I don't get YEC.

[SkyWriting]

Gods are pretty much the same way. Starting up every minute.If it happened once, it surely happens all the time. Infinity doesn't care what time it is.

The multiverse theory says that universes are created every moment.
That can be your God if you wish. I already know mine.

[SkyWriting]

And all known natural laws point to death.  Now if science had even one tentative law suggesting life, then they'd have a start. 

Now you'd think with life teeming all around us, there would be at least one physical or natural law that suggested life.

I'm not sure what you would define as a "law", but <snip>

Then look it up so we can continue speaking:

The laws of science or scientific laws are statements that describe, predict, and perhaps explain why, a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.[1] The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.). An analogous term for a scientific law is a principle.
Scientific laws:
summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts. I.e. "the laws of motion require that"
Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. These are not laws since they have not been verified to the same degree and may not be sufficiently general, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiment.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=define+law+of+science&oq=define+las+of+science&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i13j0i22i30j0i8i13i30.14783.27698.2.30943.26.19.5.0.0.0.865.5690.1j7j3j2j3j2j1.19.0.epsugrpqhmsignedin%2Chtma%3D120%2Chtmb%3D120..0.0.0..1.1.17.psy-ab.lfA0MpkiEis&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc&fp=2d51c5bfc01f1cdf&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=899

[ParkingPlaces]

Gods are pretty much the same way. Starting up every minute.If it happened once, it surely happens all the time. Infinity doesn't care what time it is.

The multiverse theory says that universes are created every moment.
That can be your God if you wish. I already know mine.

You seem to think we need a god replacement. We don't. Multiverses or otherwise, there is no praise, no worship, no faith, nor any fairy tales required.

We work with information and informed conjecture. Religions work with whatever they have made up, which is somewhat limiting because they have horrible imaginations.

[SkyWriting]

Gods are pretty much the same way. Starting up every minute.If it happened once, it surely happens all the time. Infinity doesn't care what time it is.

The multiverse theory says that universes are created every moment.
That can be your God if you wish. I already know mine.

You seem to think we need a god replacement. We don't. Multiverses or otherwise, there is no praise, no worship, no faith, nor any fairy tales required.

We work with information and informed conjecture. Religions work with whatever they have made up, which is somewhat limiting because they have horrible imaginations.

By "we" you mean you.  Unless you've been elected to office or something.
So just do it rather than preach about yourself.

[Astreja]

By "we" you mean you.  Unless you've been elected to office or something.
So just do it rather than preach about yourself.

I also work with information and informed conjecture.  There's your quorum for the use of "we."

[wright]

Thanks for the clarification, SW. I asked what you considered a "natural law" because I didn't know if you accepted the meaning as it's generally understood.

Since you do, then I agree: by our current knowledge, there are no natural laws that require life to come about. Indeed, I'd be surprised if we ever did discover such a principle; the greater part of the universe is utterly unsuited for life as we know it. Hard radiation and harder vacuum.

Though clearly those laws, as we understand them, allow for at least the possibility. Again, experiments have shown potential ways abiogenesis might have occurred. Conclusively, no. But it's a new field, and science has barely begun to seriously examine it.

[nogodsforme]

The universe certainly does not seem to require life. Most of it is pretty damn hostile to living things, and just buzzes merrily along, dead as a doornail as far as we can tell. Doesn't mean that there is no other life out there, since there is clearly a precedent for life in the universe....

[Azdgari]

How do black holes require life?

[jaimehlers]

Very very good! 
If my scriptures are correct, God stopped creating on the 6th day.  Some say era.
If my scriptures are correct, death entered the world based on Adam's decision
to not follow God's request.   Adam and Eve would not have died except for Adam
following some poor life counselling.  On that day, he was destined to die.

There are several issues that you need to resolve with your conjectures here.  First, you have to explain how the Genesis story, which was hearsay since no humans could possibly have existed to observe the bulk of the events described in it, can be considered reliable.  Second, you have to deal with the likelihood that it was originally told by people who were attempting to explain circumstances that already held true (specifically, why people died).  Third, you have to explain away the fact that we've determined through science that things are still being created today (stars, planets, etc).  And fourth, you have to show that only your creation story is a good explanation for the fact of death, including all other creation stories as well as the actual scientific explanation.

Care to take a stab at it?

[nogodsforme]

And where did that "poor life counseling" come from, in the perfect world god created?

[SkyWriting]

And where did that "poor life counseling" come from, in the perfect world god created?

Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.

[wheels5894]

If god created all life, he should be creating new life forms all the time, all around us. Really, there should be thousands of clear, obvious pieces of evidence of god as the creator of life to test. Where are god's newly created life forms? What life has suddenly magically appeared on the planet, not related to (evolved from) any other life form?  And, the life that god creates should never fail or die, and certainly should never go extinct. Right?

Very very good! 
If my scriptures are correct, God stopped creating on the 6th day.  Some say era.
If my scriptures are correct, death entered the world based on Adam's decision
to not follow God's request.   Adam and Eve would not have died except for Adam
following some poor life counselling.  On that day, he was destined to die.

OK, Skywriting, lets have at look at what you say here.

• The fact is that creation in continuing as others have mentioned. No only are new animals and plants arising, naturally, but stars and galaxies. Now if your god is still on his rest day, how is this creation still happening?
• If you read Genesis 3 and ignore subsequent writings in the NT you will realise that the reading you have is not the correct one. Leaving aside that Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil so could not have know that eating the fruit was a bad thing to do - until they had eaten it - the fact is that the religion that studies the OT the most are Jews and they do not see any sense of Original Sin in the story. It6 is only later writing that try and change the clear meaning of Genesis 3.
• If you study hard at the Creation narratives in Genesis and combine these stories with Job 30-40 you arrive at the view of creation that you say you accept. However, I have to ask you, does the picture that emerges look anything at all like the universe we know? Below is a picture that illustrates the world that Genesis and Job paint. Is it at all like the world you live in?

[/list]

[jaimehlers]

Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.

You mean, not obeying God's orders.  "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, or you will die" is in no way advice.  Also, since when are snakes people?

You see, Genesis 2-3 were in large part to explain how humans knew the difference between 'good' and 'evil' when other animals apparently didn't.  It's only fairly recently (compared to the age of the actual story) that some people (Christians) came up with the interpretation that resulted in the doctrine of "original sin".  The fact that there was a tree of life in the first place, which would apparently grant the ability to live forever, pretty much blows the Christian "humans brought death into the world through original sin" belief out of the water, since if the fruit of that tree was required to live forever, it means death already existed in the world (since if you don't live forever, you eventually die, and humans as 'designed' by YHWH didn't already live forever).

[wheels5894]

Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.

You mean, not obeying God's orders.  "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, or you will die" is in no way advice.  Also, since when are snakes people?

You see, Genesis 2-3 were in large part to explain how humans knew the difference between 'good' and 'evil' when other animals apparently didn't.  It's only fairly recently (compared to the age of the actual story) that some people (Christians) came up with the interpretation that resulted in the doctrine of "original sin".  The fact that there was a tree of life in the first place, which would apparently grant the ability to live forever, pretty much blows the Christian "humans brought death into the world through original sin" belief out of the water, since if the fruit of that tree was required to live forever, it means death already existed in the world (since if you don't live forever, you eventually die, and humans as 'designed' by YHWH didn't already live forever).

Sorry, but the idea of having an 'original sin' and Jesus being necessary to put things right has been around a few years longer than that. Paul describes Jesus as the new Adam - a man that does everything we do except sin and who thus redeems people. Called Recapitualtion, It is clear enough in Paul and Irenaeus   makes it rather more explicit.

[jaimehlers]

Sorry, but the idea of having an 'original sin' and Jesus being necessary to put things right has been around a few years longer than that. Paul describes Jesus as the new Adam - a man that does everything we do except sin and who thus redeems people. Called Recapitualtion, It is clear enough in Paul and Irenaeus   makes it rather more explicit.

Notably, it's a Christian idea - not a Jewish one.  Though, I thought it was much older than Christianity - preceding it by several thousand years.  That's why I wrote that it was fairly recent compared to the age of the story.  Something that is less than 2000 years old is "fairly recent" compared to something that's, say, 5000.

[nogodsforme]

Hinduism predates both Judaism and Christianity and has many similar elements: of human errors leading to suffering and the need for redemption and rebirth to get the reward of heaven. I think Zoroastrianism has some of the good vs evil concepts as well with a good creator god and a bad opposing force. Neither one has belief in Jesus as a requirement, however.

And no religion can adequately explain why natural disasters happen even where there are no people around to be punished or why plants and animals (who presumably do not "sin") also get sick, suffer and die.

[Anfauglir]

When you say "it was just rresearch", do you mean you did NOT ever agree the Chariots of the Gods hypotheses?  Because that seems contrary to your original statement.

My observations were that life does not develop on it own.  Nothing indicates that it does.
If it did, not enough time has passed for life to develop randomly.
if it did, given the published rates of evolution, it would not have time to have evolved
into it's current states.  One possibility to solve this is alien visitation to earth.
Having read a number of sources on this, the likely hood of us not having conclusive
evidence on this source of complexity are small. 

Ruling out alien influence on our current levels of complexity, the Supernatural is another
candidate for our complexity as well as the complexity of the universe.

The Christian scriptures tell the best story on origins that fits our environment.
'Best Fit" in my opinion.

Once again....NOT an answer to my question.

You said:

It was "Chariots of the Gods" in past years.
 I went through that phase soon after high school.

What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I asked what you meant by that - whether it meant that you had found new evidence that made you change your mind.  I asked:

So would it be fair to say that, at one point, all the evidence you had examined led you to one conclusion that you firmly believed was the case, but that when further evidence came to light, you realised that your previous firmly-held views were not in fact supportable?

And you said no.  So I'm thoroughly confused.  Help me out, Sky - take me through it step by step.

Did you ever believe that the CotG explanation was correct?  If you didn't, can you explain what you meant by "I went through that phase"?

If you did believe it was correct, what was it made you change your mind?  You said "it was just research" - but what does that mean?  Was it new evidence?  Was it that you re-examined the evidence already there?  What specifically do you disagree with in my statement:

.....at one point, all the evidence you had examined led you to one conclusion that you firmly believed was the case, but that when further evidence came to light, you realised that your previous firmly-held views were not in fact supportable?

I'm trying hard to follow your views, Sky, but you don't seem to be making it easy.

[SkyWriting]

What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html


 

[jdawg70]

You seem to think we need a god replacement. We don't. Multiverses or otherwise, there is no praise, no worship, no faith, nor any fairy tales required.

We work with information and informed conjecture. Religions work with whatever they have made up, which is somewhat limiting because they have horrible imaginations.

By "we" you mean you.  Unless you've been elected to office or something.
So just do it rather than preach about yourself.

This coming from the guy who keeps telling us that we f**ked up when one a**hole from long, long ago before any of us were born decided to eat an apple.

Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.

[nogodsforme]

What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html

So, you left one possible answer due to lack of hard data and switched to the bible, which has even less hard data? How does that work?

[SkyWriting]

What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html

So, you left one possible answer due to lack of hard data and switched to the bible, which has even less hard data? How does that work?

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

[jaimehlers]

I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:

Honestly, how this is starting to look is that you thought evolution didn't explain human intelligence, so you searched for something else to explain it, like alien visitations.

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

In other words, you couldn't find hard data for aliens, so you switched to a belief that didn't require hard data (because it could provide none) in the first place.  That makes no sense whatsoever, unless you were trying hard to avoid acknowledging hard data that existed somewhere else.  Like in evolution.

[nogodsforme]

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

That only makes sense if you completely ignore and avoid every scientific advance and discovery of the past 150 years. Which means you have to throw away the computer you are using, walk everywhere and stop washing your hands before you eat.

Even the folks who live in the very region the bible comes from accept science. You would have to live like the Amish, only really dirty.

[wheels5894]

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

Right... like green plants appearing before there was the sun?

           Like a diurnal rhythm of light and darkness before there was the sun and the moon?

I see what you mean - it all makes sense, doesn't it? Anyway, it's better than having to study biology, geology and cosmology along with mathematics - answers clear cut with no work!

[SkyWriting]

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

That only makes sense if you completely ignore and avoid every scientific advance and discovery of the past 150 years. Which means you have to throw away the computer you are using, walk everywhere and stop washing your hands before you eat.

Even the folks who live in the very region the bible comes from accept science. You would have to live like the Amish, only really dirty.

Science has nothing to do with Spirit.   
Is there a scientific solution to addiction, lust, stealing, laziness, lying, obesity, loneliness.......is there even ONE scientific solution for anything that involves human choices?   Hoe about the choice to be Amish or to collect junk, or to collect money?  Any scientific solutions?

[wheels5894]

Science has nothing to do with Spirit.   
Is there a scientific solution to addiction, lust, stealing, laziness, lying, obesity, loneliness.......is there even ONE scientific solution for anything that involves human choices?   Hoe about the choice to be Amish or to collect junk, or to collect money?  Any scientific solutions?

Answer my question above and I'll answer yours

[jaimehlers]

Science has nothing to do with Spirit.   
Is there a scientific solution to addiction, lust, stealing, laziness, lying, obesity, loneliness.......is there even ONE scientific solution for anything that involves human choices?   Hoe about the choice to be Amish or to collect junk, or to collect money?  Any scientific solutions?

On the contrary, science explains them without requiring people to believe in banal stories about snakes tempting people into eating fruit to explain why death occurs.

More importantly, knowing the actual reasons why those things happen allows us to come up with strategies that actually work for dealing with them.  Assuming they need to be dealt with - I don't think being Amish, collecting junk, or collecting money really hurts anyone.

[SkyWriting]

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

Right... like green plants appearing before there was the sun?

           Like a diurnal rhythm of light and darkness before there was the sun and the moon?

I see what you mean - it all makes sense, doesn't it? Anyway, it's better than having to study biology, geology and cosmology along with mathematics - answers clear cut with no work!

Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.
But let's say that it is for a moment.
Is light before the sun possible?

"The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from outer space. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

“Staggeringly, we estimate there could be one of these flashes going off every ten seconds somewhere in the sky,” http://spacefellowship.com/news/art34433/deep-space-flashes-light-up-a-new-face-of-nature.html

"For the first 380,000 years or so, the universe was essentially too hot for light to shine. The heat of creation smashed atoms together with enough force to break them up into a dense plasma, an opaque soup of protons, neutrons and electrons that scattered light like fog." http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html


So according to the Science-Fictioneers, there was light before the sun.


The time you speak of is when Adam walked in the Garden with God.  At that time
one only had to think of something and it was.  We don't live in that era.  This is not paradise.

[nogodsforme]

Science gives us the tools to better understand obesity, addictions and so forth. In time, we may find good solutions.  Nobody ever said that science was a magic spell that would quickly and easily fix every human problem. That is the kind of thing that religious people say about god--despite the obvious fact that science works consistently where god constantly fails. It was not god that brought the US infant mortality rate down from 50% to 6/1000 in the past 200 years.

I just spoke yesterday to a sweet Mexican woman whose grandmother had 22 children, of whom 11 survived to adulthood!  This lady has three lovely kids, all of whom will probably, barring accidents or rare illness, live long enough to have grandkids of their own.

No thanks to god or religion, since the grandmother was at least as devout a Catholic as the granddaughter, and no doubt spent a lot of time praying desperately (to no avail) for her babies to live. Clean water, vaccinations and good nutrition have kept more babies healthy than praying ever did.

No matter how much they denigrate science as useless compared to religion or spirit or whatever, I don't see many theists rejecting the goodies that science brings us. And the few that do, like the people who don't vaccinate their kids and rely on prayer alone to heal polio, suffer the consequences. (Or rather, sadly, the kids suffer the consequences...)