Made or abiogenesis - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Made or abiogenesis
in Religion

By SandSand 213 Pts
Please explain was the Tudor mansion of Wollaton Hall, Nottinghamshire, was it made or came about through abiogenesis?
Please do not use the "Man" to fill in the gaps theory.
Or do not use fictitious internet information or "Man" invented books and stories.
Please tell me what is the more logical answer, and why.

Happy_KillbotDeePlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • @Sand ;
    Please explain was the Tudor mansion of Wollaton Hall, Nottinghamshire, was it made or came about through abiogenesis?
    This is a false-analogy fallacy. Just because some complex things were made and we know that they were made, does not mean that all things which are complex are made.
    Please do not use the "Man" to fill in the gaps theory.
    Or do not use fictitious internet information or "Man" invented books and stories.
    Shouldn't be necessary.
    Please tell me what is the more logical answer, and why.
    Abiogenesis has more supporting evidence at this time than any theories that we are "made". For this reason, it is probably the horse to be bettin' on so to speak. While it is true that we don't have conclusive proof that abiogenesis occurred, we have no reason to think that it didn't happen.

    For example, we know that organic compounds form naturally in the environment, and in fact tholins, a dark red substance which bacteria can process as a food source is prevalent throughout the solar system, with the exception of on Earth. The reason for this is that Bacteria digested then faster than they could form as a primitive food source.

    We know that RNA and sometimes DNA can be produced naturally. This suggests that it is possible for all these elements to come together in the right conditions to form simple proto-molecules which if any could self-replicate would turn into life.

    If you break down a cell, you will find that there is nothing special about it's components. Although the organization of those components is quite complex, they are chemically indistinguishable from non-living compounds. This suggests that if it is possible for something living to turn into non-living matter, that the process can technically be reversed.

    On the being "made" side of things, we run into some problems.

    Suppose we were made by some forerunner civilization. This doesn't solve the abiogenesis problem because they had to come from somewhere so at some point you have to have a beginning. where inorganic "dead" matter turned into living matter.

    If we assume that something from outside of the universe made life, then we are making a non-scientific claim because this can not be falsified. How can we prove that there is/is not something outside of the universe? We can't because we ourselves can not leave the universe. Thus any such claims are pure speculation that are not really worth our time to consider seriously.
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Abiogenesis theories are very controversial and poorly supported by common scientific consensus.  It would have been impossible for original amino acid building blocks of all life to have formed in an oxygenated atmosphere, which is why Miller and Urey constructed an alien atmosphere in their attempt to create amino acids in the lab.  Even though their experiment failed to do what they had hoped, at least researchers learned there was no need to ever to try that again.

    Francis Crick studied DNA,  He received the Nobel prize for his studies.  He knew from his studies that life could not possibly have spontaneously erupted on earth without outside help.  However, instead of considering the fact that God created life on earth, Crick postulated that aliens on spaceships came to earth's atmosphere and sprinkled biologic dust down from above which spawned original life on earth.
    Happy_KillbotSand
  • @marke ;
    Abiogenesis theories are very controversial and poorly supported by common scientific consensus.  It would have been impossible for original amino acid building blocks of all life to have formed in an oxygenated atmosphere, which is why Miller and Urey constructed an alien atmosphere in their attempt to create amino acids in the lab.  Even though their experiment failed to do what they had hoped, at least researchers learned there was no need to ever to try that again
    First off, the planet's atmosphere was believed to be primary nitrogen-carbon dioxide-argon and thus not oxygenated until after life, and cyanobacteria in particular developed to produce that oxygen through photosynthesis. This also happened to be the first mass extinction.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

    From this we can throw out your first paragraph as an argument from ignorance.
    Francis Crick studied DNA,  He received the Nobel prize for his studies.  He knew from his studies that life could not possibly have spontaneously erupted on earth without outside help.  However, instead of considering the fact that God created life on earth, Crick postulated that aliens on spaceships came to earth's atmosphere and sprinkled biologic dust down from above which spawned original life on earth.
    Francis Crick's never made his theory out to be one that should be considered scientific truth, labeling it a "highly unorthodox proposal" and "bold speculation" himself.

    Anyways, as stated above, it is not relevant to this discussion because presumably the aliens would had to have developed somewhere so this and other panspermia theories are not about abiogenesis and therefore irrelevant to this discussion, so your second paragraph can be thrown out as well.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-origins-of-directed-panspermia/
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Sand

    The Tudor mansion of Wollaton Hall, Nottinghamshire, is not a biological entity therefore abiogenesis cannot be how it came to be... 

    That's a very basic categorical error...
    Happy_Killbot
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand

    Creationists have and still make the erroneous assumption that complexity is the result of creation when in fact the converse is true.

    The human body, for example, is a complete mish-mash of complicated, convoluted systems that have been added onto each other in a haphazard fashion.
    No creator in his right mind would ever want to put his name to such a mushy mess.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Let's stick first to the house.
    How do you know it was made?
    Happy_Killbot
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    So is the house made?
    If so, how do you know?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    So is the house made?
    If so, how do you know?

  • @Sand ;
    Sand said:
    Let's stick first to the house.
    How do you know it was made?
    As explained above, this is a false analogy.

    Just because houses were made by people doesn't mean that all complex things were created.


    P.S. you can tag multiple people in a post by typing @ followed by their username. It auto-completes after enough characters are typed.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Atheists, secularists and assorted evolutionists cannot solve the oxygen problem by speculating that the primitive earth's atmosphere lacked oxygen.  That may solve the problem of the initial formation of amino acids which cannot be formed in an oxygenated environment, but that does not solve the problem that after amino acids are formed they cannot live in an environment which lacks oxygen.

    Crick did state that abiogenesis was impossible from what he had learned about DNA.  His panspermia theory was not a joke, not insincere, but a geniuine proposal to explain the mysterious original formation of life on earth.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • @marke ;
    marke said:
    @Happy_Killbot

    Atheists, secularists and assorted evolutionists cannot solve the oxygen problem by speculating that the primitive earth's atmosphere lacked oxygen.  That may solve the problem of the initial formation of amino acids which cannot be formed in an oxygenated environment, but that does not solve the problem that after amino acids are formed they cannot live in an environment which lacks oxygen.

    Crick did state that abiogenesis was impossible from what he had learned about DNA.  His panspermia theory was not a joke, not insincere, but a geniuine proposal to explain the mysterious original formation of life on earth.


    Now you are just making stuff up and contradicting yourself in the process. You are literally claiming that amino acids can not survive in an oxygenated environment nor in one that lacks oxygen.

    Crick's discovery of DNA was a long time ago. We have more information available to us now then he did thanks to advances in the field of biology.

    Is it so hard to think, that maybe with more information you can reach different conclusions?
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    What I said was that amino acids cannot be formed in an oxygenated environment and yet after amino acids are formed they cannot survive without oxygen.
  • @marke ;
    marke said:
    @Happy_Killbot

    What I said was that amino acids cannot be formed in an oxygenated environment and yet after amino acids are formed they cannot survive without oxygen.
    How about show me some evidence that this is true.

    If I put amino acids in a vat full of co2 and water, will they decay?

    There are organisms that live in oxygen deprived environments you know. Kind of throws a wrench into your theory.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    It seems that no one wants to explain why they conclude the house was made.
    Because they cannot prove it.

    Thought about what is needed to prove the house is made has not been considered.
    What is not being said that it is difficult to prove that the house has been made.
    Especially if you haven't personally seen it being made.
    And any line of reasoning brought up to prove that the house has been made, is also very easy to discredit this information.

    So far everyone that has refused to answer the question feels they know the answer, so they take on faith that they know, how the house came about.

    They did not require evidence or did they try to prove how the house came about.
    The origin was assumed.

    I placed abiogenesis as an option, to see if it would be talked about more than the house.
    It was not only talked more about the house, but the idea was also taken on faith.
    Because as of right now the concept is definitely not proven, nevertheless complete trust that it will be proven was consistently stated except for one person.

    Just because people insinuate faith it doesn't mean that their claims are completely faith-based.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Thanks for the tip.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Here  are thoughts worth contemplating:

    1. The absence of the required atmosphere.

    Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • @marke ;

    I see you cherry-picked the first entry off of google...

    Let's see how these claims jive with actual science.
    Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life.
    As discussed previously, this is not a problem for life's origin, since O2 was not present until cyanobacteria started producing it.
    Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere.
    Facts!
    Great Oxidation Event - Wikipedia

    Ice cores don't lie, and we can throw out this opinion piece as pseudo-scientific garbage at this stage.
    However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.
    Oh No! how do we solve this dilema?

    F***ing Water, that's how. UV light is attenuated in water, so if life started in the oceans, then there is no need for an ozone layer.

    Light in the Ocean  manoahawaiieduExploringOurFluidEarth

    Your claims are invalidated by actual science, you have no ground to stand on.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    The general rule of thumb is, if there is a gap in human knowledge on something, then the right course of action is to try to close this gap through scientific inquiry, not to try to fill it with imaginary stories.

    As little as 150 years ago the problem of the atom still had not been resolved. The idea of an atom as a center core with electrons rotating around was already in the air, but the math did not work out. The energy estimates coming from this contradicted the observations too much, and certain effects could not be explained through this model.

    Now, the scientists could fill this gap in many easy ways. For example, there were proposals to simply ignore the obvious discrepancies. To assume that the energy is just lost somehow, or comes out of nowhere somehow - and to just accept it as a reality.
    This would, indeed, explain (most of) the apparent discrepancies. Only it would be a very poor explanation. It would be an explanation designed to make us feel better about ourselves by believing that we have mastered yet another secret of the Universe. While, in realty, we would not have mastered anything but the ability to deceive ourselves by saying many words which mean absolutely nothing.

    Instead, physicists acknowledged their ignorance and set out to work: to modify their theories, to invent more and more experiments. Eventually it became clear that an atom is a much more complicated beast, that the electrons are not at all "rotate around the orbit", and that, in fact, the electrons themselves are not simple particles, but are something more... And multiple entire disciplines - quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particle physics, etc. - were born.

    Do not try to fill the gaps of human knowledge with religious stories. Fill them with real knowledge. Or acknowledge that there is nothing that fits in them at the moment. Better to be humble and honest, than to brag about an imaginary accomplishment, deceiving both others and yourself.
    Sand
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    "Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist."

    Yet, that's exactly what happened. For nine billion years, the gases on earth were not conducive to human life as we know it.
    By mere fluke, a certain chain of microscopic events took place that happened to form the first cell.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    So is the house made?
    If so, how do you know?

    I think that you are travelling down a futile path in trying to doctor an answer to fit your mindset.
    Creationists have used this irrelevant and redundant tactic for some time, e.g., there was the watch in the sand and, lest we forget the bizarre Boeing 747 coincidentally rising like a phoenix from a junkyard.

    The answer to understanding and accepting the proven fact of evolution through natural selection is to go right back to the beginning before the first building blocks were formed then work your way up from there to realise what actually has happened and is still happening.

    I've said it before; complexity has nothing to do with creation. Simplicity does. The creators of a house, a watch or an aircraft carefully design and utilise the bare minimum of parts in order for them to fulfil their function. Biological forms are extremely complex, convoluted with many redundant and useless parts and show no signs of having been created whatsoever. The other factor of complexity is time...we are looking at a series of hit and miss and failures over billions of years.

    The question I would ask of you is that, having read and gained a full understanding of the irrefutable evidence about evolution, what is it that you do not understand or refute?
    Of course, my question is rhetorical, isn't it?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited July 29
    @Sand


    Thought about what is needed to prove the house is made has not been considered.
    What is not being said that it is difficult to prove that the house has been made.
    Especially if you haven't personally seen it being made.
    And any line of reasoning brought up to prove that the house has been made, is also very easy to discredit  it



    This is a ridiculous argument ,humans have witnessed houses being made by humans since the first houses were built , to assume they came about any other way is to embrace absurdities 



    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    Atheists have a position on one question only and that is regarding whether a god exists ,they have nothing to explain the burden of proof is on those who claim a god exists, they cannot do this as it's purely a faith based postion
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    edited July 29

    Thank you, Dee.

    That is exactly what I was leading to.
    But we have not observed every house, every construction, and every technology, we take it on faith that it was made by man.
    We do not take the time to look up the details on everything.
    We do use "Man" fill in the gaps theory.
    We do listen to the nursery rhymes, and fictitious stories, and internet information as a basis to believe that man created such things.

    To assume otherwise just as Dee said: "is to embrace absurdities".

    So everything we know has a cause for the effect.
    Even the things we don't know how it came about we assume and trust the assumption that there was a cause.
    Now we come to the biggest questions of the origin of life and the universe.
    Why is it absurd that people state that these things have a cause and intelligence behind it?

    OH, NO......it must have been nothing and no cause.

    Nothing!?! Really!?! And no cause!?!
    Well maybe, it could, possibly, we do not want to knock your creative endeavor or hinder an area that needs to be explored.
    But nothing!?! Really!?! Ok! Check it out!
    You must admit that the first conclusion has merit, and at this time it's more logical.

    Obviously, nothing is more logical than something, because the components are very simple, just in a complex way.

    Are you serious!?!
    Because right now, nothing comes from nothing, everything we know has a cause.
    Ok, prove it!
    Man cannot make anything with the components and intelligence, let alone do this with nothing.
    This is turned out to be the greatest show on earth!

    "This man is going to make a universe and life, plus he is going to do it with absolutely nothing!"
    WOW! Let's see it!
    Oh, he can't do it, but it doesn't mean it can't be done.
    OK,.....but don't quit your day job!


    You cannot throw components in a soup mix it up, and it formulates anything complex! Never ever ever ever!
    Just like you cannot throw components in a box shake it up, and it constructs anything complex! Never ever ever ever!
    These are magic tricks man! Meaning someone is lying to you.


    Man cannot do it now.
    This is an unprovable idea.
    Man cannot make life or a universe now with the components, intelligence, and intent.
    Yet he is trying to prove that it is more logical to recognize these things came about with nothing and no intelligence.
    No one would conclude that a house came about from nothing, no intent, no intelligence.
    Its easy to build a house, but it takes Doctorates out the Wazoo to attempt to make life or a universe with the components and with intent.
    Yet we are going to prove this same event occurred with no intelligence, no intent, and components that came out of nowhere!
    When Man figures out how to do it, I will be first in line to buy a ticket.

    We do this every day, we take on faith that every product in your house was made from something, with intelligence, and with intent.
    All your books, tables, cars, roads, shampoo, and clothes, had intent, intelligence, and made from something.
    Do you look it up? Find the company and go to see if it has been made for every product in your house, NO!
    So why is it absurd that when we come to the biggest things, life and the universe, that the answer is a cause, intelligence, and intent?

    I am not saying that everyone should become creationists.
    If you want to believe that life and the universe came from nothing, GO RIGHT AHEAD!
    And yes sir, I said the word "BELIEVE"! Because it has not been proven yet.

    But what I said is that life and the universe were made from something, with intent, and intelligence and this is miles ahead of nothing, no intent, and no intelligence.
    And NO I do not have proof!
    Just like you said this is a question, of course, the house was made.
    To insinuate that the house came about in any other way would be "absurd"!
    That is exactly what I am saying about life and the universe, until we have proof otherwise, to insinuate that these things came about in any other way is "absurd".
    If a person comes to the conclusion that something made us.
    It is not without logic that a person came to this conclusion.

    But to say that this conclusion is less logical than nothing, no intent, and no intelligence.
    That is "absurd"!


    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited July 29
    @Sand


    That is exactly what I was leading to. 
    But you have not observed every house, every construction, and every technology, you take it on faith that it was made by man.

    No I don’t take it on ‘faith’ , I take it on the fact that houses are built by men and we have no reason to believe otherwise , to use your ‘logic’ one could easily say they were built by Yetis 

    You’re still trying to tie “spiritual faith “ into beliefs we are justified in believing 

    You do not take the time to look up the details on everything.
    You do use "Man" fill in the gaps theory.
    You do listen to the nursery rhymes, and fictitious stories, and internet information as a basis to believe that man created such things.


    I don’t have to in the case of houses, you do apparently as every house that’s built is a mystery to you it seems 

    When you hear a friend has purchased  a house do you ask was it built by humans ? Bet you don’t they would have you hospitalized 

    If you think anyone or anything builds houses other than men prove it ? It’s hilarious you actually think to believe that house builders exist and to believe so is to believe a fairytale yet to believe a man rose from the dead is the height of logic 

    So everything we know has a cause for the effect.

    Everything ? How do you know this?


    Even the things we don't know how it came about we assume and trust the assumption that there was a cause.

    You do I do not 


    Now we come to the biggest questions of the origin of life and the universe.
    Why is it absurd that people state that these things have a cause and intelligence behind it?

    Nice attempt at deflection , I said it’s absurd to assume a god without proof . I make no assumptions 

    OH, NO......it must have been nothing and no cause.

    Where did I state that ?What’s nothing ?

    Nothing!?! Really!?! And no cause!?!


    Where did I state that? Can you prove something cannot come from nothing , I will wait ......


    maybe, it could, possibly, we do not want to knock your creative endeavor or hinder an area that needs to be explored. 
    But nothing!?! Really!?! Ok! Check it out!
    You must admit that the first conclusion has merit, and at this time it's more logical.

    Why do keep lying and saying I said things I never said , you do this all the time your dishonest is appalling 

    No I must admit nothing , as I keep saying I don’t know but you’re still not listening as you’re too busy preaching

    Obviously, nothing is more logical than something, because the components are very simple, just in a complex way.

    Are you serious!?!

    I never made that statement 

    Because right now, nothing comes from nothing, everything we know has a cause.

    Prove it ? You’re the only one making claims not I 


    Man cannot make anything with the components and intelligence, let alone do this with nothing.
    This is turned out to be the greatest show on earth!



     You’re still the only one making claims here not I




    You cannot throw components in a soup and it formulates anything complex!
    Just like you cannot throw components in a box and it constructs anything complex!
    These are magic tricks man! Meaning someone is lying to you.

    All you’re doing is asserting things with no proof , when you have proof present it 

    Man cannot do it now.
    This is an unprovable idea.
    Man cannot make life or a universe now with the components, intelligence, and intent.
    Yet he is trying to prove that it is more logical to recognize these things came about with nothing and no intelligence.
    When Man figures out how to do it, I will be first in line to buy a ticket.


    Prove your god did it then should be easy ?

    do this every day, we take on faith that every product in your house was made from something, with intelligence, and with intent.
    All your books, tables, cars, roads, shampoo, and clothes, had intent, intelligence, and made from something.
    Do you look it up? Find the company and go to see if it has been made for every product in your house, NO!
    So why is it absurd that when we come to the biggest things, life and the universe, that the answer is a cause, intelligence, and intent?

    Because we know all these things are man made , give me an example and proof of something god made ......you will possibly say houses ( again ) watches or cars right?

    I am not saying that everyone should become creationists.
    If you want to believe that life and the universe came from nothing, GO RIGHT AHEAD!
    And yes sir, I said the word "BELIEVE"! Because it has not been proven yet.

    I never made any claims about how it all began that’s still you with zero proof 

    But what I said is that life and the universe were made from something, with intent, and intelligence and this is miles ahead of nothing, no intent, and no intelligence.
    And NO I do not have proof!

    I know you don’t , only opinion 


    Just like you said this is a question, of course, the house was made.
    To insinuate that the house came about in any other way would be "absurd"!

    But we are not talking about houses are we ?


    That is exactly what I am saying about life and the universe, until we have proof otherwise, to insinuate that these things came about in any other way is "absurd". 

    But I never made a claim either way , why is this so hard for you to comprehend ? You admit you’ve no proof so all you’re doing is preaching you’re like a bully who detests others who don’t hold your views ,why are you so intolerant ?


    If a person comes to the conclusion that something made us.
    It is not without logic that a person came to this conclusion.

    It is , it’s still based on spiritual conviction I don’t think you know what the term logic means 

    But to say that this conclusion is less logical than nothing, no intent, and no intelligence.
    That is "absurd"!

    You’re still preaching 


  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    The dilemma is the fact that amino acids cannot be formed in an oxygenated environment and they cannot survive after formation without oxygen.

    Ice cores don't lie but humans have proved they can totally misinterpret them.  Using the latest scientific estimates based upon ice core data, researchers had estimated the Lost Squadron of WW2 planes in Greenland were resting just 12 feet under the ice sheet.  Everyone was shocked when the planes were finally discovered under 250-300 feet of ice.  Scientists finally had the means to verify their assumptions and interpretations of ice cores and the new evidence proved the former assumptions completely wrong.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Secular scientists make a classical mistake by classifying theories they don't like as "superstition" and unproven theories they do like as "science."  New avenues of research in Quantum Mechanics has opened the door to the possibility of discovering aspects of the spiritual world that were not open to bare natural physics before which had no way to delve into the '6th' dimension.  Researchers think they may have found the "God particle" but they cannot be sure.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    I know secularists have devised theories which give them the comforting ability to draw conclusions they like, but secular theories are no more proven scientific facts than theories involving God's interactions with earth and the universe.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    Nobody has to prove the big bang happened to believe it did or that it involved mysterious causes which effected the miracle without God.  And nobody has to prove God created the universe before being allowed to believe God.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    >>>No I don’t take it on ‘faith’ , I take it on the fact that houses are built by men and we have no reason to believe otherwise , to use your ‘logic’ one could easily say they were built by Yetis. You’re still trying to tie “spiritual faith “ into beliefs we are justified in believing<<<

    Nope only you mentioned Yetis.
    No one mentioned "spiritual faith" but you.


    >>>I don’t have to in the case of houses, you do apparently as every house that’s built is a mystery to you it seems
    When you hear a friend has purchased  a house do you ask was it built by humans ? Bet you don’t they would have you hospitalized 
    If you think anyone or anything builds houses other than men prove it ? It’s hilarious you actually think to believe that house builders exist and to believe so is to believe a fairytale yet to believe a man rose from the dead is the height of logic<<<

    This is your strawman fallacy. You state there is no need to verify these things.


    >>>Everything ? How do you know this?<<<

    I am asking you, what doesn't?
    Please state what doesn't have a cause for the effect?


    >>>You do I do not <<<

    Now you break your own logic of the (strawman fallacy) saying you make no assumptions and check everything.


    >>>Nice attempt at deflection , I said it’s absurd to assume a god without proof . I make no assumptions <<<

    You do make assumptions, as your statement said.
    Dee stated >>>>" to assume they came about any other way is to embrace absurdities "<<< 12:59AM 7/29/2020

    This is more of what you said >>>"humans have witnessed houses being made by humans since the first houses were built , to assume they came about any other way is to embrace absurdities "<<<
    If you want to recant, fine.
    But you cannot stand on both stones.


    >>>>Because we know all these things are man made, give me an example and proof of something god made ......you will possibly say houses ( again ) watches or cars right?<<<<
    Strawman again!
    You are the only one who brought God in this discussion.
    I think you trying to make it theism versus atheists.
    Everything ain't theism.


    >>>It is , it’s still based on spiritual conviction I don’t think you know what the term logic means<<<
    I believe you don't know what logic means, since you have switch positions multiple times.
    Either you research everything or make assumptions.
    You cannot stand on both stones.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    You are free to believe what you wish , I’ve never claimed otherwise 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    marke said:
    @MayCaesar

    Secular scientists make a classical mistake by classifying theories they don't like as "superstition" and unproven theories they do like as "science."  New avenues of research in Quantum Mechanics has opened the door to the possibility of discovering aspects of the spiritual world that were not open to bare natural physics before which had no way to delve into the '6th' dimension.  Researchers think they may have found the "God particle" but they cannot be sure.
    It has nothing to do with liking or not liking a theory; it has to do with it being a weak theory that puts filler in the gap of human knowledge, making it look like the gap has been patched up.

    All these attempts to see actual scientific advancements as proving religious presuppositions are not rooted in reality. I do not like to invoke an authority, but, as having a PhD in physics, I believe that I am qualified enough to make this statement. There is no "spiritual world" or "god particle" to speak of that any physics evidence suggests. "God particle" is the unfortunate media label for Higgs boson which has nothing to do with God, and which is only a "particle" in the sense in which this word is used in particle physics.

    There are scientific theories that further human knowledge, and there are unscientific ones that impede it. Whether I "like" a particular theory is completely irrelevant. I like the simulation theory, in which we all live in a Matrix run by much more advanced beings - however, there is no evidence behind it, and it is not even clear if any evidence can be found in principle, hence it is not a scientific theory.
    Science is science. We do what we do not to find theories that we "like", but to find theories that make us understand the world better. 

    When I want to read something I like, I open a fantasy book. When I want to read something I want to understand, I open a philosophy book. And when I read something I want to learn, I open a scientific book.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited July 29
    @Sand



    Nope only you mentioned Yetis.

    The point as usual is over your head to claim houses were built by gods has the same credibility as saying they were built by Yetis 


    No one mentioned "spiritual faith" but you.

    Because your belief is based on that and nothing else 



    This is your strawman fallacy. You state there is no need to verify these things.

    Thats not a ‘fallacy’ to assume a house is built by anything other than a human is absurd , it’s incredible you believe otherwise 




    I am asking you, what doesn't?
    Please state what doesn't have a cause for the effect?

    Your god? Thank you for admitting such 


    Now you break your own logic of the (strawman fallacy) saying you make no assumptions and check everything.

    I don’t think you even know what you’re saying , do you seriously think anyone except you believes supernatural entities buon houses?


    You do make assumptions, as your statement said. 
    Dee stated >>>>" to assume they came about any other way is to embrace absurdities "<<< 12:59AM 7/29/2020

    You’re the one making assumptions by presuming houses could have been built by other than humans , the burden of proof is still with you 


    If you want to recant, fine.
    But you cannot stand on both stones.

    I’m on one stone , you’re all over the place 


    Strawman again!
    You are the only one who brought God in this discussion.
    I think you trying to make it theism versus atheists.
    Everything ain't theism.

    I’ve had enough of your lying and idiocy it’s like trying to talk to a trained monkey 


    I believe you don't know what logic means, since you have switch positions multiple times.
    Either you research everything or make assumptions.
    You cannot stand on both stones.


    I know you think  it’s logical to believe houses were made by others than humans , I used to think you were ok and a decent guy I see now you’re an and a dishonest one , I will not engage with you again 
    Sand
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Very good Dee.
    Dee
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot
    We know that RNA and sometimes DNA can be produced naturally. This suggests that it is possible for all these elements to come together in the right conditions to form simple proto-molecules which if any could self-replicate would turn into life.

    Just want to add if the molecule in question as the prototype is replicated naturally it still could turn into life, self-replication is not a condition of control naturally necessary for life's to be described as having been created. Self-replication can be considered a characteristic of the second prototype in a process of evolution. DNA research, however, has a very high price to be paid it hs not been conducted in the process which most accurately pertains to natural conditions therefor has been conducted with an extreme overhead cost.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Let's take the moon's rate of recession from earth.  Secularists do not want calculations to reveal that the universe is young compared to assumptions dating back hundreds of years, so they arbitrarily dismiss the usual science of uniformitarianism to create their own 'facts' as to why uniformitarian calculations cannot be relied upon.  The earth cannot possibly be billions of years old if its age is calculated using the constant measurable rate of the moon's recession.
  • @marke ;
    marke said:
    @Happy_Killbot

    The dilemma is the fact that amino acids cannot be formed in an oxygenated environment and they cannot survive after formation without oxygen.

    Ice cores don't lie but humans have proved they can totally misinterpret them.  Using the latest scientific estimates based upon ice core data, researchers had estimated the Lost Squadron of WW2 planes in Greenland were resting just 12 feet under the ice sheet.  Everyone was shocked when the planes were finally discovered under 250-300 feet of ice.  Scientists finally had the means to verify their assumptions and interpretations of ice cores and the new evidence proved the former assumptions completely wrong.

    You have made this claim twice now, Show me the evidence. So far all you have shown is a pseudo-science opinion piece that could be debunked in 2 minutes.

    In addition, the anecdote about planes has very little to do with ice cores because the planes landed on a glacier. We do not take ice cores from glaciers because they move, and tend to bury and mix things up.

    Yet again you have failed to provide adequate disproof for abiogenesis.

    Where is any evidence that your precious "intelligent design" occurred?
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    marke said:
    @MayCaesar

    Let's take the moon's rate of recession from earth.  Secularists do not want calculations to reveal that the universe is young compared to assumptions dating back hundreds of years, so they arbitrarily dismiss the usual science of uniformitarianism to create their own 'facts' as to why uniformitarian calculations cannot be relied upon.  The earth cannot possibly be billions of years old if its age is calculated using the constant measurable rate of the moon's recession.
    yeah, it can and rather quickly at that the recession rate of the moon is changed by two fractures as they relate to gravity. Facture one the number of small particles in the way of materials from the universe that cone to rest on the moon and those particles that cone t rest on the earth. The age of the earth is in question but it is due to the rather poor use of mathematic rules having been used as a guideline. 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    "I know secularists have devised theories which give them the comforting ability to draw conclusions they like, but secular theories are no more proven scientific facts than theories involving God's interactions with earth and the universe."

    It may be bold of you to make such an erroneous observation but the facts are:
    The theory of evolution which is part of the work "The Origin of the Species" has been well and truly tested, verified and evolution through natural selection was proven irrefutably ages ago.
    There is no proof whatsoever as to the existence of God.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    I am a student of science, not a teacher.  I have been studying science for nearly 50 years.  I find the ICR science paper more persuasive than the supposed refutations of doubters which amount to little more than "Nuh-Uh."  That is not a persuasive argument from the doubters.  Can amino acids form and then live with or without oxygen?  If so, then a proper refutation of the ICR argument would involve scientific evidence and reasoning, not just empty denials.

    Can we test theories about ice core dating?  Can we prove that an ice core which is estimated to be a thousand years old really did take a thousand years to form?  No, confirmations were impossible, before the issue of the lost squadron came up.  It is interesting to note that researchers who had dated ice cores told those searching for the planes that the planes should be 10'-12' under the surface.  When the planes were discovered nearly 300' below the surface the ice core daters quickly revised their official statement to claim ice formations in lower Greenland were nothing like ice formations in northern Greenland.  Baloney.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    Evolution has been accepted as scientific fact by those given to such blind faith in those kinds of myths because they have no desire to question what others question about the absurd claims made by evolutionists to support the flawed theory.
  • @marke ;
    marke said:
    @Happy_Killbot

    I am a student of science, not a teacher.  I have been studying science for nearly 50 years.  I find the ICR science paper more persuasive than the supposed refutations of doubters which amount to little more than "Nuh-Uh."  That is not a persuasive argument from the doubters.  Can amino acids form and then live with or without oxygen?  If so, then a proper refutation of the ICR argument would involve scientific evidence and reasoning, not just empty denials.

    Can we test theories about ice core dating?  Can we prove that an ice core which is estimated to be a thousand years old really did take a thousand years to form?  No, confirmations were impossible, before the issue of the lost squadron came up.  It is interesting to note that researchers who had dated ice cores told those searching for the planes that the planes should be 10'-12' under the surface.  When the planes were discovered nearly 300' below the surface the ice core daters quickly revised their official statement to claim ice formations in lower Greenland were nothing like ice formations in northern Greenland.  Baloney.
    I don't believe you at all because you provide no facts.

    Show us some evidence, or we will assume you are a liar.

    Also which paper is "more persuasive" is irrelevant.

    Amino acids can form in an oxygen deprived environment:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

    We know how old ice cores are by looking at the patterns of ice, similar to rings on a tree.
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/how-are-ice-cores-dated/#:~:text=Ice%20cores%20can%20be%20dated,(Lemieux%2DDudon%20et%20al.

    As stated before, we don't take ice cores from glaciers because they move, so please stop talking about the plane story, it's irrelevant.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    @marke

    I am not aware of any discrepancies in this regard, and I am an astrophysicist. Care to expand on this a bit? 

    Also, the rate of the Moon's recession is not constant. I think you have been misinformed by someone.

    Do not try to refute science you do not understand. It is a good rule of thumb in life in general: do not make claims on subjects you do not understand or know.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    If someone wants to refute something I believe about science, then they must provide reasoning and evidence in order to be persuasive.  Just pointing and saying "What he said," or "Nuh-uh" is not persuasive.

    One way to double check dating methods used on bones, for example, would be to have different labs test samples from the same bone for comparison.  If the dating methods are accurate each lab should yield the same result. Sadly, that sort of blind testing of dating methods is rarely done as far as I can tell.  However, some test results have been done on young rocks from the Mt. St. Helens eruption, and the yielded dates were horribly wrong, yeilding dates of more than a million years for rocks known to be less than 20 years old.

    I don't know of any blind testing method to verify conclusions by ice core researchers about the ages of ice core samples.  It appears we must blindly accept whatever dates they say are valid in core samples and that is final.
    Happy_Killbot
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    I believe secularists claim the moon's recession rate has not been constant in the past, although I am unaware of any fluctuations in its current rate.  That sounds supicious to me because it involves unproven assumptions which cannot be scientifically observed or verified.  The rate of earth's rotation is another problem for old age proponents.  If we calculate what the rate of the earth's rotation was in the ancient past using its current deceleration rate then we find the earth could not possibly be billions of years old.  Can we just assume the rate has changed in the ancient unmeasurable and unverifiable past?  I guess so, since that seems to be what so many secularists do.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    @marke

    But that is what you do. You constantly refer to some results that allegedly prove that science is wrong, but never actually back it up with evidence and expect people to just take your claims on faith.

    There is nothing wrong with questioning various scientific results; we do it all the time, and, in fact, we go at great lengths to question our own results. The paper I am about to submit has a lot of arguments putting the claims we are trying to make under question, exploring where they can be wrong. That is an inherent part of any serious scientific study: one of the most important questions we are trying to answer is, "In what way can we be wrong?"

    But it should be done properly. Not just, "X and Y results prove that you are wrong". That is just a lazy argument. Researchers constantly publish papers the conclusions of which contradict each other; the truth is found not by finding claims that are never criticized by anyone, but by finding claims that survive the test of time. Do you know how many papers there have been claiming that black holes do not and cannot exist? Yet we now very well know that they do exist, and even know many concrete examples of them.

    Science is never settled; the exploration is always ongoing, and many studies turn out to make false statements. What separates science from religion is that in science those statements are always based on sound reasoning, and that authors of those statements always allow for the possibility of them being wrong - while in religion claims are made with no evidence to back them up, and any criticism of those claims is dismissed as not being a part of the particular religion.
    Can you imagine what science would be like if we dismissed statements based on the fact that earlier statements contradict them? "This study cannot be right, because a random study published by some random person 80 years ago claimed otherwise". This would kill science. Yet this is what you guys routinely do. "A book from over 2,000 years ago says so, so it must be right". It is a circular reasoning, something science does not allow for.

    In conclusion, I just want to say that almost all critics of science seem to have a very poor idea of what proper science actually is like. They criticize some straw-manned version of science where a bunch of folks are sitting in their ivory towers and perpetuate a set of dogmas. Yet this is, actually, a much better representation of religion than science. In science, we do not do that. In science, we constantly argue, criticize our own ideas, etc. The scientific community is one of the most self-critical communities out there, and you only do not see it because this community has come to very different conclusions about various properties of the Universe than religious scholars did.

    You criticize science for everything that is domain of religion, and you praise religion for everything that is domain of science. That is the biggest irony of religious criticism of science.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    edited July 30
    @marke

    There are very few things that are constant in the Universe, and particular properties of particular objects such as recession rate of the Moon certainly are not a subset of them. Now, perhaps the moon recession rate changes only very slightly over time - this is true, as far as I know. But this change is real and is confirmed by computer simulations.

    I am not an expert on the planets and their satellites; my area of expertise is chemical evolution of large groups of stars. I do know a bit about tidal effects and other related phenomena, however, and I can tell for certain that there are no two objects in the Universe for which the recession rate is constant.

    I am not aware of any problems with the Earth's rotation rate calculations. It has been calculated very precisely and accurately projected into the past retroactively. It is true that different studies give different ages of Earth, but all of those studies, you must understand, feature large error bars, and many of them make assumptions that may or may not be true.
    Those error bars are rarely mentioned in popular articles targeting the mainstream reader, so from the outside it may seem that they contradict each other. In reality, they rarely do, and when they do, they do so because of different model assumptions.

    A popular article may say, "Method X predicted the age of Earth to be 5 billion years, and method Y - 3 billion years. Clearly they are mutually contradictory!" The real results may be 5 +/- 3 billion years and 3 +/ 2.5 billion years respectively, featuring a significant overlap between the two regions - but those +/- values mostly do not find their way into media articles.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    I asked a question of my college professor about something in the book which I found questionable.  He did not even try to answer my question but immediately went on a rant about religion not belonging in science.  My question had nothing to do with religion and his knee-jerk reaction demonstrated thst he refused to deal with issues in science which seemed to contradict accepted secular assumptions.

    Passing peer review is not the measure of scientific accuracy.  Some sharp fellows once tested the peer review process by sending old papers back through as though they were new, with some minor immaterial alterations for masking.  What they found was interesting.  Papers which had already passed review in the past were rejected for reasons which had not changed since they had been submitted in the past.  And papers which had been rejected in the past were passed in the new attempt even though no science had changed from the past until the present.

    What that means is that peer review is not perfect and is subject to human opinions which can change over time even if the science does not change.

    I posted a science paper written less than 20 years ago.  Surely if the science has changed someone could refute the old position with new arguments and evidence.  Claiming the paper is religious and therefore invalid is a weak and unscientific way to get around dealing with the facts and arguments in the paper.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    edited July 30
    @marke

    That is his personal character trait though, not a trait of science. I personally am always open to any questioning, and most scientists I know in person are as well. However, we do dislike poorly thought-out questions and expect the questioner to have done their homework. Someone walking up to a professor who has spent 30 years researching the String Theory and saying, "You know, I think String Theory makes no sense, because there are only 3 dimensions in space, not 6 or 11", is not welcome and will, likely, receive a dismissing answer.

    I have never mentioned peer review in my comments. It is not about passing some reviews; science is not a democracy, and what is true and what is not is not decided through a vote. Every study should be judged on its own merit, and the most solid studies known eventually are additionally confirmed by their practical applications. It is hard to criticize the fundamental assumptions of quantum mechanics, for example, when all of the modern electronics is designed based on those assumptions and works as intended.
    Peer review mainly serves to deject lazy attempts at a scientific research and poorly written papers. It does not serve to preserve the currently held dogmas - although, arguably, some particular peer review systems are not nearly as scientifically impartial as they should be.

    Refuting the old position is not always necessary, as long as a new and better justified position can be derived. It is unnecessary today, for example, to publish a serious paper explaining why the Earth is not flat - there are enough papers explaining the most intricate properties of Earth to put the ancient hypothesis to rest.
    You are welcome to make a scientific argument on any basis you like. You can take a series of religious axioms and build your reasoning off them, and that will be science - as long as you understand in what domain this science lays. You can set an axiom that 2+2=3 and derive something from it, but your paper is unlikely to be of interest to many people, as the axiom seems so far removed from anything modern science might be concerned with.
    But if you can make it work and derive something useful, then, by all means, go ahead! I LOVE reading unusual papers making the assumptions defying common sense, and would like to see more of them.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Modern advances do not prove quantum mechanics theories are settled science.  The string theory is not settled scientific fact.  These things are theories, speculations, assumptions, suggestions or whatever, until they are scientifically verified beyond doubt.  I said I am a student of science who want to learn something about string theory.  I don't go to the Bible or to church to look for information.  That would be .  I go to the library or (most commonly) go to the internet.  I look for verifications of theories or scientific debates about theories because I want to know how solid the support for those theories is.

    As an example, I looked up string theory and found this:

    Up until the 1960s, physicists were feeling pretty confident: They had discovered what they thought to be the fundamental constituents of matter (protons, neutrons and electrons). And they had recently accomplished the feat of unifying quantum mechanics and special relativity with what they called quantum electrodynamics (QED), which was a completely quantum description of the electromagnetic force.

    But then, they started developing incredibly powerful particle colliders, and suddenly, they weren't really liking what they were finding. In these instruments, the physicists found a bunch of broken-up protons and neutrons, revealing that these particles were not fundamental at all. And what's worse, the colliders started spitting all sorts of new kinds of particles: mesons, pions, kaons, resonances, the works.

    And governing them all was an apparently new force of nature: the strong force.
    The tools used to develop QED were simply falling apart with this diverse host of particles popping out of the colliders. Physicists were at a loss and willing to try new ideas.

    I try to focus on problem areas of theories to see if or how those problems can be resolved before buying blindly into whatever scientists claim, because those scientifsts may be wrong and I don't want to be wrong with them.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    @marke ;

    Natural theories are not to be "proven"; physics is not mathematics. Natural theories are to be field-tested and found to give either accurate or inaccurate predictions. And quantum mechanics has been giving some of the most accurate predictions among all fields of physics so far.
    And no, a scientific theory is not a "speculation" or "assumption". Scientific theory is a "theory" not in the sense in which people use this word in the everyday life. It is a common misconception, very surprising, considering that we live in the age of information, when proper terminology is not very hard to come by.

    If you want to understand the current state of the string theory, you do not "look up" things in a few minutes and make big claims. String theory is very complicated and has many variations, some of which have been found lacking and others have not.
    The passage you cited refers to the past, when particle physics was at its inception. Physicists, indeed, did not like at the time what they were finding, as all those particles were seemingly suggesting a very complicated structure of reality, not something scientists like: we like everything to be as simple and straightforward as possible. Since then particle physics has come a long way, and the Standard Model offered a very simple (and tested in countless experiments) classification of the found particles by suggesting that many of them consist of a small set of more fundamental particles. Whether those particles are actually fundamental or not is unknown.
    This passage also has nothing to do with the string theory. String theory and particle physics are very different fields.

    What I said earlier stands: do not make claims about things you do not know/understand. If you hope to refute modern science by reading a few articles on the Internet, then I will have to disappoint you: it is not going to happen.
    You will not find something wrong with an established theory by just reading a few passages. You have to delve deep into the field in order to come up with some criticism that has not been addressed thousands times in the past by other people, including some of the most prominent scientists.

    Science is not religion. In religion, you can read a few passages from a holy book, and that is enough to prove or disprove whatever you like. In science, it is a bit more complicated. Do not try to apply religious standards to science. The level of rigor required is very different. There is a reason we typically study our narrow fields for 10-12 years before we are even considered scientists. Science is hard and requires a lot of commitment; it is not something you read about once a month and consider yourself an expert.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch