View Poll Results: do you believe in a supreme being?

Voters
173. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    102 58.96%
  • no

    71 41.04%
Page 63 of 66 FirstFirst ... 13535960616263646566 LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 655
  1. #621
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,034
    Thanked: 150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
    has been experimented with and partially re-created in laboratories as well. it is a thoroughly scientific endeavor, with some very interesting experiments being done as far back as 50 years ago.
    So we are creating life in a laboratory to prove the hypothesis that life was not created? I have got to be missing something?!?


    Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
    the idea that life can't come from non-life was abandoned decades ago when it was realized that the line between alive and not-alive isn't a line at all, but a very broad and ill-defined zone. the first lifeforms were, it is commonly thought, not single celled or even close to being that complex.
    Do you have citations for your position that this idea was abandoned?

    Matt

  2. #622
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singlewedge View Post

    I guess inside of this ramble all tied up I can say that God is a farce dreamed up by a cast of bishops and others to keep people in line and subjugate those that would not fall in line. It was a dream to help people and a reason to spill blood through the centuries.
    Organized religion in many instances may have now become what you are proposing here.

    But what about the early Christian Church?

    The Disciples of Christ had just had their leader killed on the Cross, and they themselves were under severe persecution, threatened with death or imprisonment themselves.

    Were they in it for the money? The power?

    "Hey, we're in hiding. They just crucified Jesus, and Stephen was just stoned to death for proffesing his beliefs. This new faith of ours will be a great way to keep others under our thumbs!"

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Seraphim For This Useful Post:

    smokelaw1 (05-20-2009)

  4. #623
    Senior Member smokelaw1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,106
    Thanked: 240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Organized religion in many instances may have now become what you are proposing here.

    But what about the early Christian Church?

    The Disciples of Christ had just had their leader killed on the Cross, and they themselves were under severe persecution, threatened with death or imprisonment themselves.

    Were they in it for the money? The power?

    "Hey, we're in hiding. They just crucified Jesus, and Stephen was just stoned to death for proffesing his beliefs. This new faith of ours will be a great way to keep others under our thumbs!"
    People of faith and "religion" are all too often lumped into the same category. Organized religion can be a tool of power like any other hierarchical group of humans. (not that all are, or that it has to be....)

    By the way, that last paragraph would make a great sig line.

  5. #624
    Shaves like a pirate jockeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    2,423
    Thanked: 590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mhailey View Post
    So we are creating life in a laboratory to prove the hypothesis that life was not created? I have got to be missing something?!?

    Do you have citations for your position that this idea was abandoned?

    Matt
    1. intentionally creating life would not be much of an experiment. re-creating various probable primordial conditions and seeing what happens when the experiment is left alone is quite another thing altogether. there have been some very interesting experiments that confirm, albeit partially, the ability of RNA to self replicate, as well as the tendency of certain amino acids to self organize into nucleic acids. for a very shallow introduction to the subject:
    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    not nearly as helpful as reading biology textbooks, of course, but anyone can read this article with not much background and understand what's going on.

    2. to quote from the definition of life from wikipedia (sloppy, I know, but I don't have any textbooks with me at the moment:
    "There is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists"

    I cannot provide a citation that indicates nobody still thinks that way, because many people do. perhaps I should have stated it "most serious scientific academians have abandoned". didn't mean to be unclear.

  6. #625
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
    2. to quote from the definition of life from wikipedia (sloppy, I know, but I don't have any textbooks with me at the moment:
    "There is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists"

    I cannot provide a citation that indicates nobody still thinks that way, because many people do. perhaps I should have stated it "most serious scientific academians have abandoned". didn't mean to be unclear.
    So, what was previously scientifically accepted as fact, is now scientifically abandoned no longer valid?

    And yet to say that creationism should not be taught as being valid, as it lacks a scientific basis?

    What I'm getting at here is that when talking about the beginings of life, there is no scientifically proveable facts. Nothing any more scientific than what is proposed bt Creationists. Just because the guys making the guesses are scientists, does not make it scientific.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Seraphim For This Useful Post:

    JMS (05-21-2009)

  8. #626
    Shaves like a pirate jockeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    2,423
    Thanked: 590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    So, what was previously scientifically accepted as fact, is now scientifically abandoned no longer valid?
    yep. that's what makes science so beautiful! not afraid to admit wrongness and learn new things. a scientific theory is nothing more than "this is the best explanation we have... FOR NOW." continuous study and experimentation will gradually improve the theory over the years, and even if humanity can never explain all the mysteries, I think getting closer to the truth, fractionally and slowly, is certainly better than the alternative...

    "my invisible friend in the sky made the world, and if you don't believe me, you will suffer forever."

  9. #627
    Never a dull moment hoglahoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    8,922
    Thanked: 1501
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
    "my invisible friend in the sky made the world, and if you don't believe me, you will suffer forever."
    Is that what you used to tell them?

    By the way I am with smokelaw, this thread is interesting!
    Last edited by hoglahoo; 05-20-2009 at 08:29 PM.
    Find me on SRP's official chat in ##srp on Freenode. Link is at top of SRP's homepage

  10. #628
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
    yep. that's what makes science so beautiful! not afraid to admit wrongness and learn new things. a scientific theory is nothing more than "this is the best explanation we have... FOR NOW." continuous study and experimentation will gradually improve the theory over the years, and even if humanity can never explain all the mysteries, I think getting closer to the truth, fractionally and slowly, is certainly better than the alternative...

    "my invisible friend in the sky made the world, and if you don't believe me, you will suffer forever."
    Well, what if one of the new things to be learned is the possibility that an invisible friend in the sky did create the world?

    Apply Ockham's razor to this:

    In an inexplicable series of events, and contrary to all ideas about entropy, life came about on its' own, able to reproduce, and evolve into the varied life we now know today

    or

    There actually is a Supreme Being, and He did create everything.

  11. #629
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    Thanked: 735

    Default

    Who re-dug up this thread anyhow?!

  12. #630
    Shaves like a pirate jockeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    2,423
    Thanked: 590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Well, what if one of the new things to be learned is the possibility that an invisible friend in the sky did create the world?

    Apply Ockham's razor to this:

    In an inexplicable series of events, and contrary to all ideas about entropy, life came about on its' own, able to reproduce, and evolve into the varied life we now know today

    or

    There actually is a Supreme Being, WHO IS NECESSARILY INFINITELY COMPLICATED and He did create everything.
    fixed that for you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •