Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles

[OzmO]

I answered that:


Are you refusing to say what your belief is about how life began on day 1?

How did you answer it?

here is your assertion:

Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.  Except some people don't like to use the word "faith," probably due to its religious connotation. 

followed by:

Not really.  Some theories involve faith (even if characterized differently).

Now i am asking you a direct question based on your assertion.  I am not asking you for a trick question.

Can you name some theories that involve faith?

Here's the obvious follow up question that you are maybe avoiding:

Exactly what part of that theory is based on faith?

[Dos Equis]

How did you answer it?

here is your assertion:

followed by:

Now i am asking you a direct question based on your assertion.  I am not asking you for a trick question.

Can you name some theories that involve faith?

Here's the obvious follow up question that you are maybe avoiding:

Exactly what part of that theory is based on faith?

I was the one who asked a trick question, not you.  But I answered your question.  The theories that claim to be scientific regarding the origin of life on earth are really not scientific, because they do not follow the accepted methods of scientific analysis. 

For example, the theory of spontaneous generation has not been established through (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions. 

Anyone who believes that life on earth began on day 1 through spontaneous generation has a "belief that is not based on proof."  The quoted portion comes from the definition of "faith" that you posted. 

Lets take a look at the word faith:


faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

So you or anyone else can try and characterize it any way you want, but at the end of the day, that theory (and every other theory about origin of life) is not based on proof.   

But you haven't answered the question:  what is your belief about how life began on day 1? 

[Straw Man]

I was the one who asked a trick question, not you.  But I answered your question.  The theories that claim to be scientific regarding the origin of life on earth are really not scientific, because they do not follow the accepted methods of scientific analysis.  

For example, the theory of spontaneous generation has not been established through (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.  

Anyone who believes that life on earth began on day 1 through spontaneous generation has a "belief that is not based on proof."  The quoted portion comes from the definition of "faith" that you posted.  


So you or anyone else can try and characterize it any way you want, but at the end of the day, that theory (and every other theory about origin of life) is not based on proof.  

But you haven't answered the question: what is your belief about how life began on day 1?  

other than you attributing this claim to others, I don't recall seeing anyone having ever made that claim so why do you keep repeating it

Even you own goofy creation fable doesn't have life beginning on Day 1

BTW - kind of strange that God would make earth first and then created the sun, moon and stars

also odd that he would make plants before making the sun but then I guess he had his reasons?

no mention of dinosaurs either but I guess he just forgot to mention it when he was writing the bible

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." (NLT, Genesis 1:1-5)

That was the first day of God's creation.

On the second day, God created the sky.

On the third day, God created the land, the oceans and all the plants.

On the fourth day, God created the sun, moon and stars.

On the fifth day, God created the birds, fishes and other sea creatures.

On the sixth day, God created all the land animals and people.

On the seventh day, God rested:

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. (NIV, Genesis 2:2-3)

[OzmO]

I was the one who asked a trick question, not you.  But I answered your question.  The theories that claim to be scientific regarding the origin of life on earth are really not scientific, because they do not follow the accepted methods of scientific analysis.  

For example, the theory of spontaneous generation has not been established through (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.  

Anyone who believes that life on earth began on day 1 through spontaneous generation has a "belief that is not based on proof."  The quoted portion comes from the definition of "faith" that you posted.  


So you or anyone else can try and characterize it any way you want, but at the end of the day, that theory (and every other theory about origin of life) is not based on proof.  

But you haven't answered the question:  what is your belief about how life began on day 1?  

"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Seems like science has evolved past this.....maybe because some of its roots are from the time of Aristotle?  .....when much wasn't using the scientific process we know today...not one that was applied to in the 1600-1700's.  lol

Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:

Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.  

Can you show a modern scientific theory that use faith?

[Straw Man]

"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Seems like science has evolved past this.....maybe because some of its roots are from the time of Aristotle?  .....when much wasn't using the scientific process we know today...not one that was applied to in the 1600-1700's.  lol

Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:

Can you show a modern scientific theory that use faith?

Spontaneous generation is what the biblical creation myth is all about

maybe that's why Bum is so hung up on it

[Dos Equis]

"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Seems like science has evolved past this.....maybe because some of its roots are from the time of Aristotle?  .....when much wasn't using the scientific process we know today...not one that was applied to in the 1600-1700's.  lol

Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:

Can you show a modern scientific theory that use faith?

I gave you a fairly large one.  Why not address that one?   

And you haven't answered the question about your personal view on the origin of life on day 1? 

[OzmO]

Spontaneous generation is what the biblical creation myth is all about

maybe that's why Bum is so hung up on it

maybe i am misunderstanding.

he used the word "often" and the first actual example he provides is a obsolete theory hundreds if not thousands of years old.  

Bum, did you mean outdated theories or modern theories or both?

another question would be when did the modern scientific method as describe originate?

And does it even involve faith?

[OzmO]

I gave you a fairly large one.  Why not address that one?   

And you haven't answered the question about your personal view on the origin of life on day 1? 

I have.

but i have no problem answering it again.

"I have no belief.  I am not a scientist and have not done any real research on it."

I have watched a few documentaries, read a few books talking about it in the past i am sure.  But nothing that qualifies me to debate or discuss it in any kind of depth.

and as i explained the answer you gave doesn't apply.   

When you said: 

Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.


were you just talking about ancient theories?

[Straw Man]

maybe i am misunderstanding.

he used the word "often" and the first actual example he provides is a obsolete theory hundreds if not thousands of years old.  

Bum, did you mean outdated theories or modern theories or both?

another question would be when did the modern scientific method as describe originate?

And does it even involve faith?

btw - did you ever claim a personal view that "life began on day 1"

did I miss that somewhere on this thread

no scientist that I'm aware of thinks that "life" started on "day 1" of anything (big bang, "day 1" of earth, etc..)

[OzmO]

btw - did you ever claim a personal view that "life began on day 1"

did I miss that somewhere on this thread

no scientist that I'm aware of thinks that "life" started on "day 1" of anything (big bang, "day 1" of earth, etc..)

I don't think i have.  I don't know though, maybe in the past lol. 

and i am not a scientist.

I just want to know what theories, using the scientific method often use faith as Beach talked about...... or maybe he was just talking about ancient theories. 

[Straw Man]

I don't think i have.  I don't know though, maybe in the past lol.  

and i am not a scientist.

I just want to know what theories, using the scientific method often use faith as Beach talked about...... or maybe he was just talking about ancient theories.  

I don't think you have either but Bum keeps using that term and for some reason projecting that claim or belief onto you

First time he used here

The origins of life on earth.  Some fact, some opinion, and a whole lot of faith when it comes to day 1 (regardless of the theory).  

Then the next time here and added the part about "life began"

It's the right word.  Just an uncomfortable word for some.  

Scientific methods involve:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.  

Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1.  Cannot be done.    

weird how you never said this but somehow he thinks you should be able to prove it and if you can't he thinks he has made some point


Pay attention Bum - no one has ever made this claim except YOU

[Dos Equis]

I have.

but i have no problem answering it again.

"I have no belief.  I am not a scientist and have not done any real research on it."

I have watched a few documentaries, read a few books talking about it in the past i am sure.  But nothing that qualifies me to debate or discuss it in any kind of depth.

and as i explained the answer you gave doesn't apply.   

When you said: 

Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.


were you just talking about ancient theories?

Thanks.  I didn't see that response earlier.  I experience that kind of punt often when I bring up this subject.    But I'll repeat that every belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is not based on proof. 

I was talking primarily about the origin of life on earth.  I'm sure if I spent the time I could come up with others. 

[Straw Man]

Thanks.  I didn't see that response earlier.  I experience that kind of punt often when I bring up this subject.    But I'll repeat that every belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is not based on proof. 

I was talking primarily about the origin of life on earth.  I'm sure if I spent the time I could come up with others. 

oh brother

well I guess all we've got left then is the biblical theory of of the origin of life (actually the origin of everything)

I mean the book itself exist, therefore we have "proof" that the biblical story of creation is true

it's a bit earth centric given that God created the earth before he created the Sun and "stars" but heck you can't really question god on stuff like that

[OzmO]

Thanks.  I didn't see that response earlier.  I experience that kind of punt often when I bring up this subject.    But I'll repeat that every belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is not based on proof. 

I was talking primarily about the origin of life on earth.  I'm sure if I spent the time I could come up with others. 

I am betting that most of these people you ask are not scientists who have researched or are in that field who have had their theories peer reviewed and their "facts" scrutinized.

Ordinary people's "theories" are rife with beliefs, faith, or assumptions.  Most atheists, as i have read a few books from atheists, Richard Dawkins, Mike Shermer, and feature writers from Skeptic Mag, take a far more scientific approach to things than the ordinary person who pretty accepts what they are told without researching it.  They make fact based conclusions over faith based.  

What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?

[Dos Equis]

I am betting that most of these people you ask are not scientists who have researched or are in that field who have had their theories peer reviewed and their "facts" scrutinized.

Ordinary people's "theories" are rife with beliefs, faith, or assumptions.  Most atheists, as i have read a few books from atheists, Richard Dawkins, Mike Shermer, and feature writers from Skeptic Mag, take a far more scientific approach to things than the ordinary person who pretty accepts what they are told without researching it.  They make fact based conclusions over faith based.  

What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?

I don't think it matters whether you ask non-scientists or scientists when it comes to this particular question. 

I agree people who are non-scienctists have beliefs based on faith, etc.  Scientists do too, except they don't call it faith.  Or they punt. 

I don't think there is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth.  We've never been able to recreate life in a lab in a way that explains how it all started.   

I've also said before that whatever theory someone has about the origin of life sounds like science fiction (regardless of whether it's science/secular/religious based). 

[Straw Man]

It's pretty obvious that if science can't provide people like Bum with iron-clad (and easy to understand) proof of the original of everything then it's all discounted to zero and we have to rely on a jewish fairy tale....or at the very least we have to consider a ancient jewish fairy tale side by side with modern science even when modern science can totally dismantle that story

that's our only option and let's thanks Jesus and his Dad (and the Spook) for giving it to us

[OzmO]

I don't think it matters whether you ask non-scientists or scientists when it comes to this particular question. 

I agree people who are non-scienctists have beliefs based on faith, etc.  Scientists do too, except they don't call it faith.  Or they punt. 

I don't think there is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth.  We've never been able to recreate life in a lab in a way that explains how it all started.   

I've also said before that whatever theory someone has about the origin of life sounds like science fiction (regardless of whether it's science/secular/religious based). 

So that brings us back the original question:

Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.

such as?

And before you say you've already answered it and we are going  in circles, keep in mind the many questions i have asked to clarify your assertion:.....

What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?

were you just talking about ancient theories?

Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:  Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith? 

Can you list some scientific theories that are partially based on faith?

Can you list some scientific theories that are 100% based on faith?

Can you name some theories that involve faith?

________________________ ________________________ ________________

You seem to be unwilling to answer these questions

Am i to conclude that you are not saying modern science and its method is a mix of faith and facts?

[Straw Man]

Ozmo, Bum is saying that he believes that because modern science does not have iron clad proof for the origin of everything from "day 1" as he likes to say, he believes this means they are using "faith" or "punting"

What he fails to keep in mind is that most modern scientists recognize the gaps in in their current forms of data or proof and don't make iron clad claims about almost anything.   They don't fill in the missing gaps with "faith" and they are completely open to an evolution of the current theories.    This is insufficient for many bible thumpers who need very simple and easy to understand "definitive" answers to everything.  This is why it is so easy for them to turn off their brains and just fill in all those missing gaps with "god" while at the same time pretending that modern science really relies on faith (thereby bringing the whole thing back around to their original belief system and pretending it has somehow been validated or vindicated)

[Dos Equis]

So that brings us back the original question:

such as?

And before you say you've already answered it and we are going  in circles, keep in mind the many questions i have asked to clarify your assertion:.....

What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?

were you just talking about ancient theories?

Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:  Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith? 

Can you list some scientific theories that are partially based on faith?

Can you list some scientific theories that are 100% based on faith?

Can you name some theories that involve faith?

________________________ ________________________ ________________

You seem to be unwilling to answer these questions

Am i to conclude that you are not saying modern science and its method is a mix of faith and facts?

Yes, we are going in circles.   I made a general statement about opinions often having a mixture of fact and faith.  I narrowed that general statement to the origin of life on earth, which you don't really want to talk about.  

If you're asking me again to identify theories, including theories in science that have a mixture of faith and facts, I don't know off the top of my head.  But that's true of any theory--science or non-science--because I don't really feel like having to think right now.  lol  

But as I've said, any belief or theory that cannot be proved has an element of faith.  If you want to take the position that all scientific opinions/beliefs have been proved, then that's fine.  But I think we both know that cannot be true, and to the extent any specific opinion or belief cannot be proved, it has an element of faith.  Now you can ask me the same question again, but that's my answer.  

[OzmO]

Yes, we are going in circles.   I made a general statement about opinions often having a mixture of fact and faith.  I narrowed that general statement to the origin of life on earth, which you don't really want to talk about.  

If you're asking me again to identify theories, including theories in science that have a mixture of faith and facts, I don't know off the top of my head.  But that's true of any theory--science or non-science--because I don't really feel like having to think right now.  lol  

But as I've said, any belief or theory that cannot be proved has an element of faith.  If you want to take the position that all scientific opinions/beliefs have been proved, then that's fine.  But I think we both know that cannot be true, and to the extent any specific opinion or belief cannot be proved, it has an element of faith.  Now you can ask me the same question again, but that's my answer.  

I know, thinking can cause friction in the brain, thus overheating it, causing smoke to come of one's ears.  That's the theory anyway supported by many cartoons.

Mainly what i am asking you to do is identify theories mainly ones that used and were tested by modern scientific method that rely or have elements of faith.

Let me know when you get around to it.



 

[LurkerNoMore]

oh brother

well I guess all we've got left then is the biblical theory of of the origin of life (actually the origin of everything)

I mean the book itself exist, therefore we have "proof" that the biblical story of creation is true

it's a bit earth centric given that God created the earth before he created the Sun and "stars" but heck you can't really question god on stuff like that

You have to shut your eyes and take it on faith.

[Dos Equis]

I know, thinking can cause friction in the brain, thus overheating it, causing smoke to come of one's ears.  That's the theory anyway supported by many cartoons.

Mainly what i am asking you to do is identify theories mainly ones that used and were tested by modern scientific method that rely or have elements of faith.

Let me know when you get around to it.



 

lol    My brain usually shuts down at noon on Fridays, but it's starting a little early this week.  

[Straw Man]

You have to shut your eyes and take it on faith.

Yep, it makes life very very simple too which is helpful considering how complicated life actually is

BTW - this is one of the funniest episodes of Futurama and worth twenty something minutes to watch (it has a few surprises)

[avxo]

I'm not trying to "decree what is and is not scientific," nor do I care about qualifications.  Nobody needs to be "qualified" to talk about stuff on a message board.

Funny, since you just finished telling us what science is not too long ago... and no, you don't have to be qualified to talk about stuff and offer your opinion, but unless you are slightly qualified you will make a fool of yourself and, perhaps of more interst to you, you will find out exactly how much your opinions are worth.

In any event, did this "Miller-Urey experiment" create life in a lab?

Perhaps if you'd care to read up on it (a Google search takes you to Wikipedia) you'd see what the experiment did and did not do.

By the way, I don't like debating when the terms of the debate aren't established. Please proceed to define "life" so that we can have a common frame of reference and a sensible conversation without goal shifting.

Isn't "abiogenesis" the theory of spontaneous generation?  And are you suggesting that theory has been tested?

I am suggesting that evidence has been presented (see the Miller-Urey experiment I previously mentioned) that complex proteins (the "building blocks of life") which we know are needed for life as we know it to exist, can spontaneously form in the conditions that were likely to have existed billions of years ago based on our cosmological observations.

[Necrosis]

Funny, since you just finished telling us what science is not too long ago... and no, you don't have to be qualified to talk about stuff and offer your opinion, but unless you are slightly qualified you will make a fool of yourself and, perhaps of more interst to you, you will find out exactly how much your opinions are worth.


Perhaps if you'd care to read up on it (a Google search takes you to Wikipedia) you'd see what the experiment did and did not do.

By the way, I don't like debating when the terms of the debate aren't established. Please proceed to define "life" so that we can have a common frame of reference and a sensible conversation without goal shifting.

I am suggesting that evidence has been presented (see the Miller-Urey experiment I previously mentioned) that complex proteins (the "building blocks of life") which we know are needed for life as we know it to exist, can spontaneously form in the conditions that were likely to have existed billions of years ago based on our cosmological observations.

This is  the integral point, it doesn't matter if these conditions existed in young earth (Miller-urey conditions), it proved that you can make the building blocks of life, it's possible, it's not special.

That's all you need to know to know that life isn't sacred but a simple string of coincidences.