The Pale Blue Dot - Carl Sagan

[THE KID]

---

wat i observe in your threads flor......is that your atheism is not a self realization.....but a rebellion to the faith that you once embrace.....a rebellion to christianity.....

[Hammer_and_Sickle]

ot:^or he thinks that, atheism is some what kind of fashion or a soon to be mainstream culture....,

[pinoy_09]

If SCIENCE is the answer to everything then how come it left a lot of UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ? So before we can label it as a FICTION , SCIENCE rather be laying down answers to these questions . I know its beyond you but the cream of the crop in science left it UNTOUCHED , UNACKNOWLEDGED , or plainly RAISING the WHITE FLAG . Is it because of fear of ridicule and criticisms ? Thats why the burden of proof is now in the hands of SCIENCE because if it can easily say the non existence of a SUPREME BEING , how did they come up with that CONCLUSION when in fact everything else were just THEORIES ?

Because knowledge acquired through science involves study and research, it is simply the best "tool" to use to answer questions about the universe. This is why "truth" to science isn't something FINAL. The studies lead into hypothesis, which then leads to THEORIES; but the theories aren't final, because the universe is constantly changing. What does faith have? Faith only has supernatural statements and superstition. To the "religionist" (for lack of a better word), he has faith and belief. To the scientist, he has evidence and fact.

Take your pick. It's up to you. I'm not here to force my opinion on anyone. I'm only here to defend evidence in the face of infallibility and age-long non-sense. Because science is evolving, and just because science doesn't have the answer now, doesn't mean it won't have the answer tomorrow.

I dont find it contradicting at all because these SCIENTIST used SCIENCE to figure out these things . Remember when I said something about the MISSING LINK a veyr long time ago when pwerting inita ninyo debating about CREATION vs EVOLUTION in SnO ? It was again left unanswered . I just want to know how you guys fill it in because after that , I can patch up things through the HARMONY of the THEORY and the STORY .

I no longer remember that debate. If you could post that question that you posed which was left unanswered (from SnO) here, I would appreciate it. And I would answer it to the best of my ability.

It is not impossible ... heck I just even watched NATGEO last night from their episode of HUNGRY GHOST FEASTIVAL . Pwrting ka involved man lage sa SCIENCE when investigating the SUPERNATURAL , HAUNTINGS and the likes .

Heck , the discovery of the CHARIOTS underneath the seabed somewhere in the Red Sea ba to or Dead Sea by ARCHAEOLOGIST was based from the bible . Ngano ni consult man ni sila sa bible in the first place ?

And pwerting daghana pa gyud examples that SCIENCE and the BIBLE worked hand in hand . It doesnt have to be RELIGION by the way .

I agree with you here. Science even tackle issues about the pseudoscience and the supernatural. There is nothing wrong with it. Afterall, science is about FINDING ANSWERS and exposing LIES and MYTHS about these so-called "science" kuno. Just watch MYTHBUSTERS on Discovery. It is science's job to expose the charlatans, the frauds, and the people who claim they know the answers to everything about the universe, like religion.

But isnt the process of these research makes the FAITH and BIBLE as part of it to some STUDIES being CONDUCTED ? let alone , again ... the UNANSWERED questions I have from previous SnO topics about EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES . This time though , bali ... ang CHURCH ang ni duol sa SCIENCE asking for assistance .

"Faith" has stressed mysteries and myths as FACTS; science has tried its best to eliminate these mysteries, so it needs "help" (as you pointed out) from the Church to expose these mysteries. The pope actually believes in Evolution now, can you believe it?

[pinoy_09]

it is very clear that there is not yet a certainty in science to prove that there is no supreme being behind everything yet, atheist here make it certain already.

is it because they just want to be in opposition of the believers here?

all science theories about how the universe started are still mere SPECULATIONS.


so why bother pressing down those ideas as the truth?

This is one big misconception about atheism.

Those atheists who claim to know for certain that there is no god are being arrogant. Nobody knows for certain that there is no god, just as nobody knows for certain that there IS god. But we aren't the one worshipping this "god", so why ask us proof of its non-existence? As what orcgod pointed out in another thread:

Who has god in their life?
Who believes in god?
Who prays to god?
Who reads the bible?
Who believes in heaven and hell?
Who claims that god is real?

It's not us, it's you---so show us proof that god is real. Simple as that. So far, nag lihay-lihay man ang mga theists.

Simple ra gyud ni, bro. Most atheists or agnostics position is this:
There is no reason to believe the existence of a supernatural.

[kenites]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof "- Marcello Truzzi

This quote is also popularized by Carl Sagan

[Kenshiro]

just like any discussion about the cosmos.......that gray line between g and science will always be crossed....

this is just an observation...

No it is because they agree with each other.
Faith knows science and religion while Atheistic belief only knows science.

a Christian actually acknowledges science as a basis for truth and fact and there are no contradictions between them. Does The law of relativity, law of gravity, thermodynamics, Genetics disprove God?
Only an unproven radical theory like Big Bang and Evolution are heretical and contradicting to science and truth.
They are not even branches of science but are a radical way of denouncing the existence God and disguised as science.

I would also acknowledge that there are tons of lies and fallacy in religion. It is because of these that Atheism has became a fad.
Atheism may be a single layer of lie but Religion is a multi layered lies. Most of these are misinterpretations of true faith for personal financial gain.

The Bible encourages us to be open minded and to test these belief system.
Not only religion but other belief system.

Test everything. Hold on to the good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21

Even Albert Einstein on how logical and critical his thinking is, was leaning towards Intelligent Design.

[yanong_banikanhon]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof "- Marcello Truzzi

This quote is also popularized by Carl Sagan

Example aning extra-ordinary claim is this:

The very sophisticated language of life (which is used to encode genetic information that a species learn for thousands/millions of years which is decoded by the cell to ensure the species survival) was created by lifeless, mindless chemical substances.

That claim requires extraordinary proof. Hangtud karon wala pa'y makahatag og verifiable, scientific proof anang maong claim. Yet, a few of us insist that it is 100% true.

[hitch22]

^^
DEFINITION OF DNA:

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the gigantic molecule which is used to encode genetic information for all life on Earth.

(Where I got that definition...click here)

Haven't I answered this one before? There you go again with your literal interpretation of the word "language" even though it's employed as a metaphor for DNA. Like I said, that's getting the whole idea wrong. If you claim to know so much about DNA, then I'll ask you this: What is DNA made of? Are you sure they're not chemicals? Do you know what it means when they say "encode genetic information"? I think you're misinterpreting John Lennox when he said something about DNA. I think he was referring to the universe as a whole...that it seems to suggest an intelligence behind it in order to explain a complex historical result such as DNA. But he's not saying that DNA itself is not naturally produced through an evolutionary pathway. I think I understand John Lennox better than you do, if I may say so myself.

Remember, our argument started when I made the comment about scientific method being the arbiter of what's right and wrong amongst competing scientific hypothesis. I never made the claim that it's the arbiter for everything. In our exchanges, I've never made any assertion that there is no God. In fact, I've said before that, if I were a theist, a fact about the natural origins of DNA would point me to a Being of more profound intelligence than one that has to design the DNA Himself. Which is a more intelligent God? One who creates a self-organizing universe or one who has to tinker with it every now and then?

Who are you to say that God did not design these chemicals (which you insulted God by calling his chemicals "mindless") and natural laws to arrive at DNA? Do you speak on behalf of God? Are you suggesting that you know how God did these things? It seems your arrogance is showing.

[gabstafari]

This is one big misconception about atheism.

Those atheists who claim to know for certain that there is no god are being arrogant. Nobody knows for certain that there is no god, just as nobody knows for certain that there IS god. But we aren't the one worshipping this "god", so why ask us proof of its non-existence? As what orcgod pointed out in another thread:

Who has god in their life?
Who believes in god?
Who prays to god?
Who reads the bible?
Who believes in heaven and hell?
Who claims that god is real?

It's not us, it's you---so show us proof that god is real. Simple as that. So far, nag lihay-lihay man ang mga theists.

Simple ra gyud ni, bro. Most atheists or agnostics position is this:
There is no reason to believe the existence of a supernatural.

theists walk by faith, atheists walk by sight. correct me if i am wrong about this statement that i take from that lady gaga.

why would atheists demand for a physical evidence of the supreme being if theists claim it as a spirit, supernatural, dili makita nga entity.

-Faith is a belief that does not need a tangible proof.

so ang burden of proof jud is naa jud sa atheists kay they are inclined to physical proofs man.

now, science is still evolving, but still we can't be certain unless proven otherwise those speculations that everyone has on mind right now.

[yanong_banikanhon]

What is DNA made of?

DNA is made of two long strands of molecules. Attached to it are four types of molecules called nucleobases (A, G, C, and T). We can think of these nucleobases as the alphabet of the genetic language.

Are you sure they're not chemicals?

Yes they are. Just like the letters in the alphabet - each of them are simply a combination of lines and curves.

Do you know what it means when they say "encode genetic information"?

Encoding is the process of mapping two discrete combinatorial objects with the assumption that the receiving end can decode it and be able to understand the underlying message/information/instructions.

If I give you 26 letters and you start writing your instruction without adhering to a certain mapping (random fashion), do you think it is possible for anybody (including you) to extract your original message using the written letters alone?

The alphabet is not the language itself. The four DNA nucleobases (A, G, C, and T) is not the genetic code itself. The genetic code is the universal dictionary that maps the 4 nucleobases to the thousands of instructions that a living cell can process without ambiguity.

An intelligent agent must have created this huge dictionary and ensures that the encoding and the decoding end can process the underlying information without ambiguity.

But atheists ignore this. They insist that there is no intelligent agent behind all of this. They insist that the origin of the genetic code are random and that they came from mindless chemicals. That is a very extraordinary claim and they still have to present a verifiable, scientific proof to back it up.