Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by Seraphim

On "Observed Instances of Speciation", the paper begins with an overview of the fact that scientists have had a hard time actually coming to a conclusion on how to actually define "species".

It goes on to list examples of speciation that were caused by scientists mucking around with plants/fruit flies, what have you. The title of the paper should be perhaps at best "Induced Instances of Speciation"

your question is very deep, and has a lot to do with how we define "species" in the first place, and when it is appropriate to distinguish between two organisms using that terminology. my view is that it's kind of a semantic difference more than a practical one, because there can be a lot of genetic variation in a particular species (canis familiarus, anyone?) and there can be a lot of species that are almost identical (there are about 1100 species of bat).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim

Is it plausible that God created life? Sure that's plausible too. And it is also perhaps a simpler, more reasonable explaination of what happened.

No, it is illogical to invoke higher complexity as an explanation of lower complexity.

So then how is it that higher complexity (i.e.-life) sprang out of lower complexity (primordial soup)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
And I base my experience of God not on hearsay or upbringing, but on my own investigation and observations. I didn't just read the Bible or show up at Church.

That's fine for you, but your experiences and observations are not repeatable or testable by outside persons. The evidence that you found is whatever you make it for yourself, but it is hearsay for everyone else. Scientific evidence is repeatable, if you take issue with how the VPU gene was sequenced and analyzed, you can reproduce the test and see what happens. Not so with religion.

In this thread, apparently at least Lee has run similar "experiments", observed similar data and reached similar conclusions independant of my own "reasearch". Plenty of other people I know as well.

You could too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Scientists do look at coincedental fossils and draw their own conclusions from them.

Yes, along with radioactive decay dating methods, geological depth comparisons, geographic location differences, and now DNA sequencing. If one of the methods gives contradictory results they revise their theory. Not so with religion.

Religion as belief that God exists does not need any revising.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Probably the same way the scientific community itself thought that it was right, until later scientists proved them wrong

Yes, but upon discovering the new information they didn't disavow it, cling to the old ways and only change their views upon discovering that the new methods were correct and were proving them to be ignorant for rejecting factual evidence on the basis of a literary work.

I'm not really going to defend the issue of science versus the Catholic church's take on science throughout history. I'm not a Catholic, nor Protestant.

Originally Posted by jockeys

but he's never wrong about anything, right?
Papal infallibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this is a failing with PEOPLE. In this case the Pope. The Catholic church split from the Orthodox church in 1054. I have no interest (or knowledge to do so) in defending that idea, take it up with the Pope.

Should the idea of evolution be thrown under the bus because soemone came up with Piltdown man? One charlatan doesn't impugn the whole group, does it?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Again, this is a failing with PEOPLE. In this case the Pope. The Catholic church split from the Orthodox church in 1054. I have no interest (or knowledge to do so) in defending that idea, take it up with the Pope.

Then so are the accounts of people walking on water and raising the dead which we know doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Again, this is a failing with PEOPLE. In this case the Pope. The Catholic church split from the Orthodox church in 1054. I have no interest (or knowledge to do so) in defending that idea, take it up with the Pope.

Should the idea of evolution be thrown under the bus because soemone came up with Piltdown man? One charlatan doesn't impugn the whole group, does it?

of course not. but religion (not just Catholicism) has a solid millenium of ideological bigotry and scientific oppression to its credit. hardly a single charlatan. Also, your reference to the Piltdown man is interesting... by all accounts, the scientific community embraced its discovery and investigated thoroughly until it was found to be fraudulent. would that religion was as good about considering alternative viewpoints.

Originally Posted by xman

Then so are the accounts of people walking on water and raising the dead which we know doesn't happen.

as the kids around here say,
OH SNAP!

Originally Posted by jockeys

Originally Posted by xman

Then so are the accounts of people walking on water and raising the dead which we know doesn't happen.

as the kids around here say,
OH SNAP!

Kids these days

Those meddlers, having to point out the impossibility of miracles! Xman, to say we know miracles don't happen is to say we know God doesn't exist. Isn't it? Assuming that a miracle is the influence of the supernatural upon the natural. "We" is not everyone reading this thread! I'll admit the possibility of miracles as well. If there's one thing I've learned in life: expect the unexpected

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Assuming that a miracle is the influence of the supernatural upon the natural. "We" is not everyone reading this thread! I'll admit the possibility of miracles as well. If there's one thing I've learned in life: expect the unexpected

If you want to redefine what "to know" means you may isolated yourself from the rational argument and some may join you. Supernatural suppositions which cannot be corroborated are not known. No matter how much 'we' want it to, no amount of hand clapping will bring fairies to life. Such things are believed, not known.

I'll admit to the possibility of miracles as well, but I'll admit to their drastic improbability a hundred thousand times more. That's only fair for the scientific method. What I've learned in life? ... Don't expect any miracles.

X

xman, do you really think that believers know that there are no miracles but believe in them anyway?
And I guess I know there is no God but I believe in him anyway... who is this "we" ?
Just curious why you are so adamant that believers are necessarily delusional

Thanks for at least admitting to the possibility of miracles, I think you are a rational fellow (at times!, hehe)

Originally Posted by xman

. No matter how much 'we' want it to, no amount of hand clapping will bring fairies to life. Such things are believed, not known.


X

And yet Man sprang into being from nothing!

Oh SNAP!! As someone here is fond of saying!