Despite obvious evidence, why deny the evidence of a creator?

1. 52

   SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 12 years ago

   Even the simplest of minds can understand that there is a creator. It`s not any question that except for GODS mercy that the world is not destroyed.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree!
      The simplest of minds believe just as you do.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         hkheijposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         haha

         replyreport
         1. 80

            earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Aha! Someone's awake.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               hkheijposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               am I really the only one that caught that?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep!

                  replyreport
      2. 74

         cheaptrickposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Now we're even earnest...I tried not to laugh but Damn that was sharp and to the point!

         replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      On the contrary it is the simplest of minds that find it necessary to fantasize a god. 
      
      You're right - it is not a question about GODS mercy - just another fantasy from simple minds.
      
      Better minds, used for thought and reason rather than imagining, know better in both cases.
      
      Does it feel good to be insulted and degraded just as you insult and degrade?

      replyreport
   3. 82

      CMHypnoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If a god created the world, why then would they want to destroy it? Your idea of god sounds more like an ego-maniacal child?

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Kahanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         We deny what we cannot fathom.  It is not about simple, or intelligent, or merciful, or cruel, etc.  These are all human characteristics which do not apply.  In our arrogance we try to define that which is beyond description.  And if we cannot define it then we tend to ignore it.  Such has been the human condition forever.

         replyreport
   4. 60

      dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Seiker, you open with "despite obvious evidence??????"
      
      you see evidence and you go on despite it?   Why do you not just write your own Bible, and throw out the whole book then?
      
      Your right, simplest minds.....  shakes me head at this one?

      replyreport
   5. 58

      Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps, others have moved beyond having a simple mind that would invoke and embrace simple concepts after realizing there are complex concepts that the simple mind cannot grasp.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         agree 

         replyreport
2. 60

   jcnasiaposted 12 years ago

   Good question. 
   
   The irreducible complexity of life seems to shout out that there's a great engineer, and even the simplest form of life is still very complex.  By the way, does anybody know what the simplest form of life is?
   
   DNA is like a message, and everyone knows that the information in a message doesn't depend on its medium, but on its author.
   
   And look at the cosmos.  Where did it come from?  And why is it so finely tuned to support human life?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, the irreducible complexity of life seems to shout out that it would take a looong time to be formed by random actions.  And so it was; well over 1,000,000,000 revolutions of the earth around the sun.  A very long time.  I don't know the simplest form of life - a virus perhaps?
      
      DNA is indeed like a message, just as every particle is.  An atom contains a message of what its properties will be simply by what makes it up just as DNA does.  A rock will carry information about how it was formed, how old it is and where it came from.  Neither needs an author to write that information.
      
      The cosmos came from the big bang.  It is a very common fallacy that it is tuned to support human life, however. Rather, human life is (rather poorly) tuned by the natural forces of evolution to exist in the cosmos as it is.  You have cause and effect reversed.  It is egocentric in the extreme to think that the cosmos was designed for humans rather than insignificant humans being designed to fit the cosmos.  That kind of thinking went out in the middle ages when we discovered that the cosmos does not revolve around the earth; that we are not the center of everything.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Jewelsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Love the last paragraph.  As we humans are in a sink or swim status on this planet how can we dare say we are the center the universe.  We are but tiny ants in the big cosmic pond.  Humbling isn't it!
         
         It's amazing how we have evolved as a species to survive as we have.  Not sure how long we can keep it up though.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         jcnasiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "The cosmos came from the big bang."  It is a very common fallacy to believe in an effect (the big bang) without a cause.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting.  I and many others would be very interested in seeing your rigorous analysis of the big bang.  Something beyond "Well, everything outside of a singularity and big enough to see with my eyes needs a cause and therefore actions in that strangest of places called a singularity and small enough that no microscope can see it must need a cause as well". 
            
            The planet's bests physicists are on record as saying there is no indication in the field of physics that would would require a cause for the big bang.  If you have developed an accurate model of the singularity behind the big bang that would show otherwise the world would certainly love to see it.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               jcnasiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I learned in physics class that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  I also learned in physics class that much of Newtonian physics changes at relativistic speeds, but I never did take enough physics courses to find out how this action-reaction law changes.  It's hard for me to believe that there can be an effect without a cause.  I'd be interested if you can find anything explaining how this works.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  A common problem, and one for me as well.  I learned physics, yes, just as you did.  I even studied some of Einsteins equations.  The concepts of quantum physics had not even been formulated, however, and all I have learned of them is bits and pieces through the years.
                  
                  The change of newtonian physics at relativistic speeds is a good place to start, however.  We now understand that as conditions (speed in this case) change so do the laws governing the action.  Or at least our idea of the laws needs expanding to include the relativistic speed condition.  Similarly, the laws governing particles and energy either in the very small state or in a singularity are not those governing the macro world where we do, indeed, find a cause for every action. 
                  
                  As I am unwilling (or more likely unable) to follow the footsteps of the likes of Steven Hawking in the field I have only two options; accept what they are saying as most likely true or continue with my own out of date concepts that are known not to apply to different conditions.  I realize that I will be made fun of for choosing to accept new learnings even though I don't understand them, but the other option does not appeal, either.  To reject a concept or idea because I don't truly understand it would result, for instance, in insisting that an astronaut's clock will run at the same rate as mine.  I would forever be stuck in the "new dark ages" of a few decades ago because I refuse to learn or accept concepts out of my reality world of what I can see and touch.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "By the way, does anybody know what the simplest form of life is?"
      
      For that you have to first tell what life is. Capacity  to self replicate alone is the criteria then prions(a type of protein) satisfy that role. If you add movement then it should be viruses.(Still you have to consider that viruses can be crystallized just like any other non living form and may be converted back)
      
      "DNA is like a message, and everyone knows that the information in a message doesn't depend on its medium, but on its author."
      
      You might now know that it doesn't need an other. Elements react in right place and right time. The whole process of life is just a chemical reaction. If you put sodium in water it simply react to form NaOH, nobody needs to tell sodium that!
      
      "And look at the cosmos.  Where did it come from?  And why is it so finely tuned to support human life?"
      
      It didn't come from anywhere, it was there all along. It is not finely tuned to support life. On the contrary, life arose adapting to the existing factors!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         jcnasiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Jomine,
         Thanks for taking the time to respond.  You're right.  We need to define what life is. 
         
         I asked about what the simplest life form is so we could have a starting idea of how simple the first life form would be in evolutionary theory.
         
         So, I think the capacity to self-replicate is a good criteria to define life.  I didn't know what a prion was so I used wikipedia to look it up.  If I understand correctly, both prions and viruses are infectious agents that only replicate when in more complex organisms so this would rule them out as that first life form.  Is this right?
         
         So, I should rephrase my question.  What is the simplest self-replicating life form that doesn't depend on a more complex life form to replicate itself?
         
         Concerning the cosmos, you wrote, "it didn't come from anywhere, it was there all along."  Are you of the opinion that our universe doesn't have a start or a 'big bang'?  Or am I misunderstanding you?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "So, I think the capacity to self-replicate is a good criteria to define life.  I didn't know what a prion was so I used wikipedia to look it up.  If I understand correctly, both prions and viruses are infectious agents that only replicate when in more complex organisms so this would rule them out as that first life form.  Is this right?"
            
            I'm not sure about the answer. Prions as far as I know(from my medical classes), replicate by changing the orientation of proteins, it come in contact with. So even if there is no higher organism, if it can come in contact with the necessary protein, a new replica will be formed. But at present we have not many free proteins available on earth..... There might have been a time where free proteins and amino acids were available before being eaten up by living things because they are simple molecules that can be formed by natural processes.
            But if you exclude that there are organisms like rickettsiae and chlamydia that is in between viruses and bacteria, which got all materials to survive but still can't survive outside a living cell.
            So viruses can live outside cells, but less complex but rickettsiae cannot live outside, though more complex.
            
            "So, I should rephrase my question.  What is the simplest self-replicating life form that doesn't depend on a more complex life form to replicate itself?"
            Bacterias should be the organisms that has independent existence and independent self replication, but they are very different from the usual eukaryote cells(all cells excluding bacteria). There might be so many organisms in between about which we are unaware, as no remains of it are available.
            
            
            "Concerning the cosmos, you wrote, "it didn't come from anywhere, it was there all along."  Are you of the opinion that our universe doesn't have a start or a 'big bang'?  Or am I misunderstanding you?"
            
            No, you are not misunderstanding. Start or beginning comes only if we include "time", but time is just a human concept. Time is valid only for a being with memory.
            As far as we are concerned 'creation' is a past event which  nobody has seen. In consequence we can only explain the event without contradiction. Creation- whether it is god made or bang made, is contradictory. We can say for sure that something with contradiction cannot occur, though we cannot say for sure that something without contradiction will occur.

            replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's not so easy to define life, at least a definition that we can work with.  Yes, a virus needs a living host to replicate.  Just as a human needs an exceedingly complex environment of both living and non-living items to replicate.  Without them we suffocate, starve or for some other reason fail to reproduce. 
            
            Although a virus may need a living host as an environment and can thus be ruled out as the "first" life, bacteria has no need of other life.  Nor can we rule out some foreign, weird form of life that was long ago pushed aside by more advanced forms.  That first "life" may have been little more than a chemical substance that acted as a catalyst in making more of the same.  As more and more of that chemical came into existence the probability of reacting with a copy itself or other large molecule, in just the right environment of energy source, temperature, pressure, etc. became greater and greater until it finally happened.  Creating a new chemical that also acted as a catalyst in producing more of the same.  Ad infinitum until we get to something we would all call life; a mold perhaps, or ocean slime.  Some single celled animal such as an Amoeba.  We don't know, and will never know, the exact details of that first "life"
            
            Taken to the extreme, the chemicals that make up a DNA strand do just that; act as a catalyst to produce more of the same.  In the presence of a suitable environment (womb, followed by earth covered in energy and food) that strand produces more of the same, with slight variations, until it can reproduce the two forms that started it growing (sperm and egg).  At that point it has caused a chemical action that allows the formation of a new chemical while the original remains the same; a catalyst.  And a new sperm or egg exists.
            
            No, it is not a simple question and does not have a simple answer.  Any reasonable answer we can come up with will, when combined with the concept of evolving life, offend someone and be rejected and made fun of because they don't like the idea.

            replyreport
3. 80

   Jewelsposted 12 years ago

   Obvious evidence?  Hmmmmmm, I think that may be the wrong choice of words.  The world exists sure but what created it and why?  Obvious? ahem!

   replyreport
4. 68

   Mikioposted 12 years ago

   It was Karl Sagan who said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidences."  But, this is in the realm of science. The existence of God/Creator is not something our intellect can comprehend.  As long as we want evidences, we miss the point.  Affirming the existence of God/Creator happens outside the realm of human reasoning and intellect.  Rather, it happens within the subjective realm of human experience of 'absolute dependence.' It is the job of theologians/philosophers/poets to articulate this feeling of 'absolute dependence.' Personally, God/Creator is very plausible as a philosophical concept.  We certainly cannot prove its physical existence.  Trying to prove God's existence has been proven futile in our intellectual history.  So, why even try?

   replyreport
5. 80

   earnestshubposted 12 years ago

   I agree it lies outside the realm of human intelligence. that's for sure!

   replyreport
6. 64

   aka-djposted 12 years ago

   The evidence is indeed all around us.
   That's not the problem, it's the interpretation of the evidence that is!
   One looks at life (for argument sake) and sees the complexity and design inherent within it. Concludes that (a) Designer must be behind it.
   Another says, NO, we see a long process of natural adaptation and change is the real cause.
   
   In Either case, the evidence, (life) has not changed.
   
   Happy interpreting y'all.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The existence of Life is not evidence in and of itself evidence of either a higher power or a god or (a) designer.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Neither is it evidence of abiogenesis.
         As I said, it's all in the interpretation.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
7. 80

   earnestshubposted 12 years ago

   Scientists have just captured and held anti-matter and are excited that this will add to the understanding of the big bang theory.
   
   
   Reported on ABC radio 5 minutes ago.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You are WRONG!
      
      
      
      
      
      It was reported this afternoon with Richard Fidler, (about 2pm).
      You got the repeat.
      I on the other hand got the ORIGINAL!
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Good show DJ! I assumed it would have been out there for a while, I have been picking my granddaughter up from ballet early, she felt unwell. .... so I tuned out for a bit there. It sounded like an exciting event to me. I will try to get the longhand on it soon.

         replyreport
8. 0

   Home Girlposted 12 years ago

   A happy random chance, a speck of cosmic dust that materialized into human animal... deprive us from necessities and we will be fighting like a pack of wolves, killing each other. No one created us, no one. it's impossible to create deliberately such a foolish, complicated and fragile being. Even a rat is better created. Look at its teeth, no need of a dentist whatsoever!

   replyreport
9. 80

   earnestshubposted 12 years ago

   We are still a bit of a mess compared to several other species aren't we?
   
   The human back is an incomplete bit of engineering for starters. Lower back pain almost guaranteed!

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Diane Insideposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, you know we were not created to last forever.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am not convinced of that any more either.
         
         We now have an understanding of what stops our cells from continuing to replicate accurately.
         
         As our bodies are completely replaced right down to bone marrow in regular cycles, this information is crucial to medicine if it is to help these cells to stop making mistakes.
         
         Coming soon to a clinic near you!

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Diane Insideposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            lol, cute.
            
            yes you are right in a sense about cells replicating and  whole body parts being replaced.
            
            Except in for the nerves, at least thats what we were taught in therapy school.  Nerves may be able to find new pathways to the brain, but they do not regenerate, or at least not  on there own they don't.
            
            I think because of Christopher Reeves accident though and all the attention brought to his quadraplegia,  there has been some headway made in this field but nerves themselves do not replicate.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Tell that to my upper back!
               
               After extensive surgery and a graft that contained my whole lateral dorsal muscle, (lateral dorsal flap) it took almost 10 years for the nerves in my back to send normal signals again. The whole are to a depth of about two inches was completely sensation free.
               
               I know about neural pathways but not much about nerves not replicating, feel free to educate me.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Diane Insideposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  well I don't know a whole heck of alot.  Just that nerves once they are injured, damaged,or missing do not replicate, or regenerate.  Kinda like if you cut your arm off it wont grow back. 
                  
                  but some nerves can take the place of old nerves.  Or nerves that may not have played a dominant role before can or will step up and essentially do the job of the original nerves.  Nerves don't replace themselves but new synapses can form if necessary. 
                  
                  as far as your back goes, was the graft just a muscle graft or skin as well?

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank you.
                     My graft was the entire lateral dorsal including the skin. Quite a large graft.

                     replyreport