To write off how complex things are by saying they evolved over millions of years makes it seem simple.
Not simple, just logical. Mountains for instance were created by tectonic plates pushing together over millions of years. Sure it's simple to say millions of years, but without writing a 12,000 word essay that is the best way to sum it up a gradual process happening over aeons of time.
if these things were so simple scientists would replicate it (make an eye) so the blind can see again.
I never said they were simple, I said they were simply explained. For instance it is simple to explain how a star like our sun was formed, but not simple to recreate it.
It's simple to explain lots of things that are complicated to replicate so that argument falls down I'm afraid.
Plus of course we don't just see with the eye, light passes through the eye into the optical nerve and then into the brain. So to say that 'scientists can't make an eye' is not really looking at the whole story.
By the way, scientists have recreated eyes and have cured certain types of blindness, because they are not all the same.
Here is just one example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html
. You say what I have said is like saying because of magic but you have said the same thing with evolution the evidence
No, it is patently different and I'll explain why.
When you (or any religious person) claims we are made by whatever god you happen to believe in. The only evidence you can come up with are ancient religious text. Then you cite the complexity of nature as evidence.
When I say no we evolved very slowly from common ancestors, I am referring to a fossil record that shows skeletons changing very slowly over millions of years till we get to us.
I am also referring to the evidence of the similarity of our internal organs, not least the brain. Which as I mentioned above can be reverse engineered to an earlier state.
As science gets better we can use things like brain imaging fMRI and so on to test our claims and actually perform experiments to try and disprove our claims.
I don't believe we evolved from goo.
I take it you're referring to the primordial soup, or slime as it is sometimes known. Ultimately it refers to the various single celled life that dominated this planet for at least a half a billion years.
Again there is plenty of evidence of this and if you're genuinely interested I can link you to some. The biggest evidence is that our DNA whilst configured differently, is no different to the DNA of any living thing on this planet, no matter how simple.
For me evidence of a god or aliens, would lie in our DNA. You would be able to say something like; 'how come our DNA is completely different to anything on this planet then?' and I would struggle to answer. But that can't be said.
men and their scientific claims which have been wrong many times
Very true, and this is what science is all about. Because when one scientist publishes results, many more try and disprove those results.
So those claims that turn out to be wrong get disproved by . . . you guessed it, other scientists.
That is the main difference between science and religion. Religion speaks in absolutes and leaves no room for further discussion or discovery.
Science speaks in probabilities and fully allows for new discoveries and new evidence to further knowledge.
But you are entitled to your opinion and views just like me, so we can agree to disagree.
We can of course agree to disagree, I'd be a pedant if I didn't agree with that! :-)
However let me leave you with this one logic bomb.
If god is all powerful it means he can do anything; right?
If god is all knowing it means he knows everything that will happen from the beginning of time till the end; right?
Therefore that creates a paradox whereby there is something that god cannot do, nor know in advance.
God can't change his mind, if he does change his mind, then it was something that was going to happen anyway, predetermined at the beginning of time.
Ergo it's not truly changing his mind.
Plus of course, prayer is useless if god already knew a billion years ago whether he was going to answer my prayers or not...
Peace.
If you don't mind me butting in here a bit :)
Let me try to tackle your logic bomb. So there has been no shortage of paradoxes that have been raised by combining various claimed properties of God, and so in discussions about God, at least in discussions where we can hope to get anywhere at all, there is usually an implicit premise:
"God can be understood (or at least partially understood) with Reason"
And so the major characteristics of God should really be qualified with this, for eg: God is as powerful as is possible by reason. God is as all knowing as is possible by reason. Without this qualification, the old unstoppable force vs immovable object will immediately make short work of any possible discussion of God.
Adding this qualification may be justified in a number of ways. In the first place as I said we can only possibly have discourse with this in place - and the reduced claims (making reason a limitation) are still meaningful claims. It is also possible that paradoxes like the immovable object and the unstoppable force are absurdities created by the nature of our cognition and so limiting God's characteristics to logic may not actually be a "limitation" but a removal of absurd/false constructs inherent in our cognition.
So anyway, if we accept the additional qualification, then it becomes quite clear that the paradox you're proposing is just a variant of the immovable force/unstoppable object. It is coherent with the reason-qualified version of omnipotence if I were to claim that God cannot change His mind because He has full knowledge of all possible situations and thus would already have a plan. I can also claim, again coherent with the reason-qualified version of omnipotence/omniscience, that God CAN change His mind when it is related to free-willed agents (assuming we are such), because the definition of free-will requires that God cannot determine the outcome of the willing (even with reason-qualified omnipotence), and so God can still react and "change His mind" when free-willed agents like us (presumably) choose different actions.
thanks for the contribution, it's an open floor here as far as I know. I'm not going to try regulate people's posts unless it is rude or trolling.
As someone not religious, and educated in the Darwinism theory - I have been looking at this whole thing (very much from a 'political narrative and deception perspective, and how science has been manipulated/ fabricated to continue a narrative for the powers that be, throughout history..
(and working on the premise - that why trust a proven liar?)
There are gaps in the theory of evolution... (I'm not arguing for a god, btw).
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/a-strange-case-of-darwinist-depression-part-1
Common sense tells me there is something going on, that is not science as we are educated to believe..
I agree men have always manipulated things like science to suit an agenda
@allusive ... and religion has never manipulated anyone right? Lolz
Cg
Yes it has but there's manipulation that is for mans benefit (science) and manipulation that you can judge for yourself as whether it is to use man (religion) if it makes you do good and want to do right.
Ah I see, so it's just a matter of perspective. If a priest or Imman says don't touch yourself, or give me lots of money because that's what god wants, it's somehow OK?
No, manipulation is manipulation. Religion is the ultimate tool for that, because you are not allowed to refute divine law.
Look at the ridiculous laws in Saudi, look at the women who have been stoned to death because they dared come forward to accuse their rapists and were then called adulterers.
Look at ancient lore in the bible and koran which gives men the right to buy and sell women because god says so.
Science doesn't manipulate, science is just the process of questioning. That is not to say that some scientists try and manipulate, but at least they are answerable to checkable facts.
Cg
There are loads and loads of fossils, but the fact is most of them are either buried under millions of tonnes of rock (how fossils are made) or at the bottom of the sea.
Why oh why would there be a conspiracy? Who benefits from such a pointless and complex conspiracy involving thousands upon thousands, nay tens of thousands of academics?
Seriously if you really want to put up a credible argument against natural selection read On The Origin Of The Species, by means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin.
It's not that hard a read and it is readily available.
Cg
That's like me telling you to read the bible it's not that hard a read and is readily available, are you going to?
That's like me telling
You to read the bible it's
Not that hard a read
- allusive
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
It is nothing like you saying 'read the bible'. The reason being that Darwin references evidence and experiments that you yourself can carry out and see if you get the same results.
Whereas the bible is a bunch of stories that I have to take at face value.
Cg
You can try things out too "love thy neighbour" not in the literal sense but just be kind/ good on general. The stories as you would say can teach a lesson just like theories of scientists, you can apply it until someone comes along and proves it wrong.
Absolutely agree, the funny thing is, in order to build such large societies we had worked that out before religion came along to state the obvious. It is a good example to follow, I find I can be kind without the fear of a deity punishing me if I'm not. :-)
Cg
...to help get rid the notion of religion, of god - so as to make the state the omnipotent power...
.... marxism before marx....?
I'm interested in this idea that science has been manipulated/fabricated.
I mean, I'm sure it has been before in isolated cases, but that is not the same as supposing that the edifice of contemporary scientific literature in general is compromised to the extent that it is generally unreliable. It does look to me at the moment that the scientific community is by and large trustworthy. Would you be able to point me to arguments to the contrary?
by your last line "God answering your prayers" I get a sense that you may have believed once but due to something happening you do not? I appreciate your time on trying to prove your point but religion rather than just being about text also requires faith so I cannot infuse people with that, you may need something to happen to help you believe. Science can always try replicate but you can not create (God particle) they are trying to replicate in cern or if they have there is always other things they cannot make like smaller atoms (not sure the exact name, microparticles?) and blood. I am busy so cannot look these things up further. According to some we are in a virtual reality in which case we both lose the argument. I believe everything important is known and already dealt with by God but mans free will means other things will come up all the time that needs to be considered so I don't think it's necessarily a case of God changing his mind.
Lol, they have indeed found the Higgs Boson, however the term God particle is a misnomer and bears no relation to its function.
By the way, you may be interested to read up about synthetic blood, it's not perfect, but it will be soon :-)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738310/
Cg
Yeah again you take their word for it that they've found it. Synthetic? Can it do what real blood does and be used and donated. Sorry but this site advises against clicking links I'll look it up though.
Yes and yes :-)
Cg
Man can always try replicate as I've said by taking apart things or reverse engineering but struggle to make .Are they going to use the particle to do a big bang and create a world?
That was never on the cards, that sort of thing was only suggested by people who didn't understand what they were doing.
The particle was theoretical up until last year, Higgs and Einstein predicted such a particle would have existed at the start of time (Big Bang) and so once technology caught up with their hypothesis we were able to prove it at Cern.
No more, no less :-)
Cg
"We" sounds like you work at cern
Sounds like you have a direct line to God ;-)
Cg
No i don't. Some would say the direct route is prayer or death lol depends on who you ask.
If they're not going to test it then it only theoretically works, which is what you suggest the bible is (stories or theories).
Test what, the Higgs Boson?
You misunderstand (because of incorrect media reports) what the Higgs Boson is. Asking if they are going to test it, is like asking if they are going to test an electron. It doesn't make sense. They simply were trying to detect it; and they have.
It is the same as trying to detect carbon monoxide in a room with a faulty boiler, you have a theory that it exists, you devise a test to detect it, and then you either do or don't.
As I mentioned previously, the term God Particle is something the media picked up on and ran with. It was a flippant remark and overemphasises the importance of the particle.
Its importance lies in being able to one day understand the universe in its entirety.
Another example might be how in 1912 Alfred Wegener proposed the concept of 'continental drift'. He said that earthquakes were caused by the rubbing together of tectonic plates and that at some point in the past all of the land on earth was together in one super continent named Pangea.
Before that theory some religious people claimed earthquakes were a sign of gods anger (some still do!), yet Wegener was proved right and we know today that earthquakes have nothing to do with god. This is what I mean by 'the god of the gaps'.
If you place god in a gap in our knowledge, then be prepared for god to be squeezed back to another gap.
Anyway I state again, you can't test the Higss Boson, you merely detect it, and that has been done.
Cg