1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

To be or not to be?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Oct 19, 2018.

  1. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    DNA was discovered in 1869 before anyone knew that random mutations occurred in a molecule that held the information for living cells. I think Friedrich Miescher wondered what it was since it also involved proteins and was found in nuclei. The need for something to hold information about proteins led to Crick and Watson and Crick. All sorts of things were happening, from how Photosynthesis worked to how respiration worked.
  2. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    You might find this week's In Our Time of interest, @racroesus. It's about free radicals and spends a fair bit of time discussing the part they play in our health.

    It fascinates me what scientists are discovering about life; and the speed at which they learn more about it as each day passes. It's fascinating how this growing understanding enables medications to be designed to target specific ailments, the specific causes for diseases and how scientists have been proven to benefit those in ill-health, far better than any prayers ever did.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm an atheist, but I have spirituality all the same. It's just that I find my sense of spirituality easier to comprehend and live with, than some unproven, incomprehensible hocus pocus about deities that began before civilisation and hasn't changed much since apart from the invention of ever-more implausible justifications for the previously spouted b.ollox that religion offered.
    EmanuelShadrack likes this.
  3. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    Science is driven by data, there is no dogma, no matter how often people try to say there is. Creationists, on other hand are trying to get the data to fit their narrative (the dogma) regardless of whether it fits. If it doesn't fit they distort the data.

    Your attempt at the "Watchmakers Argument" is as doomed as all the others. The problem with God is very simple, it doesn't solve the problem you are trying to solve because, "Who (or what) made God?". Trying to say that God has always existed (or some such variant) merely exacerbates the problem. Again try looking up Münchhausen Trilemma to see why this is the case.
    EmanuelShadrack likes this.
  4. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    So, science will solve all our problems. :rolleyes:
    Sin and evil are outmoded thoughts and it is environmental factors that are the obstacles to man achieving economic and social utopia? Yet humans still fail to live together in harmony and ignore the reason for human existence.
    It seems to me impossible that the complex system (of which we are a small component) could have come about without a creator. I see the universe as a testimony to God the creator and I see science as a crude tool trying to describe the creators work.
  5. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    So where has anyone claimed this? But since you bring it up, how about applying it to religion?
    Studies show that there is actually an inverse relationship between the religiosity of a country and the amount of law abiding. In the US, in particular, the more religious a person is the more ambivalent their attitude to obeying the law (especially so for fundamentalists). Back to Ray Comfort again.

    Logical fallacy, I'm afraid, "Argument from Ignorance".
    EmanuelShadrack likes this.
  6. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Science is a methodology for investigating the natural world (or universe), not a doctrine or dogma. Nothing more, nothing less.

    If you mean 'sin and evil' in the supernatural sense, then yes it is outmoded and has no evidential basis. Do people do bad things, yes they do, but they are responsible for them (even if environmental issues are motivations). There is no morality in religous 'diktat'.

    The concept of an infinite supreme being (personal or otherwise) raises more questions and answers none.
    EmanuelShadrack and irs1054 like this.
  7. Geoff Thomas

    Geoff Thomas Star commenter

    And it seems to me that you are utterly wrong. But as you have told us you were brought up in a particular set of beliefs, then I just feel sadness for you.

    You have come here asking about somehow breaking your ties with the church that indoctrinated you as a young child and yet, as you show since, you cannot easily break that indoctrination.

    I do not know if it is possible, but if it is, then I wish you all luck with your journey.
    EmanuelShadrack and irs1054 like this.
  8. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    I heard it. I remember that some English team, Rugby or Cricket, was going to Australia and sent a list of dietary requirements including goji berries. Now, it seems, the nature of anti-oxidants and free radicals isn't what the health industry has been telling us. Even Team Sky don't load racing cyclists with water but allow a small reduction on full hydration to save on weight. I always thought that the idea of full hydration was overdone and with weight saving measures to take away grammes why carry 1000g water with you instead of letting the support team carry the weight and responsibility to deliver in cars and scooters.
  9. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    The medical profession spent two thousand years believing that imbalances in the four humours was what made people unwell.
    racroesus likes this.

Share This Page