Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

You can't put Humpty back together again...

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now, first off, let me clarify. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!

I'm simply asking the scientific minds of the religion forum if there is validity to this man's claim.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:58:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Now, first off, let me clarify. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!

I'm simply asking the scientific minds of the religion forum if there is validity to this man's claim.



This is an argument out of ignorance, just because we don't know how life began doesn't mean god did it. What are the chances of a being thought up thousands of years before the science that he's using to disprove atheist even existed, is the right answer?
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 9:53:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If only the processes to generate life and molecules were purely random... then it is unlikely that none of us would have ever existed. However, by definition, these processes are far far far from random.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 9:58:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
First of all, this idiot thinks that "light year" is a measurement of time, which should be the first thing that discredits him.

Second, his analogy is equivalent to cutting up a human into little bits, putting him in a solution with all the elements that are made up of a human body, and as his limbs do not regrow, proclaiming that humans cannot form.

Third, that is not how early cell life formed. It is cumulative selection from the most stable elements-->compounds--->amino acids---> etc....
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 10:08:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

The possibility of abiogenesis is infinitesimal. However, given that there exists trillions of galaxies in the Universe, millions/billions/trillions of stars in those galaxies, and atmospheric planets orbiting those stars at reasonable distances for temperatures to support carbon-based or silicon-based life, it is reasonable to conclude that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.

tl;dr--The chance of abiogenesis is small, but the Universe is MASSIVE, so there is a chance that life exists on anywhere between 1-1,000,000,000 planets or maybe even space crafts :)
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 10:17:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 10:08:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

The possibility of abiogenesis is infinitesimal. However, given that there exists trillions of galaxies in the Universe, millions/billions/trillions of stars in those galaxies, and atmospheric planets orbiting those stars at reasonable distances for temperatures to support carbon-based or silicon-based life, it is reasonable to conclude that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.

tl;dr--The chance of abiogenesis is small, but the Universe is MASSIVE, so there is a chance that life exists on anywhere between 1-1,000,000,000 planets or maybe even space crafts :)

But isn't that all pretty baseless assertions? I mean thats not actually any math calculations. It seems like thats pretty much just a guess. If it is not please explain.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 10:30:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Now, first off, let me clarify. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!

I'm simply asking the scientific minds of the religion forum if there is validity to this man's claim.



There is nothing valid to this man's claims other than life did not start in a test tube. Nobody has ever argued that putting the innards of a cell in a saline solution would start life.

Life is nothing more than a self contained dynamic interaction of chemicals and matter. It can not be proved that it will never be created by man. The only argument against it is purely speculation. The argument for it advances every day. It is hard to argue that there is some magical wall that will eventually stand in our way.

The latest discovery which is really a culmination of many scientiest is that DNA and the processes that drive cell development is much more complex than originally thought. There is a project in motion to unravel that. Imagine that. We decode the complete human genome and then find there is an entire another layer that drives cell development in ways that DNA/RNA alone could not explain.

Religions need to start preparing for a possible day when we can say we can take matter and initiate the dynamic function we call life.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:42:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The use of God as a divine placeholder is as old as time, itself. Anytime we, as a species, fail to understand why something is the way it is, we say God made it as such. The ancients believed gods did everything from causing the sun to rise to causing people to become ill. Yet, once the science of such phenomena was explained, we no longer needed the gods to tote the sun across the sky or to inflict illness.

Saying God did it, every time you fail to explain something, is not an answer. It's like blaming your absent brother, or sister, whenever your parents demanded an explanation for something you'd rather not answer.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

I don't know if it's already been answered, but Drake's equation is a good citation for this. Around 10 planets in each solar system should have developed the ability to traverse space. The Drake Problem (why we haven't encountered them) is an interesting one, though.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 4:47:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 10:17:06 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 10:08:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

The possibility of abiogenesis is infinitesimal. However, given that there exists trillions of galaxies in the Universe, millions/billions/trillions of stars in those galaxies, and atmospheric planets orbiting those stars at reasonable distances for temperatures to support carbon-based or silicon-based life, it is reasonable to conclude that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.

tl;dr--The chance of abiogenesis is small, but the Universe is MASSIVE, so there is a chance that life exists on anywhere between 1-1,000,000,000 planets or maybe even space crafts :)

But isn't that all pretty baseless assertions? I mean thats not actually any math calculations. It seems like thats pretty much just a guess. If it is not please explain.

Pretty please do me a favour, which includes all of your fellow cretin: Don't try call atheists out on baseless assertions or something to do with proving the negative for rather obvious reasons.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 5:43:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 4:47:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/10/2012 10:17:06 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 10:08:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

The possibility of abiogenesis is infinitesimal. However, given that there exists trillions of galaxies in the Universe, millions/billions/trillions of stars in those galaxies, and atmospheric planets orbiting those stars at reasonable distances for temperatures to support carbon-based or silicon-based life, it is reasonable to conclude that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.

tl;dr--The chance of abiogenesis is small, but the Universe is MASSIVE, so there is a chance that life exists on anywhere between 1-1,000,000,000 planets or maybe even space crafts :)

But isn't that all pretty baseless assertions? I mean thats not actually any math calculations. It seems like thats pretty much just a guess. If it is not please explain.

Pretty please do me a favour, which includes all of your fellow cretin: Don't try call atheists out on baseless assertions or something to do with proving the negative for rather obvious reasons.

If you're referring to our discussion, I told you, I don't ask you to prove a negative. I'm simply asking you, or any others to prove their own claims about origins. That would impress me so much that I might not even pick on you anymore. :)

I'm growing old, gray, and tired...and still I wait.

I should argue with you about your negative claim, anyway. If you make a negative claim and can't back it up, it's not my fault that you have trouble proving it, it's your claim, not mine.

Besides, you're presupposing the negative anyway so maybe that's why you can't find a wa y to prove it.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 5:49:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 4:47:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Pretty please do me a favour, which includes all of your fellow cretin: Don't try call atheists out on baseless assertions or something to do with proving the negative for rather obvious reasons.

I'm not trying to call anyone out. I'm just trying to find answers. Do you have any for me on this issue? Plus you can prove a negative haha
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 5:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 5:43:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/10/2012 4:47:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/10/2012 10:17:06 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 10:08:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

The possibility of abiogenesis is infinitesimal. However, given that there exists trillions of galaxies in the Universe, millions/billions/trillions of stars in those galaxies, and atmospheric planets orbiting those stars at reasonable distances for temperatures to support carbon-based or silicon-based life, it is reasonable to conclude that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.

tl;dr--The chance of abiogenesis is small, but the Universe is MASSIVE, so there is a chance that life exists on anywhere between 1-1,000,000,000 planets or maybe even space crafts :)

But isn't that all pretty baseless assertions? I mean thats not actually any math calculations. It seems like thats pretty much just a guess. If it is not please explain.

Pretty please do me a favour, which includes all of your fellow cretin: Don't try call atheists out on baseless assertions or something to do with proving the negative for rather obvious reasons.

If you're referring to our discussion, I told you, I don't ask you to prove a negative. I'm simply asking you, or any others to prove their own claims about origins. That would impress me so much that I might not even pick on you anymore. :)

Oh herpa derp.... I don't have any BOP so you better prove to me why god doesn't exist... herpa derp.

I'm growing old, gray, and tired...and still I wait.

I should argue with you about your negative claim, anyway. If you make a negative claim and can't back it up, it's not my fault that you have trouble proving it, it's your claim, not mine.

Lol, I never made the negative claim. I never make negative claims because they are moronic. I asked you for evidence on God and all you did was avoid the BOP and attempt to tell me that I can't prove that god doesn't exist- thereby asking me to prove a negative.

Besides, you're presupposing the negative anyway so maybe that's why you can't find a wa y to prove it.

Which is....?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 6:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 5:49:48 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 4:47:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Pretty please do me a favour, which includes all of your fellow cretin: Don't try call atheists out on baseless assertions or something to do with proving the negative for rather obvious reasons.

I'm not trying to call anyone out. I'm just trying to find answers. Do you have any for me on this issue? Plus you can prove a negative haha

You can prove a negative but that requires that you presuppose the positive to be true, which is just a tricky way of avoiding the BOP.

Sneaksy filthy hobbites; always try to take my precious while only giving me the BOP. GOLLUM GOLLUM.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 6:10:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Now, first off, let me clarify. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!

I'm simply asking the scientific minds of the religion forum if there is validity to this man's claim.

This guy is utterly retarded. He thinks that you can destroy an organism with differentiated cells and expect, in the correct chemical conditions, for the organism to COME BACK TO LIFE.

No one, and I mean NO ONE who has a stake in abiogenesis believes that we should expect such a thing to happen.

We've already seen in a lab that molecules can self-assemble to form bodies with a metabolism.

It's worth watching the clip. You'll notice that every time they repeat the experiment, the resulting "bodies" will interact differently with each other and around sources of food. That is, VARIATION.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 6:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:59:45 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

I don't know if it's already been answered, but Drake's equation is a good citation for this. Around 10 planets in each solar system should have developed the ability to traverse space. The Drake Problem (why we haven't encountered them) is an interesting one, though.

http://xkcd.com...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 6:21:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 6:01:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

You can prove a negative but that requires that you presuppose the positive to be true, which is just a tricky way of avoiding the BOP.


I can prove to you that there are no married bachelors through the law of non contradiction without assuming the positive to be true right?

Sneaksy filthy hobbites; always try to take my precious while only giving me the BOP. GOLLUM GOLLUM.

Still have not provided me with any reason to believe your assertions. I will willingly and even gladly listen to any evidences and reasons you have. Just please post them so I can read them.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 5:26:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 5:59:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/10/2012 5:43:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/10/2012 4:47:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/10/2012 10:17:06 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 10:08:21 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:08:27 AM, imabench wrote:
He makes a decent point but just because its very unlikely it doesnt mean that when it does happen God must have done it..... Life generating on its own on any planet happens probably less than .000000000000000001% of the time, but given the vastness of the Universe and how many places life could have taken form, life is bound to form in three or four places.

Extremely unlikely x vastness of the Universe = good enough for life to pop up somewhere.

Could you justify that statement if you have the time?

The possibility of abiogenesis is infinitesimal. However, given that there exists trillions of galaxies in the Universe, millions/billions/trillions of stars in those galaxies, and atmospheric planets orbiting those stars at reasonable distances for temperatures to support carbon-based or silicon-based life, it is reasonable to conclude that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.

tl;dr--The chance of abiogenesis is small, but the Universe is MASSIVE, so there is a chance that life exists on anywhere between 1-1,000,000,000 planets or maybe even space crafts :)

But isn't that all pretty baseless assertions? I mean thats not actually any math calculations. It seems like thats pretty much just a guess. If it is not please explain.

Pretty please do me a favour, which includes all of your fellow cretin: Don't try call atheists out on baseless assertions or something to do with proving the negative for rather obvious reasons.

If you're referring to our discussion, I told you, I don't ask you to prove a negative. I'm simply asking you, or any others to prove their own claims about origins. That would impress me so much that I might not even pick on you anymore. :)

Oh herpa derp.... I don't have any BOP so you better prove to me why god doesn't exist... herpa derp.

I'm growing old, gray, and tired...and still I wait.

I should argue with you about your negative claim, anyway. If you make a negative claim and can't back it up, it's not my fault that you have trouble proving it, it's your claim, not mine.

Lol, I never made the negative claim. I never make negative claims because they are moronic. I asked you for evidence on God and all you did was avoid the BOP and attempt to tell me that I can't prove that god doesn't exist- thereby asking me to prove a negative.

I presented you with evidence, and you dismiss it out of hand, that's a negative claim.

Besides, you're presupposing the negative anyway so maybe that's why you can't find a wa y to prove it.

Which is....?

That God or any evidence presented for His existence is, to you, automatically a negative.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 6:30:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Now, first off, let me clarify. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!

I'm simply asking the scientific minds of the religion forum if there is validity to this man's claim.


I think it's labeled wrong because it has nothing to say about atheism. It speaks to evolution, which is not an atheist idea by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a believer in both God and evolution, in fact, I believe that evolution and faith are complimentary, supporting concepts. If you are interested, I'll tell you why evolution stands in support of the basic tenets of Christianity, just ask.

And no, I don't think it proves anything regarding evolution, it's a weak argument based on faulty beliefs about evolution, and to consider it an argument refuting atheism is to accept another faulty idea, which is the inane God of the gaps argument.

I don't think it proves anything.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 11:48:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:30:26 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Now, first off, let me clarify. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!

I'm simply asking the scientific minds of the religion forum if there is validity to this man's claim.


I think it's labeled wrong because it has nothing to say about atheism. It speaks to evolution, which is not an atheist idea by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a believer in both God and evolution, in fact, I believe that evolution and faith are complimentary, supporting concepts. If you are interested, I'll tell you why evolution stands in support of the basic tenets of Christianity, just ask.

And no, I don't think it proves anything regarding evolution, it's a weak argument based on faulty beliefs about evolution, and to consider it an argument refuting atheism is to accept another faulty idea, which is the inane God of the gaps argument.

I don't think it proves anything.

Although I was hopeful that it was as touted, I'd agree with you that even if true, it speaks to evolution, not necessarily atheists in general.

I'm interested in how evolution supports Christianity, could you elaborate?? I've come to a point where I believe that as well, but am pressed to defend it Biblically. Thanks.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:00:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 11:48:04 AM, medic0506 wrote:

I'm interested in how evolution supports Christianity, could you elaborate?? I've come to a point where I believe that as well, but am pressed to defend it Biblically. Thanks.

I'll state my case here as to why it's important and then start a new thread in the Religion forum with a detailed analysis of how I see it.

I can"t accept a conflict between religious truth and scientific truth because to do so I would have to believe in a self-contradicting God; and that is something I simply cannot accept. But many contend that Christianity and science do in fact seem to be in conflict, and I think we have to recognize that they only "appear" to be in conflict; the "apparent" conflict is merely an illusion.

To do so we need only to look from the point of view of the essential vision of the world they offer, and in so doing see that Christianity and evolution coincide fundamentally. In so doing, both views acquire an added coherence and clarity. But as they say, "the devil is in the details". Can we "cast out the devil" and reconcile the two? I believe we can (Luke 11:9).

I think it is merely a matter of recognizing and embracing one of the most ancient and basic postulates of the Christian faith: that there are two kinds of truth. There are timeless, enduring, absolute truths (Divine Truth) and there is fleeting, impermanent, ephemeral truth (human truth). (2 Corinthians 4:18)

I also think it can be found in the book of Genesis that the act of confusing transient, relative human truth with ultimate, absolute truth is in effect, the act of engaging in that most deadly form of idolatry, to think that we are Gods.

Christianity has always been articulated in light of the best science of the day, and it was referred to as a "ministry of reconciliation". I consequently believe that it is our duty as Christians to effect a synthesis that resolves the apparent conflict as well as to help our fellow man to learn to know and recognize the difference between the two kinds of truth. (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)

Christianity is at the center of much conflict today, and many Christians perpetuate it. Perhaps if we can help people learn to understand the difference between the two types of truth it will be a cleansing moment of clarity for mankind. With an appropriate perspective the conflicting influences that tear our world apart might just disappear. (Colossians 3:10-11) Maybe confusion will fade away and mankind will become imbued with an extraordinary spirit again. Then we will be progressing toward that which is our destiny and once again, be on our way to the "Promised Land".

Not only do religious and scientific knowledge result from different methods; they entail completely different ways of knowing.

The conflict between science and religion rests in part on a basic confusion of knowledge and of the methods of knowing. When we don"t recognize that, it plays out fundamentally as a clash of worldviews and results in conflict. I said before that this "apparent" clash is only an illusion and if we can understand and then transcend this perspective problem we can reconcile these two fundamental aspects of our nature and be whole (James 1:8).

We are told that the kingdom of God is within us and that within that house are many mansions (John 14:2). To become whole we must find a way to integrate the distinct aspects of human nature and find the harmony between the skeptical, scientific mind, which operates on doubt, and the spiritual, religious mind, which operates on faith. The Bible tells us we are of both realms and that our spiritual development progresses sequentially, in that order, it tells us that we are "evolving" from matter to spirit (1 Corinthians 15:44-49)

The very division of knowledge into the two distinct disciplines of science and religion implies that they are both incomplete and if we can"t reconcile our science and our religion then they are both equally false. Our current knowledge is partial and we are progressing towards truth, there is work to be done. (1 Corinthians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 13:9-10)

Pythagoras invented science, he based it on the study of the harmony in nature (the perfection of God"s creation), and in his system nature was considered to be an expression of both spirit and matter. The Pythagorean School sought to unite religion and science, music and mathematics, and mind, body and soul in a grand illuminating synthesis. I like that. It feels right to me and somehow I know in my heart that is the true goal and spirit of science. But if that is true, it is clear that somewhere along the way the spirit of science has been lost.

I think we need to get that spirit back, I know I need to get that spirit back.
Within us resides the ability to unite the various fields of knowledge so that we may embody the perfect harmony of the universe in both body and soul. In accordance with my own personal understanding of the Christian revelation, I believe that is the task at hand.

With this understanding, I will contend that there is another way of looking at the theory of Evolution.

First, let"s recognize that the "mechanism" Darwin proposed is a tautology at best. "Survival of the fittest" really says that in hindsight, the survivors survived. Evolution"s overarching image is one of a dynamic process where "things came after their own kind" in a natural progression of increasing complexity with a corresponding increase in awareness, consciousness, and self consciousness, culminating with Man at the top of the evolutionary chain of being, essentially the same image provided by Genesis 1 6round 3,500 years ago. Much more on this later, right now, let"s examine Darwin's real accomplishment.

At a point in time when science was at its peak of materialistic and deterministic hubris, Darwin applied the scientific method to life, and this is what he found.

1) That life was contingent. Contingent upon the rest of creation, its growth and development was a mysterious interplay between nature and nurture, between the individual and the environment, between the part and the whole. He proclaimed all of life to be a unity and stated that in time and space we are all interconnected to each other and to everything.

2) That life was probabilistic, and consequently, it was not deterministic. Darwinian evolution has no predictive quality; it"s half a scientific theory, that"s why it was referred to as natural history rather than science by Darwin. His theory stated that life is open ended, with infinite possibility, and its history shows endless variety.

3) That all of life is one life. He demonstrated that all life is interconnected; all life is related to each other and to the rest of the world. In time, he demonstrated that all life had descended (ascended would have been a better word) from one initial instance of life, in effect, telling us that all life is one life.

Darwin, by applying the scientific method, rigorously and in a comprehensive way, to life, determined that life was contingent, probabilistic, and it constitutes a unity. He put science to Genesis, in no way contradicting it in word or in spirit. He correlated the facts of science to the overriding image provided by Genesis.

This was at the peak of Science's deterministic and materialistic arrogance, and in one fell swoop he turned science around, he changed the direction of Science's journey so to speak. Somewhere along the line, the prodigal son of Science had diverged and now, with centuries of new knowledge and experiences under its belt, it had turned back around and begun a journey down a path that would someday intersect and converge with the original path.

(Continued...)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:01:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
(...Continued)

There is clearly something more going on here than meets the analytical eye of science, and perhaps the something more can be found through the synthetic eye of faith. Evolution demands a shift in thinking regarding the general scientific categories we use to conceptualize all existence. The evolutionary view of nature is one of a universe in transformation, a dynamic process of becoming. We are all part of an interdependent web of existence woven together by a creative process.

We are continuous with historical humans and their societies, including their religion. We are continuous with other forms of life. We are continuous with the energy that was present at the origin of the universe. This energy has undergone countless transformations from pure energy to elemental forms of matter, to stars, planets, life, and in the end, self conscious human beings.

Rather than look away from evolution or critique it, we should look it squarely in the eye to apprehend the coherent behavior it exhibits and recognize the underlying principles over the large-scale dimensions that are demanded by the study of evolution. It becomes clear that evolution does not present us with a random process, it has steadily progressed towards greater complexity and higher consciousness, there is clearly a direction inherent in evolution, which has culminated in Man, a self conscious, rational, and morally responsible animal. We are continuous with all of life, but our emergence was not a change of degree, it was a change of kind, a phase change in scientific terms, we are indeed different.

Evolution does not secularize the world, it progressively divinizes it, and it does not reduce Man to just another animal, it places Him at the front of the wave, "the spearhead of evolution" to use Teilhard"s words.

If we choose to see it this way, then we can all see that we as individuals are only a component part of a greater life and our participation in that greater, eternal life, is what matters most. With a deep conviction in the fundamental solidarity of life maybe we can see that the distinctions we make in our minds may be useful but they are only artificial distinctions that we make, only an illusion. Only then can we understand that life is not a "conflict" between opposites. We can begin to think of other things and other people differently. We can begin to see that cooperation is what is natural and that competition is what doesn"t make sense, and we can see that religious one-upmanship is a betrayal of spirit. If we can come to think that everything plays an essential part in a greater whole then maybe we can start seeing value in the differences between people rather than meet it with fear or resentment. Maybe we can stop confusing unity with sameness, and find the divine unity in diversity by loving one another as we love ourselves. Maybe we can begin to realize that if we could just think differently, we could stop killing each other and live in harmony. If we eat from the fruit of the tree of life we will be back on our way to the "Promised Land" so to speak.

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 12:43:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The error in the video is that life requires an arrangement of molecule rather than just the components. So what he says is true as far as it goes, but his assumption that molecules cannot be arranged to self-replicate is not valid science. Replicating molecule need a source of energy as well, so nothing is going to survive in a sterile environment.

One theory of how molecular pieces were arranged to self-replicate in abiogenesis is that the surface of chemically active mineral served to line up the pieces. Minerals are naturally ordered as crystals. Pieces of organic molecules would stick to the surface in an ordered way, forming larger structures that replicate. that isn't life, but once replicating structure exist, they my evolve into live. Viruses are borderline cases between living and non-living matter they exist as crystals, but can replicate.

There are now some good books on modern theories of abiogenesis. On earth, it happened quite fast on the geological time scale.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 1:08:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 12:43:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The error in the video is that life requires an arrangement of molecule rather than just the components. So what he says is true as far as it goes, but his assumption that molecules cannot be arranged to self-replicate is not valid science. Replicating molecule need a source of energy as well, so nothing is going to survive in a sterile environment.

One theory of how molecular pieces were arranged to self-replicate in abiogenesis is that the surface of chemically active mineral served to line up the pieces. Minerals are naturally ordered as crystals. Pieces of organic molecules would stick to the surface in an ordered way, forming larger structures that replicate. that isn't life, but once replicating structure exist, they my evolve into live. Viruses are borderline cases between living and non-living matter they exist as crystals, but can replicate.

There are now some good books on modern theories of abiogenesis. On earth, it happened quite fast on the geological time scale.

So what kind of environment can allow that precise ordering of crystals, and how can we know for sure that that is the exact environment that existed at the time that life began??
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 1:41:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:01:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot

Reminded me of this from the Gospel of Thomas:(18) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 5:37:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 1:08:04 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 12:43:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The error in the video is that life requires an arrangement of molecule rather than just the components. So what he says is true as far as it goes, but his assumption that molecules cannot be arranged to self-replicate is not valid science. Replicating molecule need a source of energy as well, so nothing is going to survive in a sterile environment.

One theory of how molecular pieces were arranged to self-replicate in abiogenesis is that the surface of chemically active mineral served to line up the pieces. Minerals are naturally ordered as crystals. Pieces of organic molecules would stick to the surface in an ordered way, forming larger structures that replicate. that isn't life, but once replicating structure exist, they my evolve into live. Viruses are borderline cases between living and non-living matter they exist as crystals, but can replicate.

There are now some good books on modern theories of abiogenesis. On earth, it happened quite fast on the geological time scale.

So what kind of environment can allow that precise ordering of crystals, and how can we know for sure that that is the exact environment that existed at the time that life began??

The natural ordering of crystals occurs everywhere that solids exist and happens all the time. It is inherent in polar molecules. So getting crystals is no problem at all.

The video seems to acknowledge that getting the molecular fragments needed for life is at least plausible. The most basic building blocks float around in space as products of natural processes.

The question is then whether a chemically active mineral surface is enough to align the building blocks into a self-replicating molecule. The theory is that it happened, but it is not proved. It is only a scientific hypothesis.

Another theory is that replicating molecules formed naturally in a sequence of steps somewhat akin to crystal formation. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

The time period when life started on earth was about 3.8 billion years ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk... The earth had cooled down and volcanic activity settled enough by that time to enable the chemistry to proceed. The process seems to have happened in only 200 or 300 million years after the conditions allowed it.

Abiogenesis as a serious branch of science has been active for less than twenty years. It's exciting because there are many contending theories and only a few well-established facts. Popular books on the subject are quite recent. Nobody claims it is a done deal, but there are a number of plausible theories.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 11:26:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:27:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Now, first off, let me clarify. I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!

I'm simply asking the scientific minds of the religion forum if there is validity to this man's claim.



Assumption: If life could arise naturally we should be able to re-assemble it from existing parts.

While this may sound like a plausible argument on the face of it, the problem with it is that in order for this argument to carry any weight it must be true that at present time humans must be able to replicate every natural process. This simply isn't the case. There are many things possible for nature but currently impossible for humans. So how should human limitations prove nature's limitations?

You can't simply re-assemble life. It's easier to create new life than to reassemble a dead organism.