The End of (the catholic) Church

I am not appealing authority.

That is when you say --Stephen Hawking says the Patriots will win.
I point to Science and Nobel prize winners who explain what their scientific finds are... that is science.

 

Only issues is that there is little or no evidence that we live in cyclical universe which is expanding and contracting indefinitely.

Right now the big bang is what the science point to... especially after the recent background radiation predictions and confirmations.

 

Most Brilliant scientists are arguing for no side.
Very few would state they have evidence there is no God or Creator. That is the problem with ET atheist... they do not even understand science.

Its coming out that a very high percentage acknowledge that there is no way we got here by random chance.

I gave you the MIT paper do you want to read it again.

 

No, it doesn't.

That's the beauty of the system. If you are smart, there is a bible passages somewhere that talks about the folly of the "wise".

If a person needs religion to hold it all together, they will actively deny anything that affects that worldview. People do not handle paradigm shifts well at all. We are creatures of habit, very very few are thinkers and challenge everything, including themselves. Most people are just too lazy and/or insecure for that.

The irony is that people in power are taught to challenge everything very early, so when they reach maturity, they can manipulate people who cannot do this.

Sad state, really.

 

of course. just as they would not spend much time arguing that there is no santa clause.
because of evidence the idea that "god did it" is so remote from their thinking that the very idea is silly to them. only the religious try to shoehorn a god into every gap in our knowledge.

 

Yeah, but what makes jem special is that he tries to use science to deny science. Of course, his own version is pseudoscience, but that doesn't take away from the irony.

 

yes, reason is discouraged. like this one:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of
spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the
divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
father of modern Protestant christianity, Martin Luther

 

A masterful intelligent debate, as usual.

 

Free thinker is starting to learn.

Scientific advances are now showing the idea we got here by random chance and the existence of santa clause are equally likely.

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

WE (especially YOU) know no such thing. The universe is vast beyond your imagination. The idea that abiogenesis could take place nowhere among the countless laboratories (planets capable of sustaining biological life) over billions of years is the real absurdity here. So if we happen to be one of the few planets, or even the only planet, where life came about, so what?

How is that any more absurd than your entirely baseless claim of a "Creator" out of nowhere? Who or what created your god? And before you start muttering some equally ridiculous claim of timelessness, explain exactly -- scientifically -- how that works.