The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by OregonJim Sorry, but that is just plain wrong.

Wrong if you don't believe in theory like you can fairy tail$$$! (No F-ing pun!)

Let me spell it out for you (but not really,) t-h-e-o-r-y, m-y-t-h-o-l-o-g-y now look them up?

Originally Posted by OregonJim http://www.dictionary.com/browse/organic ORGANIC: 1. noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon. 2. characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms : organic remains found in rocks. 3. of or relating to an organ or the organs of an animal, plant, or fungus. 4. of, relating to, or affecting living tissue: organic pathology. Note that science has changed its definition of the term "organic" several times - the most recent one rather arbitrarily includes anything that is carbon-based. Convenient, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with this "convenient" remark. Since vitalism was abandoned as a no longer viable theory, it's true that "organic" doesn't really have a very meaningful scientific definition.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Doesn't change my original assertion, however.

The "original assertion" being this?

Originally Posted by OregonJim Tell me - when has anyone, at any time, created life under ANY conditions? Obviously, if this happened eons ago "by accident", we should be able to reproduce a similar event in the laboratory.

I agree that so far there have not been any demonstrations of abiogenesis. I would not rule out the possibility of it happening in the future though.

Originally Posted by ntubski I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with this "convenient" remark. Since vitalism was abandoned as a no longer viable theory, it's true that "organic" doesn't really have a very meaningful scientific definition.

You're right - "organic" is now a nearly meaningless term in the scientific realm. My remark was due to enorbet's constant attacks whenever I attempt to "define my terms" (in order to avoid just such meaningless conversation), yet he doesn't admit that science does the very same thing all the time! He only accepts such definition when it is convenient for HIM.

'When there is lack of knowledge, opinions form'.

There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution of the different species (I partially repeat myself):
- rudiments in whales and snakes
- hominin fossils
- gene pool, like genetic difference between chimpanze and human is 5 %
- missing links are documented, like bone fish that could walk on land, dinosaur-birds
- development of the horse from early forms is well documented
- analyzation of extintion events shows how mammals took precedence afterwards
- natural and sexual selection and mutations are fact, that is completely self-evident and
observable and lends huge credibility
- analyzation of the embryonal pre-forms support evolution, like features of marine animals
occuring in that development in vertebrates, etc.
- evidence for time frame for evolution is there, like in the alps you see stoned marine animals, that didn't stone, and the alps didn't rise in 6000 ys, and the woods did'nt rot to oil

But there is much much more evidence hosts of scientists dig out, that focus on little areas for their whole life, building up on the works of generations. And there is a network of theories, swarm intelligence. Specialists reciprocally check their findings in a dense network and on a high level. Very much unlike the verbal diarrhoe of this very thread.

What the creasionist and intelligent design folks make up for pretensions is regarded as plain pseudo-science from the (heterogenic) scientific community. I support this view from personal observation.

All that these (so called) christians do in my eyes, is to press their ideology into society to gain and keep influence. Influence with the goal of power and money. Because when they don't strive for truth, but oppose it, that is the obvious explanation

A christian, who by definition must by all means have identity with truth and fact can never deny well investigated facts and evidence.

If he does this he is obviously a liar or a very stupid fool. He follows egoistic materialistic goals.

He is not a zealot for God, he can not be. Only if he is plain dumb, than maybe he can still be. But still then he would be much wiser to not open his mouth a lot, and promoting lies and making himself ridiculous. And endager the faith of others in the God in which the belief in he himself with his foolishness pulls in the vicinity of ridiculousness

@Jamison: Please don't confuse evolution with sociological development when you say we 'evolve'. Development of society, which is of course very fine-grained and fast has very little to do with evolution, there is almost no link at all.

Between the lines or placeboed?

Pardon??

I can't see a difference upon the evolution of bees of other buzzing things, that's all... religionz-perhapz or gunz?

It's a lot of things and differences you can't see. Neither can I, by the way.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e ...humanity will create life through technology...

If that happens in your lifetime, will you consider the new life to have been intelligently designed?

Originally Posted by malekmustaq It means I am enjoying the war of wits.

Thank you for the clarification. It can be enlightening and even sometimes amusing, certainly entertaining. On that cautious bit which you have revealed, we certainly agree.

I suspect that there are far too many "things that we don't know we don't know" about biology in general, to ever hazard to count.

The phenomenon of species evolution, in and of itself, is very interesting ... as are the apparent controls (unknown to us, yet visible in their operation ...) which seem to actively prevent modulation on a larger level. There are just s-o-o-o-o-o... many things about which we still haven't got a clue.

@ Smokey_Justme - Thank you for your attempt at being current and reasonable but if there is one important thing to be learned in this thread, it is to NOT fall into the trap of equating theory with opinion or "just pulled out of my fever dream or butt". Lower in the hierarchy than theory is hypothesis and even hypothesis requires considerable backing evidence and review that it reasonably explains some phenomenon. One should think very hard and clearly before ever using the phrase "just a theory" since it's much like saying "just a little bit pregnant".

Example - It is "just a theory" that the Higgs Boson actually exists. However that theory has confidence level of 5 Sigma which means .....


From Scientific American Blog

Originally Posted by Scientific American Blog In short, five-sigma corresponds to a p-value, or probability, of 3x10-7, or about 1 in 3.5 million. This is not the probability that the Higgs boson does or doesn't exist; rather, it is the probability that if the particle does not exist, the data that CERN scientists collected in Geneva, Switzerland, would be at least as extreme as what they observed.

How many decisions do we make that have such odds? Would you bet on 3.5 Million to 1? ...and further ...

Originally Posted by Above, continued Scientists use p-values to test the likelihood of hypotheses. In an experiment comparing some phenomenon A to phenomenon B, researchers construct two hypotheses: that "A and B are not correlated," which is known as the null hypothesis, and that “A and B are correlated,” which is known as the research hypothesis. The researchers then assume the null hypothesis (because it's the most conservative supposition, intellectually) and calculate the probability of obtaining data as extreme or more extreme than what they observed, given that there is no relationship between A and B. This calculation, which yields the p-value, can be based on any of several different statistical tests. If the p-value is low, for example 0.01, this means that there is only a small chance (one percent for p=0.01) that the data would have been observed by chance without the correlation. Usually there is a pre-established threshold in a field of study for rejecting the null hypothesis and claiming that A and B are correlated. Values of p=0.05 and p=0.01 are very common in many scientific disciplines.

and here is the essence of why and how .....

Originally Posted by further down the page synopsis The reason for such stringent standards is that several three-sigma events have later turned out to be statistical anomalies, and physicists are loath to declare discovery and later find out that the result was just a blip. One factor is the "look elsewhere effect:" when analyzing very wide energy intervals, it is likely that you will see a statistically improbable event at some particular energy level. As a concrete example, there is just under a one percent chance of flipping an ordinary coin 100 times and getting at least 66 heads. But if a thousand people flip identical coins 100 times each, it becomes likely that a few people will get at least 66 heads each; one of those events on its own should not be interpreted as evidence that the coins were somehow rigged.

If this interests you at all I encourage you to follow the above link and read it all. The bottom line is that a Theory undergoes a phenomenal level of scrutiny and testing before it can even be called "a theory".

Regarding the Theory of Evolution it is rather easy, considering some modern people's vehement denial, to extrapolate just how hated and denied this theory was ~157 years ago (even if one doesn't read the records) in 1859, when On the Origin of Species was first published.

It was hated on religious grounds (as if their God couldn't have created Evolution but like some wizard with a wand, merely "spake the Word" and Shazam! - Adam and Eve!!) but also hated and resisted on gender terms since the "authorities", mostly noblemen, didn't "cotton to" females having such an important role in the continuing future of not only Mankind, but all Life on Planet Earth. For some reason they didn't already "get it" that only an "egg bearer" is essential for procreation. The existence of males, and sexuality, is just an improvement in diversity, arguably a very important difference, but not essential to all Life.

That said, Yes, you are correct that it has undergone so much fundamental scrutiny and never been falsified that it is considered a Fact. It seems any future observations can only modify it slightly since Evolution has proven so fundamentally true and unshakeable on a molecular level. My point is that while it is undeniably stronger now after all this time and work, but it wasn't "on shaky ground" right from the start, at least among people not driven by preconceived notions of the literal translation of the Christian Bible, whatever that means (emphasis on "literal" being applied to parables in ancient, proto-written languages).

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I suspect that there are far too many "things that we don't know we don't know" about biology in general, to ever hazard to count. The phenomenon of species evolution, in and of itself, is very interesting ... as are the apparent controls (unknown to us, yet visible in their operation ...) which seem to actively prevent modulation on a larger level. There are just s-o-o-o-o-o... many things about which we still haven't got a clue.

You are absolutely correct that we are just scratching the surface in the overall scheme of things regarding genetics. However this does not imply that the body of evidence accumulated so far is at all misleading. That would, at this point, be somewhat like swimming on the surface of the ocean but not concluding it was still wet at the bottom, given our experience with bathtubs, ponds and lakes.

Originally Posted by enorbet You are absolutely correct that we are just scratching the surface in the overall scheme of things regarding genetics. However this does not imply that the body of evidence accumulated so far is at all misleading. That would, at this point, be somewhat like swimming on the surface of the ocean but not concluding it was still wet at the bottom, given our experience with bathtubs, ponds and lakes.

Another deceitful analogy - "bathtubs, ponds and lakes" intimates that science has experience in fields that are SIMILAR to biology and genetics. THERE ARE NONE.