship displayed pride or liquor.

An agnostic view of God is meaningless.

Only until some meaning behind believing in a being for which there is no evidence is actually found.

Even back when I was 5 years old, and a Lutheran, I understood that a believe in God is purely based on faith - there never was nor currently isn't any evidence that God exists. Believing really really hard is not evidence. Believing really really hard and claiming you know is still just faith.

Hespera · Mar 11, 2011

Doveaman said:
Yes I know. 96% of the evidence is hypothetical evidence.
I do believe in evolution, just not the brand that magically create birds from dinosaurs or humans from apes.

Yes I know. 96% of the evidence is hypothetical eviden

Didnt you first claim there was no evidence, then you make up a figure that it is 95% hypothetical; of course, "hypothetical evidence' means no more than 'scientific truth' another term you made up.

(even if that is so, then does that alter the basic idea that there WAS a big bang?)

do you know what the evidence for it consists of?

Tell that to the scientists.

im a science student, been around scientists all my life.
maybe you should try telling them about 'scientific truth' and see if you can get a laugh.

I do believe in evolution, just not the brand that magically create birds from dinosaurs or humans from ape.

cool, we are on the same page, or branch if you like.

Tho really what you have here is a strawman, coz nobody believes this magic stuff about evolution. Magic is for the theists.

So what version of evolution do you believe in?

Delphiki · Mar 11, 2011

Doveaman said:
...hypothetical evidence...

It appears you aren't familiar with one or both of these words.

Matthijs · Mar 11, 2011

Doveaman said:
It never worked for me either. I could never understand how one can believe without evidence.

So far you have not shared this evidence for this God that exists outside of the Universe.

Your faith is in the scientific claim. Do you have evidence of the big bang, or do you just have faith in the scientific claim?

Click to expand...

I have quite a bit of evidence of it actually. One of them is the direction that all the stars seems to be travelling in, and the evidence for the expanding universe. And, happily, I also have a resident astro-physicist to help me through the difficult bits in the theories!

This is not faith, as faith does not require evidence. It is the outcome of a rational thought process, and as such different from faith.

'Scientific truth' is often falsified. Therefore 'scientific truth' is meaningless.

Click to expand...

That is not what I meant when I said it, and you are taking the words out of context a bit. It is not the scientific method that is falsified, just specific hypotheses.

What I was getting at was separating science and religion. Perhaps not my wisest idea ever.

Matthijs · Mar 11, 2011

Hespera said:
"Scientific truth" is a made up term used by people who know nothing about science.

owch! I'm not THAT ignorant you know. Not genius material maybe, but I can hold my own where science is concerned!

dad · Mar 11, 2011

Matthijs said:
I think a better theory is that the bits of life came from when Zeus fought Chronos. Obviously bits of him were splattered far and high and some ended up on meteors, which are now falling back on earth.

Or maybe the meteors grazed the Tree of Life that grows through Midgardr, Walhalla and Halja and picked up the bits there.

You can't disprove that with your limited, physical only science.

That doesn't help you. It isn't not knowing that makes you informed, FYI!

Hespera · Mar 11, 2011

Matthijs said:
Hespera said:

"Scientific truth" is a made up term used by people who know nothing about science.

owch! I'm not THAT ignorant you know. Not genius material maybe, but I can hold my own where science is concerned!

Click to expand...

Nice to know you can! We should find out some time.

As used by our genius to whom I was responding, "scientific truth" is something that keeps changing.

here is his quote:

'Scientific truth' is often falsified. Therefore 'scientific truth' is meaningless

Click to expand...

.

i guess I should ahve said he was working with a made up definition.

Science isnt much in the habit of talking about facts and truth.

"Its a fact that this is my data; Im telling the truth when I say its my data".

"Experiments determine scientific truth. "

Sure; ok; I should have taken time to write a treatise.
Tho honeslty, in my life I never heard a scientist or anyone at the U here use the term.

"Scientific truth" as used by "Dove" meant something entirely different.

or he wouldnt have said about how it keeps changing, and was meaningless would he?

rjc34 · Mar 11, 2011

Doveaman said:
Yes I know. 96% of the evidence is hypothetical evidence.

What is this 'hypothetical evidence' you speak of?

I think you need to look up what a scientific theory actually is; it's quite clear you have no idea what a they are composed of.

I do believe in evolution, just not the brand that magically create birds from dinosaurs or humans from apes.

Which theory of evolution has magic in it? I thought that was your guys' thing...

Matthijs · Mar 12, 2011

dad said:
That doesn't help you. It isn't not knowing that makes you informed, FYI!

It uses the same logic you used, only to come to a different conclusion. Why do you think the Tree of Life claim is not a valid one, and water from the flood in space is?

Matthijs · Mar 12, 2011

we should probably take some time to have a look at the actual article here though. I don;t think it is very likely to be true - when I saw this paper last week I noticed it was published in what looks like a vanity press peer-review mill, and did not strike me as the highest quality. This is the kind of site and the kind of publication that allows people to get their questionable study material "peer-reviewed" for a fee.

Also, the man who wrote it happened to work for NASA, but the study he undertook on his own and was not a NASA study.

Sorry folks but this looks like junk science - I doubt we found life on meteorites.

Doveaman · Mar 12, 2011

rjc34 said:
What is this 'hypothetical evidence' you speak of?

I am referring to the elusive dark matter and dark energy that no scientists have been able to detect despite the millions of dollars wasted over the years on trying to do so.

Sure we can observe effects in space, but those effect can also be attributed to God energy since dark matter and dark energy are just as empirically undetectable.

I think you need to look up what a scientific theory actually is; it's quite clear you have no idea what a they are composed of.

One definition of a scientific theory is:

A fallible human interpretation of an observation, an interpretation that can never be proven to be true since scientific theories are never proven and therefore never true.

Which theory of evolution has magic in it?

The theory that pulls birds out of dinosaur hats and pulls humans out of the hats of apes by the wave of a peer-review magic wand.

I thought that was your guys' thing...

Well, apparently it's yours too since dark matter and dark energy are just as empirically undetectable as God energy but yet has the ability to expand the universe faster than the speed of light.

Doveaman · Mar 12, 2011

Delphiki said:
It appears you aren't familiar with one or both of these words.

It appears you aren't familiar with the big bang religion. See post above.

Matthijs · Mar 12, 2011

I am referring to the elusive dark matter and dark energy that no scientists have been able to detect despite the millions of dollars wasted over the years on trying to do so.

Sure we can observe effects in space, but those effect can also be attributed to God energy since dark matter and dark energy are just as empirically undetectable.

Which god? Theres hundreds. You still have not shared your evidence for yours btw.
As for dark matter, please see below.

One definition of a scientific theory is:

A fallible human interpretation of an observation, an interpretation that can never be proven to be true since scientific theories are never proven and therefore never true.

I don;t think it is a very good one. The same applies to the "theory" of your existence. In your example, no-one can know anything ever or make any assumptions. But no doubt there will somehow be an exception for God ad the Bible...

The theory that pulls birds out of dinosaur hats and pulls humans out of the hats of apes by the wave of a peer-review magic wand.

Where would you like to start with a review of the evidence for evolution? The fossil record? DNA research? Extant species in mid-evolve? The strange way that species are spread over out planet? Either evolution is true, or we have a creator that has gone out of his way to make it seem like it is, it seems.

Magic wands are more the district of people who want to deny science in favor of Bible literacy. They have magically appearing and disappearing water, an impossible boat, kangaroos running back to Australia from mount Ararat without leaving a trace while living on plants that survived several months of being under seawater, a 6000 year old universe created with light already underway from distant stars for millions of years, talking snakes and, not to forget, a tabernacle-shaped earth.

Well, apparently it's yours too since dark matter and dark energy are just as empirically undetectable as God energy but yet has the ability to expand the universe faster than the speed of light.

Actually the whole point of of dark matter it is that it is detectable, we just don't know what it is yet or how it works. We can empirically detect it's gravity, we just cannot detect it optically.

Once we figure out what it is, we will stop calling it Dark Matter and give it a proper name.

It is not Science that has no answers - you just didn't know about them yet. Now you do! Profit!

Greg1234 · Mar 12, 2011

Matthijs said:
Which god? Theres hundreds. You still have not shared your evidence for yours btw.

You are the one who has to provide evidence that chance and necessity can assemble man.

Where would you like to start with a review of the evidence for evolution? The fossil record? DNA research? Extant species in mid-evolve? The strange way that species are spread over out planet? Either evolution is true, or we have a creator that has gone out of his way to make it seem like it is, it seems.

The creation of cars, their adaptive abilities, similarities in design, trends from simple to more complex cars are not what are used to infer that cars cannot evolve from carriages. It hinges on the mechanism of adaptation employed by cars which restrict such a mode of transformation regardless of the aforementioned phenomena. Hence the creator of cars made no kind of insinuation that cars could develop from a bicycle through the use of that mechanism since the mechanism for adaptation in a car never constituted such.

Fossilized life found in meteors! Groundbreaking!

Junior Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Junior Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Undefeated!

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Newbie

In the beginning was El

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency