Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed Movie lacks intelligence?

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Why are they both silly? Again, I do not understand the equivalence. So what if abiogenesis is extremely unlikely? The anthropic principle states that of course the only place we would even be around to argue about how likely it is, is the one where it happened. Considering the billions of stars in billions of galaxies out there, it's not unlikely at all.

What is strange to me is that people think a sky beardo is somehow more likely or even in the same ballpark as likely.

To *me* they are equally silly

the very idea that a giant "soup" needs to be brewed by chance in a precise sequence .. to produce a single precursor to an enzyme - and Scientists think they are witnessing a Cosmic Event when they try to replicate it with every favorable conditon that can be conceived of .. yet no life and nothing resembling ANYTHING that might reasonably become "life" .. that the most "simple" of life is far beyond our current Science to even reverse Engineer it

the sky-beardo would be Energy and not necessarily "intelligent"

both are just as [un] "likely" to me

This is not making sense to me. Mass and energy are interchangeable, so why would 'energy' always existing be any different then mass always existing? Not only that, but why would the existence of some pile of energy solve the problem of the rise of life?

As far as science being unable to reproduce it, so what? That's the thing, we don't even know what 'favorable' conditions are. Scientists have been able to create conditions in which amino acids and other building blocks of life formed out of inorganic.. whatever though. Certainly an important start.

The whole thing is that we are certainly here right now, and so we must have gotten here somehow. Out of all of the possible explanations, one grounded in a form of abiogenesis is the most likely. Sure our understanding of it sucks, but it's light years better then thinking we were poofed into existence.

 

[apoppin]

so we're agreeing after all this?

that "creation" as stated by the Creationists is unlikely

and that Spontaneous Generation of Life is just as unproven

so .... we are here now .. with "theories" .. each insisting our is "more" likely . . 10 % more likely .. 25% more percent more likely ?

?

Hi .. we're here .. lets find out
- i propose that humans find out - prove to the Creationists - if there is a god or not

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
so we're agreeing after all this?

that "creation" as stated by the Creationists is unlikely

and that Spontaneous Generation of Life is just as UNPROVEN

so .... we are here now .. with "theories" .. each insisting our is "more" likely . . 10 % more likely .. 25% more percent more likely ?

?

Hi .. we're here .. lets find out
- i propose that humans find out - prove to the Creationists - if there is a god or not

It's not just as unproven. We have been able to create the organic compounds that we believe life is based from when simulating conditions as we understand them to have been at the time life arose. No that's not great evidence, but it's certainly something. There is literally zero evidence for some sort of divine creation. Again you are implying equivalence where none exists. There's no reason to say that both ideas are equal... because they aren't. One is based on an admittedly rudimentary understanding, and one is based on crap somebody made up.

 

[apoppin]

It's not just as unproven.

in your mind .. other than that .. we're close

you are implying equivalence

OK , if so ..

Correlate what you said:

No that's not great evidence, but it's certainly something

with

There is literally zero evidence

--when Science actually says "nothing is impossible" without proof
--it cuts both ways, you know
- you are the scientist; YOU are the one with the "open mind" - or so i thought.

. . .as to Zero evidence for divine creation, well then the logical thing to do would be to prove to all religions that he does NOT exist [since it is easier to disprove "crap" as you said]

it is much easier to prove he does not exist than he does - at least in my theoretical exercise
--"practice" will be a bit more difficult to achieve

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

It's not just as unproven.

in your mind .. other than that .. we're close

you are implying equivalence

OK , if so ..

Correlate what you said:

No that's not great evidence, but it's certainly something

with

There is literally zero evidence

--when Science actually says "nothing is impossible" without proof
--it cuts both ways, you know
- you are the scientist; YOU are the one with the "open mind" - or so i thought.

. . .as to Zero evidence for divine creation, well then the logical thing to do would be to prove to all religions that he does NOT exist [since it is easier to disprove "crap" as you said]

it is much easier to prove he does not exist than he does - at least in my theoretical exercise
--"practice" will be a bit more difficult to achieve

You can't prove a negative. It is completely impossible. Science is based on evidence. I've never heard any scientist ever say 'nothing is impossible without proof', but even if they did they would immediately acknowledge that even if something can't be considered impossible without some sort of proof (again, proving a negative!?), that such a statement is pretty worthless. I don't have to go and dig up my garden to prove that gnomes aren't making the plants grow, it works the other way around. You create theories from evidence. You don't create a theory and then say 'well since nobody has disproven it yet I guess it has to be taken seriously'.

Your concept of what an open mind is is also puzzling to me. An open mind means that you are willing to accept evidence presented to you without prejudice to your own already established viewpoints. It does not mean that I have to accept anything and everything that has no evidence supporting it, but also has no evidence refuting it. This is flying spaghetti monster territory and no reasonable person should think that way.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: apoppin

It's not just as unproven.

in your mind .. other than that .. we're close

you are implying equivalence

OK , if so ..

Correlate what you said:

No that's not great evidence, but it's certainly something

with

There is literally zero evidence

--when Science actually says "nothing is impossible" without proof
--it cuts both ways, you know
- you are the scientist; YOU are the one with the "open mind" - or so i thought.

. . .as to Zero evidence for divine creation, well then the logical thing to do would be to prove to all religions that he does NOT exist [since it is easier to disprove "crap" as you said]

it is much easier to prove he does not exist than he does - at least in my theoretical exercise
--"practice" will be a bit more difficult to achieve

You can't prove a negative. It is completely impossible. Science is based on evidence. I've never heard any scientist ever say 'nothing is impossible without proof', but even if they did they would immediately acknowledge that even if something can't be considered impossible without some sort of proof (again, proving a negative!?), that such a statement is pretty worthless. I don't have to go and dig up my garden to prove that gnomes aren't making the plants grow, it works the other way around. You create theories from evidence. You don't create a theory and then say 'well since nobody has disproven it yet I guess it has to be taken seriously'.

Your concept of what an open mind is is also puzzling to me. An open mind means that you are willing to accept evidence presented to you without prejudice to your own already established viewpoints. It does not mean that I have to accept anything and everything that has no evidence supporting it, but also has no evidence refuting it. This is flying spaghetti monster territory and no reasonable person should think that way.

You still don't get it

*i* can prove a negative
- there goes that goddamn word "impossible"
- your "Faith" [Science] insists that nothing is impossible unless proven impossible .. oh ye scientist of little faith ..
--and there ARE creatures that LOOK like flying spaghetti monsters .. want some pictures taken from 30K feet under the surface of the Pacific?

i am talking about "proving" something to PEOPLE .. the people who "believe"

Proving that He does NOT exist - to them [the only ones who "matter" since you know better already] - should be an easy exercise [in theory, at the least]

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You still don't get it

*i* can prove a negative
- there goes that goddamn word "impossible"
- your "Faith" [Science] insists that nothing is impossible unless proven impossible .. oh ye scientist of little faith ..
--and there ARE creatures that LOOK like flying spaghetti monsters .. want some pictures taken from 30K feet under the surface of the Pacific?

i am talking about "proving" something to PEOPLE .. the people who "believe"

Proving that He does NOT exist - to them [the only ones who "matter" since you know better already] - should be an easy exercise [in theory, at the least]

No, I certainly don't get it. You're either trolling to try and piss me off or you're referring to some sort of science and standard of proof that the rest of the planet is unfamiliar with. Either way I'm not really interested in playing this game.

If you're serious, you should really go back and educate yourself on how science and logic work. If you aren't serious... well I guess I'm glad.

 

[apoppin]

forget it then .. i am not trolling
--you just told me you don't want to know

so i am serious and i already know a hell of a lot more about science or logic than you demonstrate - clearly you can't even follow logic
-- so you do the "ape thing" - you attack someone because you can't figure out what they are saying to you
- don't speak for the rest of the planet .. you appear to be a bottom-feeder wannabee "scientist"

i am done wasting any more time with you - on any subject
-i also know what i can do with my pearls

 

[spittledip]

I find the real problem in having these conversations is getting people to understand that the scientific method is not the only way to make use of data. It is almost like people forget that alot of what is now considered scientific fact started off with no proof and as an idea only that came through reasoning. And what is the purpose of dismissing the unseen? B/C it is unprovable as of this moment? Do people only believe in what is seen or observed?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I find the real problem in having these conversations is getting people to understand that the scientific method is not the only way to make use of data. It is almost like people forget that alot of what is now considered scientific fact started off with no proof and as an idea only that came through reasoning. And what is the purpose of dismissing the unseen? B/C it is unprovable as of this moment? Do people only believe in what is seen or observed?

The job of the scientist is to take these unprovable conjectures and massage them into a falsifiable theory. If this can't be done then the idea is rejected as unscientific. If you want to discuss unscientific ideas then that's your prerogative, but don't try to push them into science classrooms.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: spittledip
I find the real problem in having these conversations is getting people to understand that the scientific method is not the only way to make use of data. It is almost like people forget that alot of what is now considered scientific fact started off with no proof and as an idea only that came through reasoning. And what is the purpose of dismissing the unseen? B/C it is unprovable as of this moment? Do people only believe in what is seen or observed?

The job of the scientist is to take these unprovable conjectures and massage them into a falsifiable theory. If this can't be done then the idea is rejected as unscientific. If you want to discuss unscientific ideas then that's your prerogative, but don't try to push them into science classrooms.

I don't have a problem with religious ideas not being taught in classrooms. I don't think that Creationism is scientific, but I also don't believe that science is the only thing that validates ideas as science is limited to the observable. My problem is the people who say that science is the only way to validate ideas.

 

[leingod86]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: spittledip
I find the real problem in having these conversations is getting people to understand that the scientific method is not the only way to make use of data. It is almost like people forget that alot of what is now considered scientific fact started off with no proof and as an idea only that came through reasoning. And what is the purpose of dismissing the unseen? B/C it is unprovable as of this moment? Do people only believe in what is seen or observed?

The job of the scientist is to take these unprovable conjectures and massage them into a falsifiable theory. If this can't be done then the idea is rejected as unscientific. If you want to discuss unscientific ideas then that's your prerogative, but don't try to push them into science classrooms.

I don't have a problem with religious ideas not being taught in classrooms. I don't think that Creationism is scientific, but I also don't believe that science is the only thing that validates ideas as science is limited to the observable. My problem is the people who say that science is the only way to validate ideas.

Religion, from a philosophical stand point, has always caused me to ask these questions:
1. If a religon is correct, then that means (at minimum) 5/6 of the population is doomed to "Hell" or whatever bad place that religion holds. If this is true, then how can "God" be benevolent if he's unwilling to occasionally remind us lowly humans who the correct deity is?

2. If there is a deity, why is he so bent on blind faith when he created humans to be naturally curious and skeptical towards the unseen/unprovable? That seems like a jerk move for a benevolent being.

3. Why is religion based on sensationalism and feeling rather than the principle of logic and reasoning? The former are used to control, the latter to set free. Religion seems to be centered around subtle control of the populace, rather then enlightenment.


Edit: I would like to offer some counterpoints to my own issues (the ways I've come to resolve them personally).

1. There is no correct religion. If there is a deity, he doesn't care which faith you belong to, so long as the core of that faith is good.

2. Deism (or counterpoint 1) sums up the jist of this one. He just really doesn't care.

3. Religion is a manmade creation for the express purpose of putting people in a state where they are no longer capable of rational thought. Therefore, unable to realize or react to the wrong doing of their church or government.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: spittledip
I find the real problem in having these conversations is getting people to understand that the scientific method is not the only way to make use of data. It is almost like people forget that alot of what is now considered scientific fact started off with no proof and as an idea only that came through reasoning. And what is the purpose of dismissing the unseen? B/C it is unprovable as of this moment? Do people only believe in what is seen or observed?

The job of the scientist is to take these unprovable conjectures and massage them into a falsifiable theory. If this can't be done then the idea is rejected as unscientific. If you want to discuss unscientific ideas then that's your prerogative, but don't try to push them into science classrooms.

the problem is when 'articles of faith' -> "Spontaneous Generation of Life" - are promoted as an AGENDA by a godless-evolution - ARE taught in the classroom as more than PURE CONJECTURE - that is a problem i do have - the same as if a religious fanatic tried to teach my kids any nonsense from an ancient jewish document about Our Origins

Spontaneous Generation of Life is not more "scientific" than "god created"
- they are both just as unproven - except in the closed minds of their respective supporters

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: spittledip
I find the real problem in having these conversations is getting people to understand that the scientific method is not the only way to make use of data. It is almost like people forget that alot of what is now considered scientific fact started off with no proof and as an idea only that came through reasoning. And what is the purpose of dismissing the unseen? B/C it is unprovable as of this moment? Do people only believe in what is seen or observed?

The job of the scientist is to take these unprovable conjectures and massage them into a falsifiable theory. If this can't be done then the idea is rejected as unscientific. If you want to discuss unscientific ideas then that's your prerogative, but don't try to push them into science classrooms.

the problem is when 'articles of faith' -> "Spontaneous Generation of Life" - are promoted as an AGENDA by a godless-evolution - ARE taught in the classroom as more than PURE CONJECTURE - that is a problem i do have - the same as if a religious fanatic tried to teach my kids any nonsense from an ancient jewish document about Our Origins

Spontaneous Generation of Life is not more "scientific" than "god created"
- they are both just as unproven - except in the closed minds of their respective supporters

Why not? Isn't spontaneous generation just Occam's razor?

 

[apoppin]

Why not? Isn't spontaneous generation just Occam's razor?

actually it is .. along with traditional creation explanations
... i did not want to state the obvious .. but thank-you

From the Wiki:

lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Of course this is "philosophy" and the "scientists" will give you this:

The aforementioned problem of underdetermination poses a serious obstacle to applications of the scientific method. Formulating theories and selecting the most promising ones is impossible without a way of choosing among an arbitrarily large number of theories, all of which fit with the evidence equally well. If any one principle could single-handedly reduce all these infinite possibilities to find the one best theory, at first glance one might deduce that the whole of scientific method simply follows from it, and thus that it alone would be sufficient to power the whole process of hypothesis formulation and rejection scientists undertake.

to translate [re: Our Beginning]:

No one really knows - to the point of being able to "prove" it to someone else who requires proof

what i am proposing - in theory is different from anything i have ever seen; anywhere:

- i propose to "prove" - to Creation-believers - that "God" does NOT exist .. and the result of this "experiment" may in fact prove that He Does - to atheists!
... i have the most Open mind here - i am willing to accept the results of my own unpredictable experiment result - you can only guess as "my experiment" has a 50-50 chance to go either way.
:Q

^^yes, this is "new" - a logical way to prove the "unprovable"
- and it is practical and not a paradox .. and it is all mine
[i have been working on it for awhile - it is a theory,also; but no one will like it "in practice"; i can guarantee]

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
forget it then .. i am not trolling
--you just told me you don't want to know

so i am serious and i already know a hell of a lot more about science or logic than you demonstrate - clearly you can't even follow logic
-- so you do the "ape thing" - you attack someone because you can't figure out what they are saying to you
- don't speak for the rest of the planet .. you appear to be a bottom-feeder wannabee "scientist"

i am done wasting any more time with you - on any subject
-i also know what i can do with my pearls

No, I said I don't want to play these stupid games with you, not that I don't want to know. Your argument is that creation myth and abiogenesis are equal because they are equally unproven. This is simply false, but you are relying on some sort of bizarre interpretation of what constitutes evidence in the service of a pseudo-intellectual opinion that both sides are just equally craaaaaazy. Moreover when I tried to show you how you were wrong, you started putting up ridiculous (and logically impossible) requirements like proving a negative. This is an exceptionally poor argument, and one that there really is no point in arguing with.

 

[apoppin]

i don't care to discuss *anything* with you anymore
if you are "science" i just lost respect for it

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't care to discuss *anything* with you anymore
if you are "science" i just lost respect for it

I think you did that longer ago then you might realize.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why not answer in your own words. I'm not much good at figuring out the meaning of complexly expressed ideas taken from a context I haven't been following.

I am saying I find nothing odd about the fact that a scientific mind set would not prefer spontaneous generation preferable to god created for no other reason than that it is a simpler explanation. Both science and religion say the universe has been here a finite amount of time so it started somehow. Spontaneous generation looks more scientific to me, according to my understanding of what is normally meant by science.

Nobody knows how the universe came into being because nobody was here when it happened, and certainly nobody was here before it happened in any ordinary way we understand these things. A logical mind just prefers the simplest explanation one can arrive at but that logic is based on where you come out on simple. A person who knows God exists may see simple as he created it or he may not. One would have to be conscious of all the feelings and thoughts that make up what one determines as the simpler explanation to know for sure. It is culturally traditional right now for folk to say no miracle in addition to spontaneous generation need apply, I assume.

So once a norm is established for what is and is not, those who buck the norm get some flack. This has noting to do with science or religion but has its origin in psychology, I think, to the fact that people hate themselves and find alternate self worth in being normal, because there is self hate projected out onto the odd.

How do you scientifically prove that man hates himself, that he has that universal disease?

I think self extinction should be a good clue. My guess is that people who really love themselves are exactly as rare as people who really know God, that the one and the other go hand and hand. Those who think they know God, of course, are a dime a dozen.

There is an unconscious bias against knowing truth or there is not. Those who know for sure are those who are conscious if there is such a thing. If there is, there may also be a science of becoming conscious that is as unknown to the world today as science was 10,000 years ago. What you consider unlikely or not determines whether truth is invisible or visible. If the truth is impossible, it is for you.

Thought creates assumptions. Thought creates the known, the assumed validity of ones thinking. If truth is in part a process of the removal of assumptions, a bias, then a bias in favor of the value of thought may be a curse.

I would call it taking yourself seriously, having a need to know so we don't feel stupid like we really already do.

edit: Written before you edited your post.

 

[Throckmorton]

Moonbeam, why are you always posting about self hate? Do you hate yourself?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Why not? Isn't spontaneous generation just Occam's razor?

actually it is .. along with traditional creation explanations
... i did not want to state the obvious .. but thank-you

From the Wiki:

lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Of course this is "philosophy" and the "scientists" will give you this:

The aforementioned problem of underdetermination poses a serious obstacle to applications of the scientific method. Formulating theories and selecting the most promising ones is impossible without a way of choosing among an arbitrarily large number of theories, all of which fit with the evidence equally well. If any one principle could single-handedly reduce all these infinite possibilities to find the one best theory, at first glance one might deduce that the whole of scientific method simply follows from it, and thus that it alone would be sufficient to power the whole process of hypothesis formulation and rejection scientists undertake.

to translate [re: Our Beginning]:

No one really knows - to the point of being able to "prove" it to someone else who requires proof

what i am proposing - in theory is different from anything i have ever seen; anywhere:

- i propose to "prove" - to Creation-believers - that "God" does NOT exist .. and the result of this "experiment" may in fact prove that He Does - to atheists!
... i have the most Open mind here - i am willing to accept the results of my own unpredictable experiment result - you can only guess as "my experiment" has a 50-50 chance to go either way.
:Q

^^yes, this is "new" - a logical way to prove the "unprovable"
- and it is practical and not a paradox .. and it is all mine
[i have been working on it for awhile - it is a theory,also; but no one will like it "in practice"; i can guarantee]

Unless I'm missing what you're saying, which is entirely possible based on the way you've grammatically structured your posts, you want to know why science can't disprove god? God is a creation of faith. Faith, by definition, does not rely on facts. Science relies on facts. Therefore, the realm of science and the realm of faith are mutually exclusive.

The classic answer, of course, is that we also can't disprove that invisible, undetectable unicorns / elephants / mice / aliens / whatever are living amongst us.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Moonbeam, why are you always posting about self hate? Do you hate yourself?

Hehe! Why do you ask? Does the subject make you, well, you know, more aware of that truth?

I not only hate myself, I know that I do. That can be profoundly useful at times. Every time something pisses me off I have an opportunity to shift from taking that out on the source or some other handy target and allowing myself to feel that rage, etc., more and more intensely, till it merges with real memory where I learned to feel that way. Of course, being a fool, I don't use all such opportunities, and not all times I do, it leads anywhere. The motivation not to know what we feel is tremendous, beyond what you would ever possibly imagine without experience.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: leingod86


Religion, from a philosophical stand point, has always caused me to ask these questions:
1. If a religon is correct, then that means (at minimum) 5/6 of the population is doomed to "Hell" or whatever bad place that religion holds. If this is true, then how can "God" be benevolent if he's unwilling to occasionally remind us lowly humans who the correct deity is?

2. If there is a deity, why is he so bent on blind faith when he created humans to be naturally curious and skeptical towards the unseen/unprovable? That seems like a jerk move for a benevolent being.

3. Why is religion based on sensationalism and feeling rather than the principle of logic and reasoning? The former are used to control, the latter to set free. Religion seems to be centered around subtle control of the populace, rather then enlightenment.


Edit: I would like to offer some counterpoints to my own issues (the ways I've come to resolve them personally).

1. There is no correct religion. If there is a deity, he doesn't care which faith you belong to, so long as the core of that faith is good.

2. Deism (or counterpoint 1) sums up the jist of this one. He just really doesn't care.

3. Religion is a manmade creation for the express purpose of putting people in a state where they are no longer capable of rational thought. Therefore, unable to realize or react to the wrong doing of their church or government.

1. If there is a correct path to God, God will guide you to it if you are truly seeking Him. If God guides those who truly seek, then the responsibility to find Him (and avoid the penalty of not finding Him) is yours. He provides plenty of clues.

2. Actually, the concept of God offers many answers to questions about life in a satisfying way; "satisfying" meaning relevant and cohesive.
Faith is not a blind thing. There are many things in life that point to God but for personal reasons(i.e. personal motivations) many choose to reject these things.

3. Belief in God and belief in a path to god is based upon all things in life which include reasoning/logic and experience/feelings. One does not segment their life in order to hold to various beliefs.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: apoppin
the problem is when 'articles of faith' -> "Spontaneous Generation of Life" - are promoted as an AGENDA by a godless-evolution - ARE taught in the classroom as more than PURE CONJECTURE - that is a problem i do have - the same as if a religious fanatic tried to teach my kids any nonsense from an ancient jewish document about Our Origins

Spontaneous Generation of Life is not more "scientific" than "god created"
- they are both just as unproven - except in the closed minds of their respective supporters

I was never taught that abiogenesis was anything more than a hypothetical origin of life. Is this not the case elsewhere?

The reason "spontaneous generation of life" is more scientific than "god created" is because there is a hypothetical basis for spontaneous generation that is grounded in current scientific knowledge. We are a long way off from "proving" it, but it is definitely more scientific because it can be tested. "God" cannot be tested scientifically, because "God" is not part of the physical universe (by definition). Even religious people will generally agree that "God" is above the laws of physics.

Originally posted by: spittledip
2. Actually, the concept of God offers many answers to questions about life in a satisfying way; "satisfying" meaning relevant and cohesive.
Faith is not a blind thing. There are many things in life that point to God but for personal reasons(i.e. personal motivations) many choose to reject these things.

Can you give an example of something which inherently points to God, and does not rely on a religious perspective to give it such meaning?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Enig101

Originally posted by: apoppin
the problem is when 'articles of faith' -> "Spontaneous Generation of Life" - are promoted as an AGENDA by a godless-evolution - ARE taught in the classroom as more than PURE CONJECTURE - that is a problem i do have - the same as if a religious fanatic tried to teach my kids any nonsense from an ancient jewish document about Our Origins

Spontaneous Generation of Life is not more "scientific" than "god created"
- they are both just as unproven - except in the closed minds of their respective supporters

I was never taught that abiogenesis was anything more than a hypothetical origin of life. Is this not the case elsewhere?

The reason "spontaneous generation of life" is more scientific than "god created" is because there is a hypothetical basis for spontaneous generation that is grounded in current scientific knowledge. We are a long way off from "proving" it, but it is definitely more scientific because it can be tested. "God" cannot be tested scientifically, because "God" is not part of the physical universe (by definition). Even religious people will generally agree that "God" is above the laws of physics.

Originally posted by: spittledip
2. Actually, the concept of God offers many answers to questions about life in a satisfying way; "satisfying" meaning relevant and cohesive.
Faith is not a blind thing. There are many things in life that point to God but for personal reasons(i.e. personal motivations) many choose to reject these things.

Can you give an example of something which inherently points to God, and does not rely on a religious perspective to give it such meaning?

I am not sure if you can talk about God and not have a religious meaning attached.... Anything I could possibly think of would be interpreted as "religious." I am not sure why that should matter anyway.And, even if I did present something, someone else might interpret it as something that points to another viewpoint. That is the problem with reasoning- you can arrive at several conclusions and the although some of the conclusions may be wrong, the reasoning used might not be "wrong." That is why it is importnt to not use just one sole discipline to arrive at truth. You must use everything you have in your grasp.