Religious Discussion [Enter at ye own Peril]

[burmans]

except that he did not propose that 'scientific theories' are not factual.

The word theory has 3 different meanings, can sometimes be ambiguous, but its obvious which one is referred to by the context.
Everyone knows what he meant by "its just a theory". he did not say "it's just a scientific theory"

That the commonly used phrase Big Bang theory (probably due to TV show) has the word theory in it does provide an easy opportunity for some to play semantics with, and its about 100% predictable that the first comeback will be about gravity, even though Gravity itself is not a scientific theory.

If you Google theory of gravity I think you'd find not everyone agrees with that last statement.

 

[TheRealTMA]

except that he did not propose that 'scientific theories' are not factual.

The word theory has 3 different meanings, can sometimes be ambiguous, but its obvious which one is referred to by the context.
Everyone knows what he meant by "its just a theory". he did not say "it's just a scientific theory"

That the commonly used phrase Big Bang theory (probably due to TV show) has the word theory in it does provide an easy opportunity for some to play semantics with, and its about 100% predictable that the first comeback will be about gravity, even though Gravity itself is not a scientific theory.

"Television Host (Graham Chapman): Good evening. Tonight - dinosaurs. I have here sitting in the studio next to me an elk. Aaagghhhh! Oh, I'm sorry, Anne Elk, Mrs Anne Elk.

Miss Elk (John Cleese, as a very prim lady): Miss.

Host: Miss Anne Elk, who is an expert on the...

Elk: No, no, no, Anne Elk.

Host: What?

Elk: Anne Elk, not Anne Expert.

Host: No, no, I was saying that you, Miss Elk, were an, A.N. not A.N.N.E., expert...

Elk: Oh!

Host: ...on elks - I'm sorry, on dinosaurs.

Elk: Yes, I certainly am, Chris, how very true, my word yes!

Host: Now, Miss Elk - Anne - you have a new theory about the brontosaurus.

Elk: Could I just say, Chris, for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?

Host: Er... exactly. What is it?

Elk: Where?

Host: No, no, no. What is your theory?

Elk: Oh, what is my theory?

Host: Yes.

Elk: Oh what is my theory, that it is. Yes, well you may well ask, what is my theory.

Host: (slightly impatient) I am asking.

Elk: And well you may. Yes my word you may well ask what it is, this theory of mine. Well, this theory that I have--that is to say, which is mine-- ...is mine.

Host: (more impatient) I know it's yours. What is it?

Elk: Where? Oh, what is my theory?

Host: Yes!

Elk: Oh, my theory that I have follows the lines I am about to relate. (Coughs) Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.

Host: Oh God.

Elk: Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. [Impatient noises from Host] The Theory, by A. Elk. That's A for Anne, it's not by a elk.

Host: Right....

Elk: This theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory. Ahem. Ready?

(Host moans)

Elk: The Theory by A. Elk brackets Miss brackets. My theory is along the following lines.

Host: Oh God.

Elk: All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too.

Host: That's it, is it?

Elk: Right, Chris.

Host: Well, Anne, this theory of yours seems to have hit the nail on the head.

Elk: And it's mine.

Host: (ironical) Thank you for coming along to the studio.

Elk: My pleasure, Chris.

Host: Er...Britain's newest wasp farm...

Elk: It's been a lot of fun.

Host: ...opened last week...

Elk: Saying what my theory is.

Host: Yes, thank you.

Elk: And whose it is.

Host: Yes. ...opened last week...

Elk: I have another theory.

Host: Not today, thank you.

Elk: My theory number two, which is the second theory that I have. Ahem! This theory...

Host: Oh look...shut up!

Elk: ...is what I am about to say...

Host: Oh please shut up!

Elk: ...which, with what I have said, are the two theories that are mine and belong to me.

Host: Look, if you don't shut up I shall shoot you.

Elk: Ahem! My brace of theories, which I possess the ownership of, which belongs to me...

(BANG!)

(Pause)

Elk: Ahem. The Theory the Second by Anne...

(MACHINE GUN FIRE)"

 

[ermen]

I think you are throwing in more red herrings than you would like to admit.

I am not interested in debating evolutionary biology or even the latest thoughts on the cambrian explosion, or even adopt a posture of scientific method (your professional world), in as much as you would like to adopt the measures of success in my professional world.

But if you must

Seems like Charles Darwin first raised the issue of the Cambrian dilemma "
"In 1859, in On the Origin of Species, Darwin broached what he regarded to be the most vexing problem facing his theory of evolution—the lack of a rich fossil record predating the rise of shelly invertebrates that marks the beginning of the Cambrian Period of geologic time (≈550 million years ago), an “inexplicable” absence that could be “truly urged as a valid argument” against his all embracing synthesis." (Schopf 2000)


Now seems like there is an article by a Retallack that seems to stir the pot.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11777.html

Ediacaran study shakes the tree of life › News in Science (ABC Science)

What does it mean? If he is right, it does indeed present problems for the Cambrian period (some PhD said it not me)

Dr Jim Gehling of the South Australian Museum says if Ediacaran fossils were not the distant soft-bodied ancestors of animal life, then the Cambrian explosion would have come from "nowhere".
"I'm sorry, I'm not a creationist. I do not believe that the Cambrian animals popped into existence out of the blue at the beginning of the Cambrian," he says.


There you go. But do I care about the above? Not really. And i will let the scientists debate the merits or de-merits of this find.

Since this topic is a "religion" topic and not a biology one the questions that I want to ask people are"

1. Is there life after death?
2. If so, where do we go after we die?

 

[RooFlyer]

I think you are throwing in more red herrings than you would like to admit.

I am not interested in debating evolutionary biology or even the latest thoughts on the cambrian explosion, or even adopt a posture of scientific method (your professional world), in as much as you would like to adopt the measures of success in my professional world.

But if you must

Seems like Charles Darwin first raised the issue of the Cambrian dilemma "
"In 1859, in On the Origin of Species, Darwin broached what he regarded to be the most vexing problem facing his theory of evolution—the lack of a rich fossil record predating the rise of shelly invertebrates that marks the beginning of the Cambrian Period of geologic time (≈550 million years ago), an “inexplicable” absence that could be “truly urged as a valid argument” against his all embracing synthesis." (Schopf 2000)


Now seems like there is an article by a Retallack that seems to stir the pot.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11777.html

Ediacaran study shakes the tree of life › News in Science (ABC Science)

What does it mean? If he is right, it does indeed present problems for the Cambrian period (some PhD said it not me)

Dr Jim Gehling of the South Australian Museum says if Ediacaran fossils were not the distant soft-bodied ancestors of animal life, then the Cambrian explosion would have come from "nowhere".
"I'm sorry, I'm not a creationist. I do not believe that the Cambrian animals popped into existence out of the blue at the beginning of the Cambrian," he says.


There you go. But do I care about the above? Not really. And i will let the scientists debate the merits or de-merits of this find.

Since this topic is a "religion" topic and not a biology one the questions that I want to ask people are"

1. Is there life after death?
2. If so, where do we go after we die?

For some-one not interested in debating evolutionary biology, you are giving it a good nudge.

Oh, good grief. Putting Darwin and modern paleontological studies side-by-side is, I'm sorry, just ridiculous.

The issues of Ediacarian fauna and the Cambrian (and Eocambrian) fossil record are pretty well debated and the reasons for some of the apparent contradictions are well known - not least the paucity of good fossil sites and the ability to date them accurately and then to be able to correlate time horizons across sites. As more fossil sites of that time period are found, more questions will be raised, and others will be answered. Ho hum.

The "Cambrian Period' is a bit archaic these days, if you'll pardon the pun. Its really just an arbitrary time period BP, established in the 19th Century and has little to do with what we currently know about the various periods of the evolution of life.

And to answer your questions:

1) Yes, life WILL continue after death, unless the whole planet is smashed by an asteroid and everything perishes at the same instant. Personally though, (my) life will not continue after (my) death, life and death being sort of mutually exclusive. Kerry Packer's life continued after he was revived after he died. He described it like this:

I’ve been to the other side, and let me tell you, son, there’s cough*ing nothing there.

2) I don't know about you, but I'll be off to the Cornelian Bay cemetery after I die.

 

[TomVexille]

except that he did not propose that 'scientific theories' are not factual.

The word theory has 3 different meanings, can sometimes be ambiguous, but its obvious which one is referred to by the context.
Everyone knows what he meant by "its just a theory". he did not say "it's just a scientific theory"

That the commonly used phrase Big Bang theory (probably due to TV show) has the word theory in it does provide an easy opportunity for some to play semantics with, and its about 100% predictable that the first comeback will be about gravity, even though Gravity itself is not a scientific theory.

That's fine if all he had said was that "it's just a theory", but that's not all he said.

 

[JohnK]

So no recanting the misrepresentations, then?

Which misrepresantations? That I don't prescribe to some theories as fact?

I'm not a scientist. I don't need to debate you at that level.

Modern evolutionary biology. Is a theory. Method if you like as some scientists refer to the theory. It is not fact. It is in fact a guess. Yes an educated guess but still a guess. Please don't try to pass this off as fact. What I love the most is how new theories are created to explain holes in previous theories. When you can find someone that was there and witnessed what was evolving then I'll believe it.

I don't believe in a common ancestor. We did not begin from a single cell organism that had the blueprint to create millions of species. I call that a random event because if you believe that's how life started then you believe in miracles and you may as well believe in God.

I don't believe in the big bang. Makes no sense. Poor theory created to destroy religion. Enough said.

I don't believe in radiodating/carbon dating. We are talking about millions and billions of years. The assumption that the rate of decay will remain constant and not be affected by any outside influences is wrong. There is evidence around today that volcanic ash distorts carbon dating readings.

Creationism. Is a theory. Mainstream science has degraded the theory to a "belief". In my mind there is no difference between evolutionary biology and creationism. Both require you to believe this is how events occurred.

My belief? We were created. Everything we see around us was created. From there we evolved. I don't believe in a young earth. Everything wasn't created at the same time.

There is more to 'belief' than science will ever understand. I'll leave that for another post.

I haven't rubbished anyone. I have simply expressed my opinion on the big bang theory and from there this discussion evolved. I don't quite understand some of the attacks on here. I'm not a scientist. Some people here like to dissect each of my comments and quote alternate theories to me. This adds nothing to the debate. I'm not going to change my belief.

 

[blackcat20]

I haven't rubbished anyone.

You called all scientists arrogant. I considered that being rubbished.

 

[burmans]

Creationism. Is a theory. Mainstream science has degraded the theory to a "belief". In my mind there is no difference between evolutionary biology and creationism. Both require you to believe this is how events occurred.

My belief? We were created. Everything we see around us was created. From there we evolved. I don't believe in a young earth. Everything wasn't created at the same time.

The main difference between science and religion, in my view, is that science at least tries to find evidentiary support for their theories, scientists set a very high bar for "proof" and can be incredibly harsh on each other if theories lack that evidentiary support. Belief, by itself, is not regarded as enough.

Whereas with religion, its regarded as an article of faith that you believe regardless of any contrary/contradictory evidence, indeed evidence is regarded with some distain. So when you see natural disasters and people have doubts that we have a "loving and kind God" its regarded as an article of faith to overcome those doubts, "God is just testing us".

 

[JohnK]

The main difference between science and religion, in my view, is that science at least tries to find evidentiary support for their theories, scientists set a very high bar for "proof" and can be incredibly harsh on each other if theories lack that evidentiary support. Belief, by itself, is not regarded as enough.

Belief can be enough for a lot of people. Belief gives people strength to get through difficult times. Science cannot possibly explain.

I have witnessed this myself but every time I mention something it gets knocked down as coincidence. It is much more than coincidence but no point trying to debate as I'm not trying to convince anyone.

Belief is enough for me.

 

[ermen]

The main difference between science and religion, in my view, is that science at least tries to find evidentiary support for their theories, scientists set a very high bar for "proof" and can be incredibly harsh on each other if theories lack that evidentiary support. Belief, by itself, is not regarded as enough.

Whereas with religion, its regarded as an article of faith that you believe regardless of any contrary/contradictory evidence, indeed evidence is regarded with some distain. So when you see natural disasters and people have doubts that we have a "loving and kind God" its regarded as an article of faith to overcome those doubts, "God is just testing us".

Science is just a "method" of trying to make sense of the world around us. At the moment, it seems that something qualifies as science if the theory / hypothesis is falsifiable (though there is a view that that perhaps that view now is being too dogmatic). But don't think that science does not rest on "belief". There are certain things called "axioms" that scientists take to be foundation beliefs. Is it necessarily wrong? No of course not.

Anyway religion cannot be tested in the traditional scientific method. Who cares? It is just like literature, in that you can have 101 interpretations of Shakespeare's Macbeth (and they are all not testable because unfortunately, n=1 here), but it still does not negate the beauty of literature.

For me, I can setup a statement that there is no God. Then I heard Him. Many years ago, I was looking for a job. I prayed and I heard clearly these words "can't you wait 2 weeks". Voila, i decided to test it. 2 weeks came, i bought the newspaper in the morning to see, unfortunately there was none. I was disappointed. Then in the PM I received a call from the recruiter which led me to a job. Coincidence? I think not, given many other similar stories in my life. And do I speak with Him? Yes (e.g. I was told to sell off my portfolio after Trump was shockingly elected President, then I bought it back cheaper). Can it be proven and is it testable (or replicable)? No. But does it matter? No.

Either way, people believe in religion either because of (i) superstition / tradition or (ii) because they have met God.

Regarding the second statement around "loving and kind God", i think it stems out from the question "if God is loving and kind why is there suffering". Believe it has been answered many times by people smarter than me... so i will not go there... e.g this article from Oxford none the less (https://www.theocca.org/news/if-god-why-suffering), or even CSLewis...

 

[RooFlyer]

Which misrepresantations? That I don't prescribe to some theories as fact?

I'm not a scientist. I don't need to debate you at that level.

Modern evolutionary biology. Is a theory. Method if you like as some scientists refer to the theory. It is not fact. It is in fact a guess. Yes an educated guess but still a guess. Please don't try to pass this off as fact. What I love the most is how new theories are created to explain holes in previous theories. When you can find someone that was there and witnessed what was evolving then I'll believe it.

I don't believe in a common ancestor. We did not begin from a single cell organism that had the blueprint to create millions of species. I call that a random event because if you believe that's how life started then you believe in miracles and you may as well believe in God.

I don't believe in the big bang. Makes no sense. Poor theory created to destroy religion. Enough said.

I don't believe in radiodating/carbon dating. We are talking about millions and billions of years. The assumption that the rate of decay will remain constant and not be affected by any outside influences is wrong. There is evidence around today that volcanic ash distorts carbon dating readings.

Creationism. Is a theory. Mainstream science has degraded the theory to a "belief". In my mind there is no difference between evolutionary biology and creationism. Both require you to believe this is how events occurred.

My belief? We were created. Everything we see around us was created. From there we evolved. I don't believe in a young earth. Everything wasn't created at the same time.

There is more to 'belief' than science will ever understand. I'll leave that for another post.

I haven't rubbished anyone. I have simply expressed my opinion on the big bang theory and from there this discussion evolved. I don't quite understand some of the attacks on here. I'm not a scientist. Some people here like to dissect each of my comments and quote alternate theories to me. This adds nothing to the debate. I'm not going to change my belief.

Oh, my goodness. Where to start?

Your misrepresentations. That science maintains humans have been around for 6,000 years, for a start. 'Science' does NOT maintain that - you just made it up, I think. There have been numerous in this thread.

Big Bang. "Makes no sense." How much of "the Big Bang" do you actually understand? Very little, I suggest.

You rubbish me and others every time you sprout the 'creationism' stuff. That you don't seem to understand that, speaks volumes.

Now lets come to the main course:

I don't believe in radiodating/carbon dating. We are talking about millions and billions of years. The assumption that the rate of decay will remain constant and not be affected by any outside influences is wrong. There is evidence around today that volcanic ash distorts carbon dating readings.

Really, JohnK? Its "wrong" is it? You know this? Do write it up and you'll be famous! That you can say "its wrong" (not "I don't believe it", but "its wrong") is simply laughable.

You say people "like to dissect each of my comments and quote alternative theories to me. This adds nothing to the debate". Adds nothing eh? Well that comment rubbishes us as well.

I don't mind you stating a creationism belief, if that's all you say. But to say things like " The assumption that the rate of decay will remain constant and not be affected by any outside influences is wrong." is insulting to scientists, including me, and is ignorant beyond telling.

ps: Still hoping you will tell has how long ago the world and universe was created (say, to the nearest 1,000 years) - since you say science's figure is wrong.

 

[JohnK]

ps: Still hoping you will tell has how long ago the world and universe was created (say, to the nearest 1,000 years) - since you say science's figure is wrong.

I won't bother with the rest of your attack.

The answer is in my post. "I don't believe in a young Earth. Everything wasn't created at the same time." To be honest I have no idea and don't really have a need to know. Nor do I care. All I know is that recorded history is around 6,000 years old.

 

[theblank]

If you Google theory of gravity I think you'd find not everyone agrees with that last statement.

The topic at hand was "Gravity" not the "(scientific) theory of Gravity" That is two distinctively different things.

 

[RooFlyer]

I won't bother with the rest of your attack.

The answer is in my post. "I don't believe in a young Earth. Everything wasn't created at the same time." To be honest I have no idea and don't really have a need to know. Nor do I care. All I know is that recorded history is around 6,000 years old.

Ah! Good 'Ol Bishop Ussher! Fine Irishman. Have you read his work? I did ( translated) at Uni for one of my projects.

I recall his date if Creation was 22 October 4004 BC. Yep, about 6,000 years ago.

Do you believe everything Ussher wrote, by the way?

ps. Calling out ignorance and cant does not constitute an attack on you JohnK. As I've said before, state and defend your beliefs by all means but stop making ignorant and misrepresenting statements about the science, please.

 

[theblank]

Since this topic is a "religion" topic and not a biology one the questions that I want to ask people are"

ironic that a topic labelled 'religion' has pretty much been a discussion so far about the Big Bang, or Evolution, yet the proponents of these beliefs will always dogmatically argue that their own position is not 'religious', despite that their view also has philosophical assumptions (unprovable) at the core.

1. Is there life after death?
2. If so, where do we go after we die?

we can add in
3. what do we have to do to get there
and the earlier questions to asl.

4. where did I come from
5. whats my purpose in life


Its makes sense to assume that if there is a purpose to life, a life after death, and a requirement to get there, that we would have been told about it already. Otherwise that woould be very cruel for a creator to let us figure it out for ourselves, human history has proven we cannot.

Plenty of people in the worlds history have claimed to reveal these answers to us. They include, Abraham/Moses/Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, the Veda's of hinduism, Vonnegut, Shirley Maclaine/Travolta/Cruise, ( and a posthumous mention for Darwin/Huxley/Dawkins who give us no answers at all), have I missed anyone? All of these people I have mentioned gave answers that contradict. So the only conclusion you can make is that they must either be all wrong, or all but one is wrong. It just boils down to deciding which one you can trust. Thats a personal decision.

 

[theblank]

I recall his date if Creation was 22 October 4004 BC. Yep, about 6,000 years ago.

that is the findings of Bishop Ussher, and is a fairly accurate calculation based on the source he used, with not a great deal of margin for error in context. I am not sure what you mean by "beleiveing what he wrote" he only did some calender maths. critics of his work, from memory dont stack up, or use different variables for the approximations, which result in little difference.

however its more correct to say that recorded history only goes back around 4000+ years, not 6000. any claimed dates beyond 4000 get very rubbery indeed.

Personally I would not argue that the Old Testament shows that recorded history goes back 6000 years, because none of the old testament is datable on its own. Ussher extrapolated the dates backwards and IMO thats a different matter.

 

[Vic]

Wow Back into playground. Sorry I'm not going to read all of this religion stuff. Just a few comments:

The recent series by Brian Cox on ABC was excellent for explaining the science of Cosmology. It outlined how the universe has been measured, how scientific data can be measured about the universe. not to mention how the theories match the data. It was much more convincing than "I look around and the earth just exists". I think that cosmology is of the view that the earth wasn't created at the same time as well. Cosmology doesn't believe in a young earth either.

One of the most brilliant humans ever is a cosmologist. He doesn't preface his views with "I believe..."

Axioms only really apply to maths and logic.

Evolution will result in a perfectly efficient body as well.

 

[kamchatsky]

Oh, my goodness. Where to start?

Your misrepresentations. That science maintains humans have been around for 6,000 years, for a start. 'Science' does NOT maintain that - you just made it up, I think. There have been numerous in this thread.

Big Bang. "Makes no sense." How much of "the Big Bang" do you actually understand? Very little, I suggest.

You rubbish me and others every time you sprout the 'creationism' stuff. That you don't seem to understand that, speaks volumes.

Now lets come to the main course:



Really, JohnK? Its "wrong" is it? You know this? Do write it up and you'll be famous! That you can say "its wrong" (not "I don't believe it", but "its wrong") is simply laughable.

You say people "like to dissect each of my comments and quote alternative theories to me. This adds nothing to the debate". Adds nothing eh? Well that comment rubbishes us as well.

I don't mind you stating a creationism belief, if that's all you say. But to say things like " The assumption that the rate of decay will remain constant and not be affected by any outside influences is wrong." is insulting to scientists, including me, and is ignorant beyond telling.

ps: Still hoping you will tell has how long ago the world and universe was created (say, to the nearest 1,000 years) - since you say science's figure is wrong.

From reading JohnK's post, he simply stated what he believes and he doesn't believe in those scientific theories. Surely he should be able to voice his opinions here? Yes, it may not line up with what the general scientific consensus here but his beliefs does not mean an attack to science? Science lasts for millenniums and still exists even though people have different opinions and beliefs?

 

[TomVexille]

From reading JohnK's post, he simply stated what he believes and he doesn't believe in those scientific theories. Surely he should be able to voice his opinions here? Yes, it may not line up with what the general scientific consensus here but his beliefs does not mean an attack to science? Science lasts for millenniums and still exists even though people have different opinions and beliefs?

I'd say calling all scientists arrogant is an attack on science and a personal attack on all scientists. But hey, Johns the victim here as usual right?

 

[kamchatsky]

I'd say calling all scientists arrogant is an attack on science and a personal attack on all scientists. But hey, Johns the victim here as usual right?

I haven't read every JohnK's comments here so I cannot say whether he called ALL scientists arrogant.

I don't mind you stating a creationism belief, if that's all you say. But to say things like " The assumption that the rate of decay will remain constant and not be affected by any outside influences is wrong." is insulting to scientists, including me, and is ignorant beyond telling.

ps: Still hoping you will tell has how long ago the world and universe was created (say, to the nearest 1,000 years) - since you say science's figure is wrong.

From my interpretation of JohnK's comment, is that JohnK simply doesn't believe that the carbon dating, and he thinks the assumption used is wrong. But that is just part of his opinion. I don't read that he is trying to insult scientists.

It is like the argument of global warming and climate changes. Just because someone doesn't believe in climate changes, even with scientific data, doesn't mean that they are insulting scientists. They all have their own opinions.