• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top scientists comment on their research into God and aliens

marke said:
What are you saying, that various theories about the source of the origin of life on earth should not be discussed in science class?
Click to expand...

False.

I refer only to theories without scientific support. Do you think Odin should be taught in a science class?
 
marke said:
There are a train car load of crappy theories out there which might could work, but none so scientifically plausible as the creation theory.
Click to expand...

Creation “theory’” doesn’t have any scientific evidence to back it up
 
Deuce said:
Creation “theory’” doesn’t have any scientific evidence to back it up
Click to expand...

No, but neither do crappy alternative theories. The creation theory, however, remains the best SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE theory there is. Life does not create nonlife and the universe did not just suddenly appear by dumb lucky chance from nothing.
 
marke said:
No, but neither do crappy alternative theories. The creation theory, however, remains the best SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE theory there is. Life does not create nonlife and the universe did not just suddenly appear by dumb lucky chance from nothing.
Click to expand...

I think you mean non-life does not become life.

This is demonstrably false: at a base level you are made completely out of non living material. Hydrogen and oxygen make up most of your mass, not alive. Carbon is next. Not alive.

It’s the arrangement that makes life.

As for the origins of the universe, it’s not luck. It’s physics.


the Big Bang is supported by evidence. It happened. No matter how much you wish it didn’t.
 
Deuce said:
I think you mean non-life does not become life.

This is demonstrably false: at a base level you are made completely out of non living material. Hydrogen and oxygen make up most of your mass, not alive. Carbon is next. Not alive.

It’s the arrangement that makes life.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. The chemicals somehow got together after they invented themselves and created thoughts which directed the formation of billions of amino acid combinations in the right combination to form the first living life form on earth. That seems rather simplistic. Kindergarten stupid, in fact.

As for the origins of the universe, it’s not luck. It’s physics.
Click to expand...

How can kids argue that point? It's just physics. Before matter existed the big bang just happened. Brilliant. That kind of understanding of physics transforms kindergartners into scientific geniuses overnight. It is so easy to believe and understand by simple minds.

the Big Bang is supported by evidence. It happened. No matter how much you wish it didn’t.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that the sudden creation of billions of stars and planets in a moment in time caused quite a big bang.
 
ataraxia said:
Actually no. Last I heard we don't really have a solid scientific understanding of abiogenesis. We are working on it, and making some interesting inroads. Anyone who says otherwise is making stuff up. But that's no license to believe in any fool thing you want- or to teach it in science class.
Click to expand...

I'm sure secularists really do believe they are making progress in that area, even after the Miller-Urey setback.
 
marke said:
I'm sure secularists really do believe they are making progress in that area, even after the Miller-Urey setback.
Click to expand...

So any setback in science should be reason to teach cultural mythology in science class?
 
marke said:
Professor to students: 'I don't give a damn if your parents want to believe all that Christian mythology crap. They can believe any stupid damn thing they want if they want to remain dummasses. But this is a goddamm public school and in this damn school we only teach the truth, not ridiculous man-made fairy tales. For example, we know the universe was blown into existence by a powerful explosion which was fueled by star dust and occurred a gazillion and 35 years ago. There is no doubt. That is science. God is not science. God is fiction and belongs in backwoods holy-roller churches where IQ levels rarely reach three digits.'
Click to expand...

Once again you contradict yourself. You first claim we do not know how the universe started and now apparently you have a good idea how it started. How do you do that?

As well you demonstrate just how ignorant you are about the beginning of the universe. The term big bang is a misnomer no scientist actually thinks that there was an explosion. Please educate yourself about the theory before dismissing it with ignorant remarks.
 
marke said:
There are a train car load of crappy theories out there which might could work, but none so scientifically plausible as the creation theory.
Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong again. RNA has been created in labs using designs that mimic the conditions of earth around the time life began. Where as all you have for your creation myth is badly written book of fictional stories.
 
soylentgreen said:
Once again you contradict yourself. You first claim we do not know how the universe started and now apparently you have a good idea how it started. How do you do that?

As well you demonstrate just how ignorant you are about the beginning of the universe. The term big bang is a misnomer no scientist actually thinks that there was an explosion. Please educate yourself about the theory before dismissing it with ignorant remarks.
Click to expand...

I have no need to educate myself about every mythological belief and myth concerning origins that mentally struggling humans come up with.
 
soylentgreen said:
Actually you are wrong again. RNA has been created in labs using designs that mimic the conditions of earth around the time life began. Where as all you have for your creation myth is badly written book of fictional stories.
Click to expand...

There is your scientific proof right in front of your face. An intelligent source with a brain and a plan and design took chemicals he either made or obtained and created life. How much more evidence do you need?
 
marke said:
Let's start with Stephen Hawking.

"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational."

OK. Let's chalk up one supporter of the idea that science proves the existence of aliens.
Click to expand...


No, he never said that science proves the existence of aliens. He believes that the existence of aliens is a probability or a possibility.

Let's see next whether science also proves the existence of God.
Click to expand...

How can it?
 
NWO_Spook said:
No, he never said that science proves the existence of aliens. He believes that the existence of aliens is a probability or a possibility.
How can it?
Click to expand...

He is right. Science cannot rule out aliens or God.
 
NWO_Spook said:
No, he never said that science proves the existence of aliens. He believes that the existence of aliens is a probability or a possibility.
How can it?
Click to expand...

Science cannot prove the existence of God or aliens and science cannot deny the possibility of God or aliens.
 
marke said:
I have no need to educate myself about every mythological belief and myth concerning origins that mentally struggling humans come up with.
Click to expand...

The problem with your debate is that you make these ridiculous statements about what you think the theory has to say in the hope of making it look silly but instead only make yourself look foolish and only emphasise the fact that you do not know anything about it. . As you quite obviously do not have any knowledge of the theory then your dismissal is only by contempt and not good reason. That you now pretend it is a myth like your creation story only demonstrates your similar ignorance of science rather than a good argument against the theory.

There is your scientific proof right in front of your face. An intelligent source with a brain and a plan and design took chemicals he either made or obtained and created life. How much more evidence do you need?
Click to expand...

There is no reason to bring an intelligent designer into the picture. Your anthropomorphising the experiment itself rather than looking at the results of the experiment.
 
soylentgreen said:
The problem with your debate is that you make these ridiculous statements about what you think the theory has to say in the hope of making it look silly but instead only make yourself look foolish and only emphasise the fact that you do not know anything about it. . As you quite obviously do not have any knowledge of the theory then your dismissal is only by contempt and not good reason. That you now pretend it is a myth like your creation story only demonstrates your similar ignorance of science rather than a good argument against the theory.
Click to expand...

No version of the secular origins theories are sensible or even scientifically acceptable. Don't criticize me for not explaining the ridiculous theories properly, you try explaining them and you will see what I mean.
There is no reason to bring an intelligent designer into the picture. Your anthropomorphising the experiment itself rather than looking at the results of the experiment.
Click to expand...

Like it or not intelligent design is a very real scientifically reasonable possible aspect of the origin of life and matter.
 
marke said:
No version of the secular origins theories are sensible or even scientifically acceptable. Don't criticize me for not explaining the ridiculous theories properly, you try explaining them and you will see what I mean.


Like it or not intelligent design is a very real scientifically reasonable possible aspect of the origin of life and matter.
Click to expand...

No, ID is really nothing more than athropomorphic story telling that has no more to do with reality than any ID story from other cultures.

You do not have science to back it just a badly written book of fiction stories.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, ID is really nothing more than athropomorphic story telling that has no more to do with reality than any ID story from other cultures.

You do not have science to back it just a badly written book of fiction stories.
Click to expand...

Science apparently did not tell Dawkins one way or the other whether intelligent design played any part in the origins of life and matter.
 
marke said:
Science apparently did not tell Dawkins one way or the other whether intelligent design played any part in the origins of life and matter.
Click to expand...

That is because science does not deal with your fantasy belief of ID.
 
marke said:
Ah yes. The chemicals somehow got together after they invented themselves and created thoughts which directed the formation of billions of amino acid combinations in the right combination to form the first living life form on earth. That seems rather simplistic. Kindergarten stupid, in fact.
Click to expand...
Straw man.
You moved the goalposts. The question is whether life can come from non-life. We have proof it does.

Thought and direction are not required for chemical reactions, I’m not sure why you are implying that they are. If a volcano spews sulfur into the air and that mixes in the atmosphere to create sulfur dioxide, that’s not a thought process. It’s chemistry.

Finally, you don’t need billions of amino acids to form simple proteins. Why would you make that up?



How can kids argue that point? It's just physics. Before matter existed the big bang just happened. Brilliant. That kind of understanding of physics transforms kindergartners into scientific geniuses overnight. It is so easy to believe and understand by simple minds.
Click to expand...
Another straw man. You’re the one who brought up luck. When a boulder rolls down a hill, that’s not luck. It’s just how gravity works.



I don't doubt that the sudden creation of billions of stars and planets in a moment in time caused quite a big bang.
Click to expand...
Observable evidence contradicts the idea that every star was created simultaneously. Rejected.
 
marke said:
Science apparently did not tell Dawkins one way or the other whether intelligent design played any part in the origins of life and matter.
Click to expand...

Correct. Science has no evidence to support the idea that intelligence was behind any of this.
 
marke said:
There is your scientific proof right in front of your face. An intelligent source with a brain and a plan and design took chemicals he either made or obtained and created life. How much more evidence do you need?
Click to expand...

It proves that in the right conditions, simple proteins will form. A human didn’t splice those amino acids together. Chemistry did that. How much more evidence do you need?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom