re: A 'spooky' effect of physics has been photographed for the first time

Dismissing =/- Disproving

quote:

---

I could never be a disciple of any one scientist. Rather, I prefer to view a scientific discipline from a “big picture” point of view. I weight my acceptance of principles of any particular discipline with a consensus of scientists who are contributing to the base of knowledge associated with it.

---

Disciple? Lol! I guess you don’t wanna hear one of the most respected organic chemist challenge your beliefs. I understand. Dr Tour has triggered the evolutionists big time with his irrefutable presentation against the origins of spontaneous life. A person who seeks Truth listens to all opinions and examines all proof....

quote:

---

If you present something as science, you'd better be able to withstand peer review. Tour and all other ID proponents can't do that. They seem to want their theories to be accepted based upon the sincerity of their beliefs. That won't fly. The scientific method is brutal and quickly weeds out theories that aren't supported by observable and reproducible evidence.

---

You’re commenting on Dr Tour’s presentation without watching/listening. He’s not presenting any theories about the origins of life, he’s using his immense knowledge and understanding of organic chemistry to debunk the accepted theories on the origins of life being taught at nearly all universities. I’ve told you to YouTube the man and listen to his presentations. He has several presentations where he tells the audience he’s purposefully not bringing an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator into the discussion at all because it’s not required to prove that spontaneous origin of life is every bit as unbelievable as the atheist/agnostics say Creation is.

Dr Tour is held in the highest regard by his atheist/agnostic peers. Dr Tour has said that his peers have admitted to him in a private setting they haven’t a clue how life began. Lol!

All of these great scientists who are not only peers of Dr Tour’s many are considered his friends, know of his standing challenge to prove they can create life. He will allow them to skip the prebiotic stage and start with the essential ingredients for life, the ingredients they all agree upon that are necessary. They can’t do it and they haven’t a clue how non organic materials became simple molecules and those molecules became life.

Dr Tour’s dismantling of origin of life theories is going to be as devastating as Dr Stephen Myers dismantling of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Dr Meyer has a couple of well read books, Signature In The Cell and Darwin’s Doubt that pretty much ended Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, what’s crazy is universities are still teaching Darwin’s theories.

Watch this vid with Berlinski, Dr Meyer and Dr Gelertner, only one is a theist but they all agree Darwin’s theory has been rendered nonsensical. The Cambrian Explosion pretty much destroyed Darwin’s theory.

Dr Meyer, Dr Gelertner and David Berlinski explain why Darwin’s theory of evolution is invalid

I just watched that entire YouTube video and I still don’t understand how you came to believe what you believe.

Just because there are gaps in our understanding of the origins of life, doesn’t mean you can just interject your own explanations into those gaps.

Am I supposed to be surprised that a 200 year old scientific theory isn’t 100% accurate?

quote:

---

when you talk about interjecting thoughts or ideas without proof that’s exactly what Darwin and the scientists who belief in spontaneous life have been doing for decades.

---

To some extent, that is true. I don’t disagree.

But it doesn’t come anywhere close to interjecting ideas, with literally no scientific backing at all, that are based on religious scripture.

I wish the theists who are trying so hard for credibility in the scientific community could understand that only nature is being studied. They want so much for a Creator to be recognized as the cause for existence.

Scientists aren’t looking for that. Rather, researchers want to know how things work. It’s counter-productive to declare a cause and then to search for effects that justify it. It’s logical to look at effects and then search for a cause.

In our Universe we see cause and effect relationships. That may not be the case in other universes. It may not even be what’s going on in the quantum world.

Theists could better use their time and efforts helping people. Isn’t that what religions are all about? Rather than trying to invade the scientific community, where they can never hope to be an influence, they should devote their passions to the less fortunate and those who are struggling in our societies.

Their help is much needed and appreciated. They should stop this silly effort to justify God’s existence through pseudo-science. It isn’t necessary.

quote:

---

Neither side can prove it.

---

Prove what? Science is all about proof which in this context is observations and reproducible results. Religion is all about faith. Proof is not relevant.

quote:

---

My problem with scientific research is that it is self-perpetuating, which by default should make it an art.

---

I really don’t understand this statement.

quote:

---

Hence there is no such thing as science because all the findings are tainted by human opinion of which 100% are skewed to some degree.

---

Opinions are not scientific. Hard science is theories that are supported by observations and reproducible evidence. Fringe science and pseudo-science operate far outside the scientific method. From cryptology to the new “religious science” the rigors of the scientific method are ignored and anecdotal evidence and opinion carry weight.

quote:

---

I don't support either side and I support both sides.

---

To me there are no sides. Religion and science are not similar. Science is the natural world and the study of it. Religion is a human construct and operates only within the mind. The natural world exists with or without people.

quote:

---

What we don't know is so much more than what we do know

---

This will always be the case with science. There no absolutes and when one question is answered, that answer raises many more questions. There is no end point for science.

Religion, on the other hand, is not open. All questions have answers that ultimately lead back to a Creator, or Intelligent Designer. Exploration stops there.

I understand. You really have to be a committed reductionist to tackle this area of science. Right now, quantum physics has just about every human buffaloed, including me. It isn’t at all intuitive like classical physics. That will change as we get to know how it works and in the meantime, as with gravity, we can use its effects without knowing what it is.

When I said, “Exploration stops there,” I meant that no one wants to ask, “What created the Creator?”

If creationism was subjected to the scientific method, only the how, when, where and what would be studied. The why is left for theists and philosophers because they specialize in helping humans deal with the world.

Science is concerned with how nature works. That’s all. If an intelligent creator is ever discovered to be the source of existence, there will be ample reproducible scientific evidence that came about via the scientific method.

And, of course, the very next question will be, “What created the Creator?”

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods. It is not antitheism. It literally means “without religion.” While that is the meaning of the word, paranoid theists have influenced the public perception so much that it is frequently thought of as “anti religion.”

Science must be without religion. It must also be without opinions, guesses and other factors that influence without evidence, as well. That’s why the scientific method is so effective in giving us knowledge about nature. That’s its focus and single pursuit. Science is not anti-religious but must not be influenced by it. Science is about nature. Religion is about people.

quote:

---

To think that after a very, very, very brief fraction of time your life just ends is hopeless.

---

I’m glad that religion gives you comfort. Scientific discoveries should, too. Too many people think that science and religion are adversarial, yet they carry their smart phones to church as naturally as they do their wallets and purses.

Science is not a threat to religion but the reverse cannot be said to be true. Historically, religion has tried to stop the advance of scientific exploration. Religion is much less a threat than in the past because scientific research is so robust around the world.

In most areas of the world, scientific research is reaching hyper status. The only areas where it is progressing slowly or not at all is in societies that are dominated by religious laws, particularly Islam’s Sharia Law.

There’s no reason that you can’t live by and enjoy your faith. The most satisfied and content Christians that I know live their faith personally and don’t feel a need to compel others to live as they do. They’re also not afraid of science. In fact, they see knowledge about nature as a natural extension of their faith, so to speak.