Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

#3,177
#3,177
Septic said:
This wan't directed at me but I'll throw my opinion in.

Evil is a concept that is as subjective as it is irrelevant. The cosmos doesn't have an opinion of 'evil', the cosmos just is.

It's humans who have given arbitrary terms and definitions to personal beliefs like 'sin' and 'salvation'. One can claim it was divinely inspired but that's just feels... Why would a god be necessary to 'define' its (evils) opposite? Opposite of what? Some peoples gods call on it's followers to commit what other people would consider "evil". Who's right? Who's wrong?

What you're asking isn't possible to answer due to the subjectivity of the terms you're using.
Click to expand...

This ^
Evil is simply a word that humans have created to define occurrences when others do harmful things to one another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,178
#3,178
SuperDave said:
At least you got something right... nice try.. I guess.
The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic chemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions intended to be similar to early earth.
See what science does.. it conducts tests and experiments(see flow chart how the process works). Christianity does not and can not do that. I did get a laugh out of the intellectually dishonest comment since that's what chrisitianity is based on. So... thank you for that.
Click to expand...

So you have faith in the Miller-Urey debacle, huh?


Reasons To Believe : Origin-of-Life Experiment: Going from Bad to Worse

Consider all things. Hold fast to what is true.

See what science does?

Oh, and you need to back peddle, real fast, and find some current Miller-Urey type experiment that was done with "tests and experiments" that were designed to produce those aminos where the "atmosphere" is truly the same as the earth had, and the "primordial soup" ...well, shouldn't it also be what existed then? Neither one being the imaginings, however good the "educated guess" of the designer of the experiment may be, it's still guessing right now. In the future, maybe geologists will find some rock that actually preserved a bubble of that atmosphere, but, similar to Heisenberg's electron, the act of preservation over millinia surely will change the outcome of analysis.

Bottom line, don't bring in the failed, and scientifically shown to be failures, Miller-Urey experiments and expect folk to believe you really KNOW what you're saying is true. It's apparently all based on your FAITH in science. Evidently, a misplaced faoth for the time being.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,181
#3,181
Persian Vol said:
It would be nice to see one of these articles from an unbiased source.
Click to expand...

Then do the online research thing and follow the reference. You can get the Japanese research and evaluate it's impact on prebiotic aminos as well as anyone else.

And don't think "science" is always an unbiased source. Experiments and their scientific results can be manipulated by biased researchers to provide desired outcomes, or those outcomes are based on false premises never questioned in peer review ...because the reviewers have an intellectual investment also in the outcome .. just as in the Miller-Urey setup.

So current research shows the atmosphere wasn't nearly as favorable to prebiotic whoosh bang out of a hostile environment.

Just because a person of faith who is himself a scientist twigs to the data from the Japanese does not preclude the data being correct. And because he references the research, not following the reference because it's not provided in what you accept as an "unbiased resource" lends an air of intellectual narcissim to your comment, making you just as disingenuine as creationists who refuse to look at good science.

Again, Consider all things. Hold fast to what is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,182
#3,182
T-TownVol said:
That's your come-back.........."He is a Christian, so he can not be a REAL scientist"......weak......
Click to expand...

Sure, this guy isn't biased at all....

In 1999, I left my position in R&D at a Fortune 500 company to join Reasons to Believe because I felt the most important thing I could do as a scientist is to communicate to skeptics and believers alike the powerful scientific evidence—evidence that is being uncovered day after day—for God’s existence and the reliability of Scripture.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,186
#3,186
T-TownVol said:
[/COLOR]

......you just believe them more?
Click to expand...

The scientific method is more compelling than a bronze age story that is fraught with inconsistencies and tales of magic.

Some of us choose to throw in with best possible explanations with the understanding they could be wrong - rather than starting with an answer and working backwards without question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,187
#3,187
T-TownVol said:
[/COLOR]

......you just believe them more?
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? I don't trust individuals, regardless of discipline that simply are trying to grind out a religious position. It doesn't matter whether the position is disproving or proving. I'm more of a pull on a string and see where it leads kind of guy. People vested in advocating for a particular position are more likely to terminate an experiment if it appears likely to lead to the discovery of evidence that does not support their position. Thus the only evidence presented tends to be supportive of their position. Intellectually dishonest, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,188
#3,188
Septic said:
The scientific method is more compelling than a bronze age story that is fraught with inconsistencies and tales of magic.

Some of us choose to throw in with best possible explanations with the understanding they could be wrong - rather than starting with an answer and working backwards without question.
Click to expand...

....is this the way that the "sugar from nothing" guy did it?

(and nice dig with the "inconsistencies and magic" comment....its old and tired, but makes its point)
 
#3,189
#3,189
ClearwaterVol said:
WTF are you talking about? I don't trust individuals, regardless of discipline that simply are trying to grind out a religious position. It doesn't matter whether the position is disproving or proving. I'm more of a pull on a string and see where it leads kind of guy. People vested in advocating for a particular position are more likely to terminate an experiment if it appears likely to lead to the discovery of evidence that does not support their position. Thus the only evidence presented tends to be supportive of their position. Intellectually dishonest, IMO.
Click to expand...

it was asked as a question.....chill.......
 
#3,192
#3,192
T-TownVol said:
....is this the way that the "sugar from nothing" guy did it?

(and nice dig with the "inconsistencies and magic" comment....its old and tired, but makes its point)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean "sugar from nothing", what is that in reference to?
 
#3,194
#3,194
T-TownVol said:
Aaaaand...does not disqualify him as a scientist......dispute his findings, not his beliefs, that would be the right thing to do.....
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily dispute his findings per se, but his conclusion.

A, B, and C in this experiment is questionable, hence, it's all wrong. I'm calling BS. If the evidence proved his agenda he would be jumping all over it.

Ask any scientist worth anything and they will say the same thing, but the won't draw the conclusion that these things prove conclusively that it couldn't have happened. All these experiments prove is that maybe it didn't happen this particular way. If this dude wasn't blinded by his own - clearly stated - agenda he would have drawn the same conclusion.

These so called religious scientists need to stick to their own arena and check their beliefs at the door. The scientific method is not equipped to prove their beliefs. It's that simple, and silly articles linked to religious websites do more harm than good. That goes for bad logic as well.

Soooooo, yes, I'm calling this guy a hack. It's crap. Plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,195
#3,195
Septic said:
I'm not sure what you mean "sugar from nothing", what is that in reference to?
Click to expand...

it is an article posted on VN as "possible proof" of evolution being the reason for life.....the experiment set out with a goal in mind and created that result with highly controlled/specifically chosen conditions and elements.....

just pointing out that both sides do it.....and I don't blame them
 
#3,197
#3,197
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't like scientists that bring an agenda to the lab. That fosters a lack of objectivity. And before anyone asks, this point of view is equally applicable to an atheist that simply tries to disprove religious texts.
Click to expand...

Sadly......everybody has an agenda.
The best we can hope for is the opposition checking their work
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,198
#3,198
rjd970 said:
I don't necessarily dispute his findings per se, but his conclusion.

A, B, and C in this experiment is questionable, hence, it's all wrong. I'm calling BS. If the evidence proved his agenda he would be jumping all over it.

Ask any scientist worth anything and they will say the same thing, but the won't draw the conclusion that these things prove conclusively that it couldn't have happened. All these experiments prove is that maybe it didn't happen this particular way. If this dude wasn't blinded by his own - clearly stated - agenda he would have drawn the same conclusion.

These so called religious scientists need to stick to their own arena and check their beliefs at the door. The scientific method is not equipped to prove their beliefs. It's that simple, and silly articles linked to religious websites do more harm than good. That goes for bad logic as well.

Soooooo, yes, I'm calling this guy a hack. It's crap. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

weeeeell.....I think you are biased against his bias.....so THERE!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top