Please Explain...

1. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   There is much debate about Evolution theory, and Creationism in the forums. Lets take it to the MOST BASIC level, "abiogenesis".
   Have a look at this (simplified) version of a single cell structure/biology, and tell me (everyone) HOW, this much complexity, can arise by, and of itself, complete, and "alive", from nothing but random chemicals.
   http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cell_model.htm
   Remember two things here.
   1) The cell cannot live without any one of its component parts in the whole.
   2) Several known, undesputed laws would have to be violated/suspended, for it to even BE POSSIBLE. Have fun.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Proof that amino acids can arise from inorganic material:
      
      CO2 => CO + [O] (atomic oxygen)
      CH4 + 2[O] => CH2O + H2O
      CO + NH3 => HCN + H2O
      CH4 + NH3 => HCN + 3H2
      CH2O + HCN + NH3 => NH2-CH2-CN + H2O
      NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O => NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH
      
      Proof that organic compounds can be synthesized from carbon monoxide and water:
      
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/tvx0013g77u51v37/
      
      You are thinking too big dj

      replyreport
      1. 64

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            LOL
            
            You are still thinking too big. Deliberately obtuse in fact.
            
            Yes - a single cell is too big. Come on dude  you don't think we evolved because you have book that says we didn't LOL
            
            So here you are attacking scientific theories because you feel they do not have enough detail - yet you are quite happy to push something you have absolutely zero evidence for and you entire argument boils down to "I believe a god made us therefore a god made us - I have no evidence at all, but this means I will attack anything that does not have 100% perfect evidence."
            
            Why are you so scared of knowledge?

            replyreport
            1. 64

               aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               I haven't found any yet. (relating to the topic I mean). Sorry " LOL " doesn't qualify.
               Ridiculing the "book" is just a weak argument. It belongs in the topic one up, (as a learned friend once told me).

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL
                  
                  We have lots of knowledge - you just prefer to pretend that it is not knowledge - why?
                  
                  I think I mentioned earlier - either this thread or one of the many you have started on similar themes - you are not really interested in learning anything are you?
                  
                  You are just trying to push your ridiculous beliefs.
                  
                  Not sure why you would do such a thing other than to persuade everyone that an irrational belief in a god makes people behave irrationally.
                  
                  Upon which I agree with you

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     So, what "specific" knowledge are you offering, in relation to the cell question.
                     I do not fear knowledge. I just don't accept theories where there exists an obvious lack of information on an "open" question. Your acceptance of "theory" on the subject is no less based on "faith/beliefs" than mine. You are simply accepting what you are told by others,(too).
                     I think I mentioned before, FAITH is not a religious word. It has predominantly been used there, but NOT limited to it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Keep on repeating that believing in a magical invisible super being is the same as believing in evolution will not make it so.
                        
                        Whether I have any specific evidence really doesn't matter does it?
                        
                        I have specific evidence that evolution occurs - yet you say it doesn't - because I do not have proof of the formation of the first cell.
                        
                        Your irrational beliefs are just that dj - irrational. They make you behave in an irrational fashion. You irrationally discard evolution because we have not yet managed to recreate the very beginning.
                        
                        I give up. You have convinced me I am right about people who believe in a god and the belief is not only worthless - it is dangerous and holds us back as a species. You saw the woman on one of the other threads who thinks that god will just give us more resources when we use up the ones we have. Irrational.
                        
                        I suggest you stick to interpreting the meaning of the talking snake and pretending you have all the answers instead of attacking science because you do not understand it or it does not yet answer all the little questions.

                        replyreport
      2. 62

         nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         An Amino Acid is nowhere near alive.

         replyreport
   2. 89

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the link. That's a nice site. But I think you are asking the wrong question. No-one is claiming that a fully formed plant or animal cell just pops into existence from a few random chemicals. Because that doesn't happen, the question needn't be taken seriously as a challenge to scientific research. Consider this instead:
      
      Archaeology and related sciences and technologies have demonstrated to most people's satisfaction that there is a fairly continuous trail, give or take a few extinction events, back to a time when life forms were simpler and in fewer and fewer locations. We haven't found a single source and probably never will, but we can point to a time when there was none.
      
      As far as we can tell, the first species with the interest and ability to carry out this investigation was ourselves, and we've only been around for a very short time. Add to this that the technologies to allow such investigation are extremely recent and if I may use the word, still evolving. So, we've done pretty well.
      
      It is also in the nature of science to describe first and explain later. This is because until you have a pretty clear picture of what is, you don't really know what you are trying to explain. (An obvious example of that is planetary motion).
      
      The origin of life is only just beginning to move from the philosophical to the scientific arena. How long do you think the electron microscope has been around? I am perfectly comfortable not knowing exactly how life began. I see no reason to lie about it or adduce divine intervention. I think it likely that we'll have a convincing theory within a generation or two, but maybe not. That's ok.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for mentioning archaeology. The evidence of which you speak can just as easily be (acceptably) explained from a creationist point of view. The "missing links" are nothing more that species that lived (at one time) and died out. I have NO problem with that.
         Interestingly, though, many historical (facts) contained in the Bible are being confirmed by the self same "science" of archaeology. I suppose you edispute that, but tha's OK.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            aka-dj - I wouldn't even begin to try to disprove creationism. I know better than to try to disprove something that is untestable. It's something you accept on faith, if you feel the need to believe, which I don't.
            I offered you a reasonable summary of the scientific view and of how far it has progressed and how far it still has to go. But you don't seem to want to address it.

            replyreport
            1. 64

               aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               You have not addressed my question either. Not the archaeological interpretation,(of fossils) nor the Bible content confirmation, by the same "scientiffic) method of archaeology.
               As I said,it's amatter of perspective. You "see" what your worldview"lets you" see.
               Same is true of me, no argument there.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  "Book people" used to believe the world was created 6000 years ago, in 6 days. A few still do, but most have given up on that one. Science keeps discovering things that most reasonable people accept - heliocentricity, the circulation of the blood, the periodic table, the fossil record, and so on. You position is always: yes, these things are true and that is the way God made them. As I mentioned, we don't yet know exactly how/where life began, but we're working on finding out. Not so many years ago, we knew there ought to be black holes but hadn't found any. Now we have. That's how it goes. All I'm saying is, give us time. But you prefer to stand on the wings heckling. Why?

                  replyreport
   3. 61

      mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Exploded  stars were in a way the cause of such evolution as new elements  were added from these stars which helped create more complex forms of life.

      replyreport
2. 81

   quicksandposted 15 years ago

   Knowledge certainly is scary. Gives me the creeps. On the other hand. I believe in everything that do not have links missing, where no assumptions are necessary. Even if that missing link cropped up from underneath a rock or elsewhere to upgrade Darwyn to sky level, that would not provide sufficient proof of the non-existence of GOD.
   
   Looks like the scale is tilted heavily once again in favor of Adam!
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it is. Has been for hundreds of years. Why? Because giving up on thought and just deciding to believe is easy. Scientific analysis is hard.
      
      It is logically impossibly to prove non-existence of anything. But that fact does not constitute an argument for something's existence.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The only ones who seem to think evolution proves the non existence of god are the believers
      
      100% lack of evidence and the behavior of people who do believe is enough evidence for me that there is no such thing
      
      As for believing the fairy tale - I do not seem to be able to turn my brain off long enough to swallow it.

      replyreport
3. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   There is NO EVIDENCE or PROOF that information is added to DNA. Critical in "upward evolution".
   Paraglider, your last question of me was "why do I stand in the wings, heckling"? Because, you and others make (just as dogmatic) a stance that there is NO God, as I do saying there is. So I keep stating my case, even though you all won't even acknowlege the POSSIBILITY, that there COULD be, (al be it outside of your knowledge/experience)
   
   Mark. I believe you are a bit of a card player. What would you say is the reality (in your experinece), do the cards in a standard deck, continue towards order, or disorder, as they are shuffled? Those 52 cards, have (near infinitely) more "odds" to moving towards order, than "chaos". When was the last time you saw a deck, fully shuffled, many times, all end up in exactly the same order in which they were packed by the manufacturer?
   Or lets make it even "better" odds, How often have you been dealt four aces (or four anything) in exactly the same way more than twice.
   My point?
   You always seem to miss my point, so I will give it to you. For ALL the neccessary chemicals to come together, perfectly, to match just one single cell, are millions of times less likely to happen, than my cards example. Now, that doesn't include what it actually took to make that cell come "alive". (Don't forget, dead cells have the same chemical composition as living ones, it's just that they don't work any more). Funny that?
   My "belief/faith" gives credit and glory to an almighty creator, designer, who made it, and gave LIFE to it. Could I be ANY clearer? Dunno? NOT scientific, because it cannot be tested, but that does NOT negate it.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      That is actually an astonishing misrepresentation of my position, which is simply that beyond the limits of my knowledge, I don't pretend to know. I don't entertain belief. I leave the questions open. Where's the dogma in that?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I'm sorry for the misrepresentation. The "dogma" is that you say you leve the question open, but that's not how it comes across. You are very dissmissive of the whole idea of God's existance. The phrase I used was "the possibility" that there "could" be (a) God. I know where I stand, but I have read much of what you wrote, and surmised where you stand.
         Is it then fair to say you are neither open to the possibility, nor closed to it?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Of course it's not fair - it isn't even logically consistent! I am open to the possibility that God exists. But I don't feel the need to investigate it deeply. The onus is on those who propose the proposition 'God exists' to support it, just as the onus is on an atheist to support that chosen stance. I don't need 'stances'.
            
            Similarly, I stated 'I don't know how it happened' to your origin of life question. I'm interested in the research and expect that in time we'll know more. You are the one, not me, making extreme claims. You are the one claiming that God did it.

            replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry dj - your belief is just that - a belief. Just as valid as any other belief. i.e. not at all. Except for you.
      
      I get what you are saying. It is so unlikely that life arose naturally that it must have been a god. I understand exactly what you are saying. Because there is no PROOF that life arose naturally there must have been a god did it. We are so complex - we must have been made by a god. The odds against life arising naturally with the PROOF that we have right now are so great that the only logical conclusion you can come to is there is an almighty creator who wants credit and glory and some one knows this almighty creator sent his only son (not going to get into how feeble that is) to save us from the sin we did not evolve in.
      
      I understand what you are saying 100%.
      
      But - as I have said on many occasions - keep on repeating this over and over will not make it come true.
      
      I see no evidence of this whatsoever.
      
      I have witnessed the irrational behavior of people who believe this - so much so that I am led to believe there is no such thing as a god.
      
      I have a strong sense of the connection between all things - some of which we do not consider alive - and there is no god controlling things. Call it a "universal consciousness" if you like. This is what I think people like you choose to call "god". Not really certain about that. But it comes out of us - not the other way around. There is no purpose other than to be. As a thinking being, I personally choose to think it is something worth preserving - and in fact, needs us to actively preserve it because we are destroying it. Us monkeys need to get our act together if we are going to avoid it's destruction.
      
      I understand the story of jesus of the bible - and have read the stories it was stolen from. It was originally written as homage to the Sun. Which brings us warmth, provides the energy that allows us to survive and is crucial to life as we understand it.
      
      I watch you actively attacking scientific knowledge - using the argument that it is not PERFECT - therefore it should all be discarded. I see you arguing that we could not have evolved - when there is clear evidence that we did.
      
      I do not understand this and have come to the conclusion that your belief is threatened in some way by this knowledge we are continuing to gain.
      
      But - this is irrational behavior as far as I am concerned. And yet another reason not to buy into the idea of a god. Would a god want us to be this ignorant? Would a god want us to argue against science when all science is attempting do is explain our physical realities. I don't think so. Therefore you are wrong - there is no such thing as a god.
      
      Please read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for a very good explanation of evolution and the way DNA replicates itself.
      
      But try imagining a pack of cards which makes a different trait every time it is shuffled. And there are tens of thousands of packs of cards. You can make things with thousands of combination of packs of cards and to make different things you use different packs of cards - but they all use the same cards.
      
      Busted flush - Velociraptor
      Full house - Human monkeys

      replyreport
   3. 61

      JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      There is a logical question: Let us believe on God. And if the God created us, as claimed by you:
      
      Who had created the God? Where from he came? What was there before him?
      
      If a simple cell can not be created by its own, how can almighty, extremely knowledgeable God can be created?
      
      Please think logically. I will be waiting for your answer.
      
      I do not deny faith but it should be logical.
      
      Thanks,
      Jyoti Kothari

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Isn't that asking an unfair question.  How could even science know the origins?  From nothing we have nothing, from something there is something.
         
         I do declare on my own logic that there was and always will be something and because I already know.. yes I do know.. that science will ultimately conclude they they will never "re-discover' the origins of the entirety of the Universe and beyond, the only thing left is God.
         
         yes, yes Mark laugh it up.   but seriously.
         
         And who created God?  Jesus LOL , who created Jesus? God. Who created them both?  They created each other, why... shit I don't know why don't you ask God, I bet my life you wouldn't believe Him anyways.
         
         -sorry that wasn't directed at anyone it was just another silly thought, so laugh I think it is funny.

         replyreport
4. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   Thanks Mark. That was (probably) the BEST reply you have EVER given me. Finally, you have spoken clearly and civilly. I can only say the following;
   1) My believing it, does not make it so, is correct. But it works both ways, Just because science says it was, doesn't make it so either. They are mearly working with what already IS, reading the data and interpreting it. Fossils are just one example of this.
   2)I am repeating what has already been said (long before I came along). I can't take credit for any of it.
   3)Science was initially intended (by its founders), to discover and understand God's majestic creation. And in so doing, to get an insight into His Nature and Character. Sadly, that very "science" is being used "against" Him, or in the very least to ignore Him. That's what saddens me. I have nothing against science pr se', other than that one point. IMO, time will indeed prove the truth to be what it really is.
   4)Knowing about Jesus, is NOT the same as knowing Him. That's called RELIGION. I have no dout that you know all about religion. It does produce irrational behaviour. But knowing all about the Queen of England, right down to what her favorite colour is, is NOT the same as being her friend, and enjoying a chat whenever you like.
   So, in closing, I take a strong stance because He is my friend. Has been for over 30 yrs. Seeing people "rubbish" Him bugs me, and I won't be silent about Him. I'm not asking you or others to believe. You do what you want, but be a little respectful with your comments, (as you were above). It may not be serious for you, but is to many others.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Hi aka-dj
      
      Herein lies the problem. You state that science is used 'against' God. In fact, the vast majority of scientists do not actually care whether God exists or not. The existence of God does not change the data or the theories.
      
      Scientific theories, such as evolution or the Big Bang cannot disprove the existence of God, so many Christians often see a threat that is simply not there. Philosophers have made ontological arguments for thousands of years, and will continue for a long time. It is not an 'either/or' argument - a Catholic priest devised the Big Bang theory before Einstein, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have no problem with it.
      
      The vast majority of Christians that I know (and I 'loosely' include myself amongst that number) are more than happy to accept that evolution and God can exist together quite happily. The difference is that most of us do not accept the Bible as literal truth.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I have never once said one single word against this friend of yours. That would be a pointless exercise. Telling you he is a figment of your imagination is not attacking your friend in any way. Suggesting I have done so is almost as bad as saying that I hate god.
      
      And quite honestly - I find it extremely difficult to be respectful of your opinions because they are wholly irrational.
      
      I also find it patronizing and offensive in the extreme when people tell me that if I "just opened my eyes to the truth" or "really knew jesus the way I do" I would see things the way they think I should.
      
      You think science is against god? I can only consider this to be totally irrational, although I had come to the conclusion that this is what you feel. Therefore you feel the need to "defend" your god because science is "attacking " it. 
      
      Science can never prove or disprove the existence of god.
      
      One thing it has clearly done is prove that the bible (RELIGION) is not to be taken literally.
      
      My own interpretation of the bible is that it is a map to our own personalities and the way things work. And if you see all the fictional characters in the bible as separate personality traits you will see what I mean. I see some things never change either.
      
      That includes your friend jesus (RELIGION).
      
      I still do not see why you think science is attacking your god. I personally came to the conclusion that the idea of a personal god was complete garbage long before I began to explore and understand the scientific knowledge we are gaining.
      
      I certainly find evolution a far more logical explanation of how we came to be - even if it does not answer the question of the very beginning.
      
      I certainly do not think you have the answer - nor do I think the bible has it either.
      
      But I see no reason to attack the scientific theories we currently have because you feel your god is being ignored. If it exists - it already knows this is going to happen (will have happened)(is going to have been happen) and could have done something about it if it chose to. Obviously it chooses not to do anything - therefore this is either it's will or it is not omnipotent or it does not exist.
      
      
      I know which one I am going with..........

      replyreport
5. 58

   Kid_Aposted 15 years ago

   Evolution?! Pah! There's a book that blows all that nonsense out of the water! It is called the bible people, try reading it sometime.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for that mature and considered contribution.

      replyreport
6. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   OK. Mark.I see what's going on here. It's all about being rational, or irrational. Not to do with science or religion.
   Irrational is not so bad. I mean, what's rational about love, hate, mercy, prejudice, generosity, charity, self sacrifice, committment, loyalty, forgivness, mercy ad infinitum.
   So, religious people do irrational things, but "realists" don't?
   I find this also rather puzzling. Perhaps you can explain it a bit for me.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      "love, hate, mercy, prejudice, generosity, charity, self sacrifice, committment, loyalty, forgivness, mercy"
      
      What is rational about these? Nothing. Which is why they have no place in a scientific discussion.
      
      I never said irrationality was bad - just irrational. But, as usual - you are being deliberately obtuse and now comparing mercy to arguing against science.
      
      I never said realists do not do irrational things. I said you were being irrational in your attacks on science because you are frightened that science is attacking your belief system. Which it is not.
      
      Hope that helps as you seem to be having trouble understanding that "mercy" is not the same thing as what you are doing.

      replyreport
7. 89

   Paragliderposted 15 years ago

   Since we're talking about rationality which is close to my heart (should that be head?) as a Rationalist, can I offer something?
   
   Rationality is particularly good at drawing a boundary around itself. Some things (e.g. scientific research) are rational. Others (e.g. funding for scientific research) are not. Rationalists do not claim to behave rationally all the time. The extent of our claim is that we understand what rationality is and what it can and can't do.
   
   It can, for example, research the origin of life or the beginning of the universe. It may not succeed, but it can differentiate between  a rational attempt and an irrational one.

   replyreport
8. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   Cool. Thanks guys. So, why single out "religious" for their irrationality? (Which is what seems to happen here a lot). I posted the thread "Leave us Alone", but "we" have been anything BUT been left alone.
   Personally, I see nothing IRRATIONAL, about including God into the discussion, simply because there is no (rational) reason to leave Him out. My reasoning for doing so, is that He can (and does) exist OUTSIDE of what science or rationality can encompass. He can (and does intervene) at times, into this reality. Miracles still happen! Paranormal events still happen. Dead people coming back to life still happen. Faith is alive in all humanity, (believers and unbelievers alike).
   There is an undeniable, human trait, found in every culture, throughout history, present with us today, (in the huge majority I must add) that is we have a spiritual awareness, that expresses itself (commonly)in "religion".

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The point about irrational pursuits is that they are all islands off the mainland of reason. Music, for example, is a particularly beautiful island. But musicians, for the most part, understand that music is merely a pursuit and do not bother non-musicians. Religion doesn't understand that it is an island. It tends to believe itself to be the mainland.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         To go with your analogy, I'd rather prefer "peninsula" over island. It is still connected to the mainland, not apart from it.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Connected, yes, but by a bridge of faith. That's why I choose 'island' 

            replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I do not see you showing any spiritual awareness whatsoever. All I see you doing is irrationally attacking the rational pursuit of knowledge.
      
      And using the MacDonalds argument doesn't really help either.
      
      A lot of people believe it therefore it is true.......

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Have you seen the snow flake experiment?  That when meditating on a forming snowflake, positive thoughts create a snowflake with many dimensions it become unique and beautiful. 
         When meditating on it negatively the snow flake is rigid, square, without a lot of uniqueness.
         
         The experiment was done by (I think) quantum physicist... in other studies, it showed that photons (particles or whatever it was they were using I cannot remember) change depending on whether or not a human is present.
         
         One study with a human present showed that the photons split and become many and are recorded on whatever it is they use to record it. (or maybe it was the other way around)
         
         The next is done with only a camera present and the photons stay together on a direct course.  (or maybe it was the other way around)
         
         So science does show that humans ( I like to call it spirituality) do alter things just by being present. Today we might call this a vibe that humans give off, and back then they called it spirituality.
         
         There are good spirit and bad spirits, or neg. and pos. vibes.  What you, yourself create in your own hearts or minds is what is put into the atmosphere and causes things to change, alter or become. 
         
         You may have already seen this before Mark... Let me just suggest this, for sake of understand what I understand about the invisible God.
         
         We use the term, "invisible hand" in economics.  There is no such invisible hand yet, it drives things.  Economist know how economic fluctuations correlate and use it to drive the market forces by determining in advance where they want it to go.   
         
         Though there isn't any magical hand that physically moves anyone, but there is an invisible force that follows it.
         
         The same can be said for people who believe in the invisible God.  It doesn't always end up the way you want it to be just as economics shows but the driving force isn't for money or power (though don't get me started on those who actually just wanted power and control, which I see in economics as well) but in good things. 
         
         People caught in the middle of the economic hand who really just wanted things to be good and run smooth etc... the point is that the negative force, like with the snow flake experiment, makes things rigid and indifferent nothing unique, which I suppose, like communism...
         
         It starts off with a good thought but ultimately leads to disaster because the human element is different.  I think that humans should have their own spot on the periodic table.

         replyreport
      2. 64

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Ye! Whatever! You must be tired. Not much content here!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            
            "Miracles still happen" hardly seems worth any more. I will leave you alone now. As I said earlier - you are not interested in learning anything - you already have all the answers...........

            replyreport
            1. 64

               aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               UU...hh...mmm   still the same old comeback. Not sure I agree with you about the learning part. You seem to be as disinterested as me, just on a different topic.
               So, you still hold to the argument that "religious" people do irrational things. But (you) rationalists, don't do irrational things. That seems to be the thrust of your argument against "believers". Am I close?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Not even warm.
                  
                  I see you have taken to outright lying now though. Is that what  god told you to do?

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm a little perplexed! What exactly was I lying about?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        I never said that rationalists do not do irrational things.
                        
                        I never said religious people do irrational things.
                        
                        I said you are being irrational.
                        
                        And the reason for your irrational behavior is your irrational belief in a god and the belief that science is attacking your magical non-existent super being in some way.

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           I see!
                           So, when you said (more than once I might add), that religion is irrational, and religious people do irrational things. I believe, you blame a lot of wars etc, on religion.
                           I also pointed out to you that non-religious do atrocities also.
                           So why single out the "believers", or "religious" as you see (us) them?
                           Racism is "irrational"! I haven't seen much on that topic?
                           Charity is irrational. Self sacrifice is irrational. No attacks on them.
                           Didn't I post a thread "Leave us alone"?, Yet you still don't. It's all a matter of evolution, so what does it matter?
                           As for blaming science for attacking "God", isn't that what you use as a basis to attack "religion"? You are a prime example of the exact same thing you blame me of, only in reverse.I believe they call that hypocracy.
                           What do you think?

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              I think that you have resorted to semantics to avoid my point that you are behaving in an irrational manner.
                              
                              What is your argument here? That it is OK for you to be irrational because other people are irrational. Yet another irrational statement.
                              
                              You really are reaching here dj. I am not attacking religion based on a BS belief. I am attacking it based on history.
                              
                              You are attacking science because you think it proves your beliefs are garbage and is attempting to attack god in some way.
                              
                              This is irrational.

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                 So, then, do you admit to ever being irrational?
                                 (It seems it is prudent to post only one thought at a time. You seem to have difficulty staying on topic.)

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                    You are the one changing subjects. But - of course I do things that are irrational. As I get older I have tried to limit those things and not repeat the same mistakes. And I have also tried to identify the reasons behind why I did something that in hindsight appears irrational. Usually I get to the bottom of it.
                                    
                                    Needless to say when I was doing them they did not seem irrational.
                                    
                                    As you are doing now - by claiming that there is nothing irrational in attacking scientific knowledge because you have a 2000 year old book that had never heard of evolution.

                                    replyreport
9. 69

   imadorkposted 15 years ago

   "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."  - Albert Einstein

   replyreport
10. 61

    David Bowmanposted 15 years ago

    Creationists are always arguing from a position of ignorance. Scientists have never claimed that the first organisms were as complex as modern cells; which have had about 3.5 billion years to evolve into their present state of complexity. The first self-replicating life-forms were most likely simple molecules; the constituent elements of these molecules (amino acids)have been shown experimentally to form in conditions similar to that of the primordial Earth(Miller-Urey Experiment,1953).
    
    Scientists don't know exactly how these molecules began to self-replicate; that is why research continues in this field. However, just because science can't presently demonstrate how life began, this is no reason to posit that "god did it"; which is just answering a mystery with a mystery. God of the gaps arguments like these are what the intelligent design movement is founded on; but, as history has consistently demonstrated, the gaps for god to hide in have become increasingly fewer as the forward march of scientific discovery continues to eviscerate their arguments from ignorance.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       That's a good summary.
       Some of the creationists don't like it when we we say things like 'we don't yet know' because it makes it hard for them to deny that we're being reasonable!

       replyreport
       1. 64

          aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          This then places you (both & all) into the category of "ignorance". You don't know, any more than we know. You are waiting for (almighty) science to give you the answer. I postulate (well not me personally, because it's not my "original" idea) that God made it all.
          JK, to answer you, God is "self-existent. No beginning, and no end. Eternal means without beginning and without end. I see it as a higher dimension than the one we live in. We don't "see" it with our eyes and we cannot "test it" with our natural senses. Of course, for the realists, rationalists, naturalist, etc, "that does not compute".
          Does that mean it does not exist? Of course not! Does love exist? Can you "prove"it does, or does not? Not scientifically, at least.

          replyreport
          1. 89

             Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, aka-dj, ignorance beyond the limits of my knowledge. And still interested to find out more. But not interested in pretending to have answers. When we postulate an answer, our proposition is testable. When you postulate an answer, yours is not testable. That's the difference.

             replyreport
          2. 59

             Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Here we are back to arguing that because you cannot prove something exists or not - it must exist. Of course this does not compute. Because it is irrational.
             
             But I like your argument that god is the same as an emotion and exists solely in the head of the person who feels it.
             
             It is a good analogy - because - let us say that you love some one. This means nothing to anyone else except you and the person you love if you choose to show it to them.
             
             So, I think it is fair to say that god exists in your head and no where else. Therefore it is a figment of your imagination. Therefore it could not have created everything. Good argument dj. I like it.

             replyreport
          3. 61

             JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Dear Aka-dj,
             
             You have told, "JK, to answer you, God is "self-existent. No beginning, and no end. Eternal means without beginning and without end."
             Can we not say the entire universe with all its materials and living beings are eternal without beginning and without end with the same logic?
             Why do we need a God to satisfy this answer?
             
             "Does love exist? Can you "prove"it does, or does not? Not scientifically, at least", You told.
             
             Love is a feeling that is  even quantifiable by various electronic tools (brain mapping etc).

             replyreport
             1. 64

                aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                To the best of my knowledge, it is a commonly held belief (among scientisits) that the universe is NOT eternal.You may not need (Him) god, to satisfy your curiosity. He satisfies mine.
                I'm happy your question is answered by chemical reactions in the brain, that show up as brainwaves. Therefore, (logically)every other emotion, and behaviour is the same. I see no difference (then) between the "good" and "evil" expressions of human beings. So, why is one "good" and one "bad" etc. We are simply evolved that way, and all should be equal, and acceptable. No "right or/and wrong". Anything goes! Who has the right to set standards, and what will they be?

                replyreport
11. 61

    mohamedhmmposted 15 years ago

    we are as human kind, we like to have rules, governments, courts, laws to control our own life; even you, you are here thinking about life and you try to have your own rules to control your life; how the this perfect system that we have, there is no God behind all of these?!!!
    At all there is a God for us if we like or not we will come back to him in the end like kids come back to their parents; all of us we will believe in him in the end but we wouldn't be equal in love and prizes; and this is up to u, and your choice, no body will choose for you or carry your sins except you; good is good for you; bad is bad for you.
    we are in our way to God to Our father....

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, Mohamed, but this is the science forum where claims should be backed up with some evidence and/or put forward in a testable way. Just coming here and saying 'this is how it is whether you like it or not' simply isn't good enough.

       replyreport
12. 61

    David Bowmanposted 15 years ago

    
    
    When I say that you are arguing from a position of ignorance I mean to say that you are making erroneous claims about what "almighty" science asserts about life's origins. I'm sure that if I made a completely erroneous assertion about what you believed about god, and turned it into an argument against your position, you would probably inform me that I was arguing from a position of ignorance about your beliefs. If you want to postulate a supernatural origin of life, fine; however, in the process, don't make erroneous claims about what the scientific community claims about life's origins and using it as an argument in favor of your position. It's disingenuous.
    
    You are correct when you say that we are all ignorant in that, we don't know what exactly took place that made self-replicating organic life viable, but this lack of knowledge doesn't give creationists licence to assert that their position wins out by default. That is what a "god of the gaps" argument is. Where science has yet to find an answer, creationists try to fill that gap in knowledge by claiming that a supernatural intervention is necessary to explain it. As I said in my previous post, the creationist attempt to to give credence to the supernatural by exploiting these gaps has proven to be false time and time again and I don't expect that to change in regard to question of origins.

    replyreport
13. 64

    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    Thank you for putting words in my mouth also. I guess there is no need for me to be pesent. You're haveing a nice discussion without me. (since you know all about my irrational behaviour and all.)
    I will tune in from time to time to see just how we are getting on with it.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       LOL
       
       Now you have completely avoided my point.
       ciao.
       
       Edit:
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       Now tell me how I am putting words in your mouth. Merely lying about it will not do any good. It is all here in black and white.

       replyreport
14. 56

    Dame Scribeposted 15 years ago

    I was told that their ancestors pulled my ancestors out of trees and put pants on them sorry, couldnt resist!

    replyreport
15. 57

    fun2hubposted 15 years ago

    Where is DJ gone?!

    replyreport
    1. 64

       aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Not far. Been working long hours, needing much "beauty" sleep. Thanks for asking. Never thought I'd be missed in the forums.

       replyreport
16. 61

    JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years ago

    Aka-dj,
    Yet my question is unanswered. If god can be eternal, why not the universe? we are living in an ever changing universe. Though it changes, changes and changes, it remains for ever. It may remain in form of matter, energy or in whatsoever form, but it remains.
    
    It is not the question whether scientists believe it or not because science is ever evolving. Scientists change their views from time to time.
    
    Good and evil is a perception based on our own experience. What is considered good in one place or time may be considered evil in another place or time.
    
    Thanks,
    Jyoti Kothari

    replyreport
    1. 64

       aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I can't answer your question, if science tells you they don't believe the universe is eternal, how can anyone answer you? There are many who seek answers to this question. People like (the highly respected physicist, Stephen Hawking) who are persuing the very beginning of the "creation" of everything.
       These "experts" do not seem to think it to BE eternal. If they did, they would not seek to explain its origin.
       I, on the other hand believe God created all matter, time, space, stars, life, all known ( and as yet undiscovered) laws, but, you probably knew that. If He created it (all), that means that it (all) "WAS NOT" before. (But now IS)!
       If God is "make believe" to you, as so many on hubpages say He is, then what I just wrote will be simply "fairy tales" to you, also. I hope I made sense to you?

       replyreport
       1. 89

          Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I think one problem here is that you are trying to apply linear thinking to a region of space-time that is highly non-linear. There is plenty of evidence that the Universe has been expanding for a VERY long time. The mathematics that suggests that this expansion was from a singularity (which we can call the big bang) is very convincing. But you are trying to think of this all happening at some place and time inside Cartesian space where words like 'before' have a clear meaning. What appears to be possible (but not possible to visualise) is that all mass-energy somehow passed through a singularity from a contracting Universe. It is simply impossible to 'see' into that contracting Universe from where we are now. The singularity, to us, must always appear to be a beginning. Does that make sense?
          
          If you were in that contracting Universe the singularity would be in your future, as an impending annihilation.
          
          Science is in the business of helping us understand these concepts.

          replyreport
          1. 64

             aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             The trouble with this type of "rationalle" is that it clearly takes us into the unknown, untestable and theoretical speculative arena assigned to "phylosophy" and the like.
             My position all along has been that another "world" or "reality" exists. That realm is "super-natural", meaning it is of a higher order. How you and I perceive the (possibility)nature of this "other" dimension (if you will) will determine what language we use to describe it.
             We may well be talking of the same "thing", just using different imagery, or language to do so.

             replyreport
             1. 89

                Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                The difference is considerable. The scientific method is progressive. With time, we are learning more and more about the universe. We are building on the work of previous generations. As a matter of fact, we have a pretty fair understanding except in the extremes that we can't approach, like singularities. We don't and can't know everything. But we also know the limits of our knowledge. It's dangerous to decide you 'know' something you can't know.

                replyreport
       2. 61

          JYOTI KOTHARIposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Aka dj,
          You are trying to escape the question by quoting wrong examples. Scientists believe that the matter and energy is eternal (law of conservation of mass and energy). Universe is believed to be expanding and contracting and Hawking is trying to know the exact nature of expansion at 0 second of big bang.
          
          So my question remains at my place why do we need a creator God? And if God can be eternal why not the Universe (matter).
          Thanks,
          Jyoti Kothari

          replyreport
          1. 61

             mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             The Vedas say like god this universe is eternal

             replyreport
       3. 61

          mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          These "experts" do not seem to think it to BE eternal. If they did, they would not seek to explain its origin.
          Stephen Hawkins himself has stated that science only tries to find an answer from the big bang but its limited and has a flaw as they don't try to understand the why or what was before that.

          replyreport
17. 0

    Janettaposted 14 years ago

    Whoa--lots of quoting going on here.
    How about God created everything, the Heavens and the Earth. Will that suffice? No? Well that's my story and I'm stickin to it

    replyreport
18. 61

    David Bowmanposted 14 years ago

    That's fine. Just please don't become a scientist. They like to find real answers.

    replyreport
19. 0

    Janettaposted 14 years ago

    ah, a real answer eh? So you can't 'prove' God did anything or that He exsists, so it's not a real answer? Well, you could say that about lots of things. Dreams, for instance. Sure, you may say you have dreams at night, you may believe that you do. But you can not prove that you do. Random firings in the brain, sure. But no proof of actual dreams.
    But, you believe it and that is what matters.  You believe your answer IS real, as do I. 
    And don't worry Davey, I have no need to TRY and disprove every little thing so, no, I won't be becoming a scientist any time soon.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       No need to be a scientist when you know more than they do. E.r.r.I mean you know about things they can never know.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Science admits it hasn't found the answers.
       What they do understand is that everything what seems random is actually not.This universe is very intelligently designed.Who or what has the capacity to design a universe? man      

       replyreport
20. 0

    Janettaposted 14 years ago

    I agree, DJ

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Ah - allow me to explain the difference between what you "know"   and actual facts:
       
       

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Janettaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          [Ah - allow me to explain the difference between what you "know"   and actual facts:]
          
          
          Faith is a powerful thing Mark. To have faith in anything takes strength and courage. A person may have faith in God or religion, or even that their spouse won't cheat on them. We all have or have had faith in something at some point. Faith is a feeling, an emotion, an understanding inside you that cannot be subject to hypotheses and experiments.
          I could easily say that while you preform your steps of the scientific process and wait those minutes, hours, days, even years for your "theories" to be proven, I, too am waiting. And while you may be laughing at me or thinking "I told you so." when science seems to point away from my beliefs, I am not bothered. For I know one day I, my theories will be proven and I will be the one laughing.
          
          I am very aware of everyone's differences and opposing beliefs and respect them. I just ask the same in return.

          replyreport
          1. 64

             aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Just for your further refference, Mark nows all that. He has made his stance "against",just as strongly (or more so) than we have for "faith"

             replyreport
          2. 61

             mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             To have faith in anything takes strength and courage- love this line.
             "When I know something is right,
             Then with prayer and faith I must fight."

             replyreport
       2. 61

          mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Many theories have proved to be wrong over time.

          replyreport
          1. 89

             Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             That's the whole point of a scientific theory - because it can be proved wrong it makes way for a better one, and so knowledge grows.

             replyreport
             1. 61

                mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                True it exists till it is proved incorrect .

                replyreport
                1. 89

                   Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   And that's a Good Thing, not a weakness.

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Just reflects the limitations and inaccuracy of science.

                      replyreport
                      1. 59

                         Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         As opposed to the unprovable, untestable perfection of poetry?
                         
                         

                         replyreport
                         1. 61

                            mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                            You keep saying science and I told you about the uncertainty principle which shook up many scientists.The cosmos doesn't allow us humans to know its plans properly we are limited .I would add via any equipment.
                            Have found the source of life which science has yet to find.
                            I suggest you read Stephen Hawkins to get a better understanding.

                            replyreport
                            1. 59

                               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                               Feel free to quote Mr Hawkins saying that the cosmos has plans and won't allow us to know what they are.
                               
                               Not really interested in listening to any more of your irrational attacks on scientific subjects you clearly have no knowledge or understanding of.
                               
                               As for the source of life you have found. Not really sure why you are attempting to bring that into a science forum. Do you have some evidence that is not in your head perhaps?

                               replyreport
                               1. 61

                                  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                  Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkins understood the limitations and that this universe is intelligently designed. "God doesn't play dice with the universe" Albert Einsteins famous quote.
                                  
                                  Quantum physics-Uncertainty principle " the more accurately you try to measure a particle the more it gets disturbed, so you can never measure accurately."
                                  
                                  The greatest of scientists understand what you do not.
                                  Read for yourself rather than just saying try science .
                                  You can try "A Brief History of Time"- Stephen Hawkins- a superb book.
                                  Like I said before I wonder which science you are referring to?

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 59

                                     Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                     Mo - if you are talking about Stephen Hawking - I have read his book. All science is attempting to explain the "how" not "why" which is apparently what you have the answer in your head to.
                                     
                                     "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 61

                                        mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                        Yes but science starts out with the big bang and not before it which is considered as a flaw by scientists.Stephen Hawkins says this.I know he made this quote about god ye I think he said he does believe in god.
                                        
                                        Man and science is trying to understand these laws which have existed since god knows when.Man or science is not creating these laws. We cannot create a super nova and neither did we or science decide this earth should spin around at a precise speed of 23 hours 59 minutes and 56 seconds.We still dont know whats out there in this universe or for that matter on our own planet.
                                        Today science is trying to create a unified theory, we still dont understand the mechanics of this universe.

                                        report
                                        1. 59

                                           Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                           I don't know if he believes in god or not - what difference does that make?
                                           
                                           Does this mean that you think we should stop investigating because you have all the answers - "god did it "

                                           report
                                           1. 61

                                              mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                              I like science and as you can notice I like reading about science .Was a science graduate then studied a little more advanced mathematics and physics for the Merchant Navy like "spherical trigonometry".I have decent understanding of the celestial sphere being a Navigating Officer licensed to navigate any vessel of any size anywhere in the world.
                                              
                                              I never said stop investigating.I found the source of creation and man can never find it with instruments.

                                              report
                                              1. 59

                                                 Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                 Good for you.
                                                 
                                                 Science is not looking for the source of creation. It is attempting to understand how things work.
                                                 
                                                 We leave that to the poets.

                                                 report
                                                 1. 61

                                                    mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                     
                                                    Big bang theory is the source.Have studied astronomy as well,I like science.

                                                    report
                                                    1. 59

                                                       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                       So do I. Can not get my head 'round a quark though.

                                                       report
                                                       1. 61

                                                          mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                            it blows my mind as well.

                                                          report
21. 79

    Sufidreamerposted 14 years ago

    
    
    I like that one!

    replyreport
22. 89

    Paragliderposted 14 years ago

    Scenario 1:
    We understand quite a lot
    Our understanding is not complete
    Therefore we should give up the attempt
    
    Scenario 2:
    We understand quite a lot
    Our understanding is not complete
    Therefore we should keep investigating
    
    Which do you think is the better?

    replyreport