Religion Religions and rudeness.

[TheHeatleyStand]

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Should I believe that miracles occur when there is little to no robust, empircal evidence to support such?



Quite apart from the fact the above statement is (as per usual) incorrect and incomplete, there is overwhelming empirical evidence for evolution.



A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Evolution exists within natural or scientific laws and is therefore by definition not miracalous. Moreover evolution has been directly observed and still occuring.





I've told you what science is.

Science (which derives from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

then explain what happened before the big bang

or how organic matter appeared from non organic
. that would be a miracle

I'll choose mine
you'll choose yours

and like I said

many scientists who understand quantum physics are also religious

would you consider them stupid?

 

[Roylion]

so when scientists are religious what has happened to their scientific reasoning?

Nothing. Who said it did?

I've got no doubt that religious beliefs held by scientists give personal answers to the bigger philosophical questions in life — like how humans can be significant at all in the context of the universe. Science is about seeking truth and testing a hypothesis. Science cannot and does not try to "prove" the existence of God.

you're not the best at history either

Never claimed I was "the best". I've just been teaching and tutoring history at secondary and tertiary level for close to forty years.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

boys the big bang theory
where there is no cause to an effect
and the living organism from a non living one created by lightning then turning into fish and then out of the water then monkeys into out of Africa humans are massive miracles

we have not seen a big bang explosion since

we've been going for ten billion years or whatever it is and these things have never reoccured

how come there are not new species of humans popping out of the water after lightning strikes since?

are we the finished article yet , or is there more?

I'm fascinated



by the way

you're attacking science from religious scientists but the science that comes from non religious in your mind must be correct and marked with applied logic


tell me

are the religious scientists on one side of the climate change debate and all the non religious scientists on the other side of the argument?

it would seem logical that the non religious who understand logic and true scientific methodology would have the correct scientific answer

and if ALL religious scientists don't understand logic which is why they're religious.. they of course would be on the wrong side of the argument

because, surely science and reason being exclusively atheist would suggest this

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Nothing. Who said it did?

I've got no doubt that religious beliefs held by scientists give personal answers to the bigger philosophical questions in life — like how humans can be significant at all in the context of the universe. Science is about seeking truth and testing a hypothesis. Science cannot and does not try to "prove" the existence of God.



Never claimed I was "the best". I've just been teaching and tutoring history at secondary and tertiary level for close to forty years.

but by making your claims you're also saying scientists can't be religious and believe in God or Christ therefore

you're suggesting that religious scientists are not real scientists
or somehow traitors to their scientific faternity

I'm not actually too sure what you think of these scientists

can you articulate how you view them?

are they outside of the realms of true science for you?

are they crazy?


I still don't understand your applied logic and reasoning to this

 

[Roylion]

boys the big bang theory

Firstly...whether you like it or not, the Big Bang Theory is the prevailing cosmological model amongst the experts and all the available scientific evidence including gravitational waves, the 'Doppler Effect', Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) and the abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe, supports that model.

Some of the observed evidence in a little more detail.

1. Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. "Hubble's Law." This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. 'Redshift' is the 'Doppler Effect' occurring in light. When an object moves away from Earth, its color rays look more similar to the color red than they actually are, because the movement stretches the wavelength of light given off by the object. Scientists use the word "red hot" to describe this stretched light wave because red is the longest wavelength on the visible spectrum. The more 'redshift' there is, the faster the object is moving away. By measuring the 'redshift', scientists proved that the universe is expanding, and they can work out how fast the object is moving away from the Earth.

2. In 1965, Radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This radiation is known as radio waves, and they are everywhere in the universe. This radiation is now very weak and cold, but a long time ago it was very strong and very hot. This is thought to be the remnant of the very hot universe which is believed to have started expanding 13.7 billion years ago. (see 1. above)

3. The abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. There appears to be no obvious reason, outside of the theory of the Big Bang, why a young universe should have more helium than deuterium (heavy hydrogen) or more deuterium than Helium 3, and in a constant ratio as well.

A new window on the very early universe looks like it has been opened by the first detection of gravitational waves.

There have been two confirmed observations of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). They appear to actually exist. If gravitational waves have been discovered, (and it looks like they have) astronomers could use them to observe the cosmos in a way that has been impossible to date. Prior to this detection, astrophysicists and cosmologists have been able to make observations based upon electromagnetic radiation (including visible light, X-rays, microwave, radio waves, gamma rays), and particle-like entities (cosmic waves, stellar winds, neutrinos and so on). These have significant limitations - light and other radiation may not be emitted by many kinds of objects, and can also be obscured or hidden behind other objects.

So new observational results and theoretical advances are now coming in rapidly. Some of these new discoveries may alter / modify current theories, some may confirm existing models / theories.

And of course based on the available observational evidence to date (SOME of which has been described above), the 'Big Bang Theory' of the origins of the universe is far more plausible and creditable as an explanation of the processes of the origins of the universe / earth / life than the Biblical creation story written down by an ancient cultural group, roughly between 700 - 200 BC.

and the living organism from a non living one created by lightning then turning into fish and then out of the water then monkeys into out of Africa humans are massive miracles

They're not miracles. That you claim they are shows a lack of understanding of evolution.

how come there are not new species of humans popping out of the water after lightning strikes since?

There we are. That once again demonstrates you do not even understand the theory you are refuting.

are we the finished article yet , or is there more?

There's more.

Evolution of humanity continues.

Survivors of infectious disease outbreaks drive natural selection by giving their genetic resistance to offspring. Our DNA shows evidence for recent selection for resistance of killer diseases like Lassa fever and malaria.

Humans are also adapting to their environment. Mutations allowing humans to live at high altitudes have become more common in populations in Tibet, Ethiopia, and the Andes. The spread of genetic mutations in Tibet is possibly the fastest evolutionary change in humans, occurring over the last 3,000 years. This rapid surge in frequency of a mutated gene that increases blood oxygen content gives locals a survival advantage in higher altitudes, resulting in more surviving children.

Diet is another source for adaptations. Evidence from Inuit DNA shows a recent adaptation that allows them to thrive on their fat-rich diet of Arctic mammals. Studies also show that natural selection favouring a mutation allowing adults to produce lactase – the enzyme that breaks down milk sugars – is why some groups of people can digest milk after weaning. Over 80% of north-west Europeans can, but in parts of East Asia, where milk is much less commonly drunk, an inability to digest lactose is the norm. Like high altitude adaptation, selection to digest milk has evolved more than once in humans and may be the strongest kind of recent selection.

We may well be adapting to unhealthy diets too. One study of family genetic changes in the US during the 20th century found selection for reduced blood pressure and cholesterol levels, both of which can be lethally raised by modern diets.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

if this is a metaphorical battle between tooth fairies and science why are some scientists believers in tooth fairies and how do you back up your claims!?

 

[Roylion]

but by making your claims you're also saying scientists can't be religious and believe in God or Christ therefore

I said no such thing. You're making that claim.

you're suggesting that religious scientists are not real scientists
or somehow traitors to their scientific faternity

I made no such claim. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I still don't understand your applied logic and reasoning to this

There's a great many things you don't understand. Try reading what others say slowly and carefully.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

ah yes

but the big bang theory doesn't address was there before

and now you're telling us to wait and see stuff is coming out

just wait!

 

[Roylion]

ah yes

but the big bang theory doesn't address was there before

Of course it doesn't. Never claimed it did. You're demanding the theory to answer a question which is outside the scope of that theory to answer.

As I said, whether you like it or not, the Big Bang Theory is the prevailing cosmological model amongst the experts and all the available scientific evidence including gravitational waves, the 'Doppler Effect', Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) and the abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe, supports that model.

and now you're telling us to wait and see stuff is coming out

It's called scientific research. Which is ongoing.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

ok but how do you see scientists who are believers?

I mean I know you didn't quite say that but you've been talking about tooth fairies and stuff in a dismissive way

so I guess I'm interested to know how can scientists trained in logic and scientific methodology can also be religious and pious!

can you explain this?


there are many religious scientists!

but it seems you're more understanding off science than they are!

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Of course it doesn't. Never claimed it did. You're demanding the theory to answer a question which is outside the scope of that theory to answer.

As I said, whether you like it or not, the Big Bang Theory is the prevailing cosmological model amongst the experts and all the available scientific evidence including gravitational waves, the 'Doppler Effect', Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) and the abundance of the Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe, supports that model.



It's called scientific research. Which is ongoing.

scientific research which might or might not?


aka faith

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

you believe that non organic matter was struck by lightning in water that created organic matter and that fish were hatched, then they crawled out of the swamp turned into monkeys and then you

lol

funny!

this might be called a miracle because it's never happened again

I think that might be the most cretinous thing I’ve ever read on BigFooty.

You are not worth arguing with. You can regurgitate your scripture but when it comes to using your brain you are clearly a lost cause.

What a truly sad state of affairs that someone can come out with such a comment in 2019. Such a fundamental lack of understanding.

 

[skilts]

haha he's not dead

there's a billion people in the world and hundreds of billions who have lived including most of your ancestors who don't agree with you

you really obviously think that God dies

Your cult is vile. I think it best if you cease with grave robbing.

New South Wales Consolidated Acts
[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [History] [Help]
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 81C
Misconduct with regard to corpses81C Misconduct with regard to corpses
Any person who:

(a) indecently interferes with any dead human body, or​

(b) improperly interferes with, or offers any indignity to, any dead human body or human remains (whether buried or not),​

shall be liable to imprisonment for two years.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

I didn't regurgitate scripture

I haven't even gone to scripture lol

and yes!

run off

they're difficult questions you're asked to answer

and I know you can't answer those

 

[Roylion]

ok but how do you see scientists who are believers?

As scientists. It's the quality of their scientific research I'm interested in. I don't care what they personally believe about the supernatural through faith. As long as it doesn't colour their scientific research.

I mean I know you didn't quite say that but you've been talking about tooth fairies and stuff in a dismissive way

You're the only one of the two of us that has mentioned the 'tooth fairy' so far.

so I guess I'm interested to know how can scientists trained in logic and scientific methodology can also be religious and pious!

I've already said that I have no doubt that religious beliefs held by scientists give personal answers to the bigger philosophical questions in life — like how humans can be significant at all in the context of the universe.

However science is about seeking truth and testing a hypothesis. Science cannot and does not try to "prove" the existence of God.

there are many religious scientists!

And there are many non-religious scientists. Whether religious or non-religious, most see religion and science as operating in separate spheres. Religion is based on what cannot be seen, on faith. Science is based on empirically based observations of the natural world.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Your cult is vile. I think it best if you cease with grave robbing.

New South Wales Consolidated Acts
[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [History] [Help]
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 81C
Misconduct with regard to corpses81C Misconduct with regard to corpses
Any person who:

(a) indecently interferes with any dead human body, or​

(b) improperly interferes with, or offers any indignity to, any dead human body or human remains (whether buried or not),​

shall be liable to imprisonment for two years.

but you're ok with non organic matter turning into organic matter?

really?

you have faith in this happening?

miracle!

never having happened in the ten billion years since

plus you should ask the many prominent scientists that are scientists why they're anti science!

according to you science rejects religion!
so it's impossible for science and religion to coexist!

that's not a position I maintain

but there is a kind of science jihad going on!

and very angry!

but there's nothing I have asked that is unreasonable

what's unreasonable is having the questions answered reasonably, logically and unequivocally by you!

no point being nasty because you don't wish to answer

 

[M Malice]

WOW! this Roy and THS discussion- Roy has given THS the most comprehensive beating I have witnessed since Steffi Graf beat Natasha Zvereva 6-0 6-0 in the 1988 French Open Final.

The hysterical thing is THS either refuses to admit it or doesn't see or sense it.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

I think you guys need to answer why all these scientists are believers!

do you think they're stupid or that you're more intelligent?
do you think you're equipped to apply scientific reasoning and methodology that they can't?




;
I'm really interested and youre playing the man not the ball!

can you actually say " I don't know and that it's personal!" ?

because you don't have to have a relationship with God!

but you can't be supremacist to those that do!
not on the back of intellect!


many more intelligent people than you blokes believe

I think you guys need to put away your mk47s and lions and just tolerate diversity

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

WOW! this Roy and THS discussion- Roy has given THS the most comprehensive beating I have witnessed since Steffi Graf beat Natasha Zvereva 6-0 6-0 in the 1988 French Open Final.

The hysterical thing is THS either refuses to admit it or doesn't see or sense it.

you guys need to answer why many scientists believe!

when you do that I can begin to take you seriously!

 

[Colonial]

just tolerate diversity

Christians 1st.

 

[M Malice]

you guys need to answer why many scientists believe!

when you do that I can begin to take you seriously!

Roy has explained it to you over and over and over again, IMO you are being deliberately obtuse, Roys patience for this is quite frankly staggeringly impressive.

I am quite willing to sit back witness the demolition and laugh.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Christians 1st.

you haven't heard me attacking you for being believers and having faith in science

that's ok

I don't think you're dumber or smarter than me or anyone else

I do believe you know less about science than religious scientists

and you definitely know less than ancient Christianity and philosophy than me

it's important to keep an open mind in science and also to understand what you're talking about

The moment you get nasty is the moment when we all know you've lost the plot of this topic

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Roy has explained it to you over and over and over again, IMO you are being deliberately obtuse, Roys patience for this is quite frankly staggeringly impressive.

I am quite willing to sit back witness the demolition and laugh.

he hasn't explained anything
I'm asking one paradigm
he's answering something different
you can keep saying you've answered stuff but you haven't

you've only regurgitated that science isn't faith because still working on stuff and that's why we can't answer.
but we have faith that we will


One day...

watch!

like you're going to get me to believe that one day we will have the answer as to why something happened out of nothing.

and I have to believe that!


I think your faith paradigm is different to mine!

but it's the same

in the beginning there was light!

if you have enough faith you'll believe that

just as you're asking me to have faith that science will prove out of nothingness there came somethingness!

which is why we have religious scientists

they know you can't get something out of nothing

that's called the cause and effect law

but atheists bend over backwards and break scientific laws in the attempt to prove God doesn't exist!

it's funny;

but you don't get it!

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

you haven't heard me attacking you for being believers and having faith in science

that's ok

I don't think you're dumber or smarter than me or anyone else

I do believe you know less about science than religious scientists

and you definitely know less than ancient Christianity and philosophy than me

it's important to keep an open mind in science and also to understand what you're talking about

The moment you get nasty is the moment when we all know you've lost the plot of this topic

I don’t think anyone is in any doubt over who has lost the plot.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

I think that might be the most cretinous thing I’ve ever read on BigFooty.

You are not worth arguing with. You can regurgitate your scripture but when it comes to using your brain you are clearly a lost cause.

What a truly sad state of affairs that someone can come out with such a comment in 2019. Such a fundamental lack of understanding.

sticks and stones my friend!
cretinous?


you should answer why religious scientists exist then

if you think that

I don’t think anyone is in any doubt over who has lost the plot.

The religious scientists according to anonymous internet guys on big footy?

lol

ok so I have to have faith that science has or will have all the answers one day as to why you can make something out of nothing.



according to some condescending people on big footy

you don't understand the absurdity of bias in all this do you?

I do!