Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to A pointed question - too tough for most people
for the future of humanity -- most certainly weep
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 8, 2008 at 1:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: LET ME START WITH THE "BIOGENESIS" bullcrap
There are some interesting links to be found in your comment. After reading some of these pages, particularly the information found on wikipedia, a few things become abundantly clear. Our collective knowledge in this area is extremely primitive and what we do know involves scientific principles beyond the comprehension of most people with an average IQ and a general education.
No wonder the religious folks are gaining ground within widely held perception utilizing such weak arguments. Very few people exist by comparison to their numbers to refute the slobbering drivel they put forth as contentions.
As you mention in your following comment, a few subtle changes here and there, then add a few highly biased conclusions and those who want to adhere to creationism are able to construct what they think is some form of profound argument. Except it all must inevitably work its way back to the fact that the average person doesn't know squat about these things. They are using fabrications to refute fabrications.
The part I liked best from the link in the post was these few lines:
"Thus the core belief of atheism of there being no god at best can only be considered as a hypothesis. Somewhere along the way, some misled soul took it for a truth and created a religion based on it."
The author, in earlier convolutions has atheism and science as synonyms, now in these few lines he has atheism as a religion created by some misled soul. When the two notions are combined; scientists are misled souls intent on proving their religion.
It's enough to make one weep for the future of humanity.
posted by
gomedome
on May 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Now the blog referred to.
We have words twisted here, such as "belief of NO god", where Atheism is LACK OF BELIEF in a god.
Reading this, I have to conclude that, in the guise of a reasoned statement, we have a basketload of assumptions. Any atheist reading that would bristle at such misrepresentation of their perception that god does not exist.
If a person would present an argument, it cannot be based of less than valid information. It's a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.
And you know how substantial that is.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM
| link to this | reply
LET ME START WITH THE "BIOGENESIS" bullcrap
Before there was a real knowledge and observation of how flies lay their eggs in meat, people noticed maggots and other larvae "" in organic matter and concluded that these organisms were arising spontaneously from it, thus developing a theory of "spontaneous generation" of life. This is what our blogger (I have read that) refers to.
However, our blogger got it wrong. This theory of biogenesis, per Wikipedia, in its article that can be accessed HERE
"Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders.
The term is also used for the assertion that living matter can only be generated by other living matter, in contrast to the hypotheses of abiogenesis which hold that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown."
Am I correct in assuming that our creationiist assumes that biogenesis is a scientific theory stating that life arises spontaneously, as maggots appear to do?
First, to approach this theory is to address an issue that was proposed a couple of hundred years ago and has since been shown to be faulty. Science, of course, has since taken the stance that life can arise from non-life, per the Wikipedia article: HERE
Thus, our creationist is basically, "beating a dead horse", using a theory discredited long ago to typify the scientific process today.
Secondly, of course, our creationist fails to see the biogenesis would uphold his/her point of view, which demonstrates the faulty assumptions made by those who fail to test their conclusions properly.
I think the biggest point to be made here is that no one, not even all the scientists in the world combined, knows definitely all the characteristics of the Universe and its history. Happily, many will admit this. Some, however, put an air of dogma to their conclusions, muddying the waters.
The lesson to be learned from this creationist is that a person should not jump to conclusions, or let other people jump to conclusions for them. Too many either forget, or are unaware that Christians in particular are admonished to "Prove all things." by the Apostle Paul. This is the scientific method. Assumptions and faulty conclusions do not at all fit in this scenariio.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
| link to this | reply
vogue - that would make you like most people
I happen to live in a city with an fairly large scientific community. The two scientists that I know (in real life) have become aquaintances through natural social extension and simply because of where I live. I think that most people outside of science would say much the same in terms of how many scientists they know, which begs the question:
How is it that so many people who obviously know very little about scientific principles and therefore we can assume have no involvement with science, can offer us such detailed profiles of scientists and their motives?
posted by
gomedome
on May 8, 2008 at 9:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Do Physicians count as Scientists?
Probably in the same sense that engineers could be called scientists, in that they are working within or enveloped by scientific disciplines and contributing to scientific discovery.
In your next comment you mention the lessons we should have learned from history (paraph.) i.e. Galleleo and pertaining to religious belief impeding scientific discovery. That is the point I feel is the premise of what are reasonable objections we can all make to the current trend.
posted by
gomedome
on May 8, 2008 at 9:21 AM
| link to this | reply
As always, most informative. And no, I don't know any personally.
posted by
vogue
on May 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM
| link to this | reply
As for the rest of the post...
Very informative. Hasn't history taught these people how smashing science beneath the hammer for which people misuse religion is bad for not just their beliefs, but for humanity in general? One word: GALILEO. People need to really get it through their heads that science and religion should coexist peacefully and really should support one another.
OK, I'm in danger of getting on a soapbox, and ugh I have a pile of paperwork to do. I feel a post coming on...
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on May 8, 2008 at 7:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Do Physicians count as Scientists?
If so, I know 1 pathologist, 2 MD's and a DO. Otherwise, just the ones that taught my Science courses in College.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on May 8, 2008 at 7:50 AM
| link to this | reply