What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[Procrustes Stretched]

maybe suggestion and perception are substitutes for evidence for the religious like gary?

 

[Anguille]

the scientific evidence is quiteconclusive. the universe is quite old.

the truth is that Copperfield does magic . some people have a belief (same with religion, so you admit) that Copperfield makes things disappear.


one thing is reality. the other is a magical belief

belief requires no evidence, conclusive or not

well said.

 

[Anguille]

Okay .. THIS is funny! Evolution IS the sum of many possibilities ... so you haven't done your homework in this very well. Also it doesn't even ignore the possibility of any intelligent beings taking a hand in it, so again you missed a lot of homework. Darwin may not have wanted the whole 'god dunnit' argument included for a few reasons, most likely of those because when he proposed the theory he wanted people to look at it without a predetermined mindset so the real answer could be found instead of the simple and escapistic (not a real word I know) answer being applied and then the whole thing forgotten. Evolution does exist, it is the method in which all species have developed the abilities to survive, we see it everyday on a smaller scale with viruses and bacteria, and even the cockroach has shown two evolutionary steps in MY lifetime. Outright denying it is just trying to escape the pursuit of knowledge, and really, what else do we have to do in this modern life except lay down and die?

also well said.

 

[Truthmatters]

You VASTLY underestimate the BILLIONS of cosmic variables scientists agree ALL had to be exactly correct for life to exist on this planet.

Stephen Hawking calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

If the precise amount of matter were not produced at the moment of origin, the universe would never have formed at all. If the universe expanded at any other speed, life would not be possible. If our planet were not tilted exactly the way it is (at an angle of 23.5 degrees on its axis of rotation) -life would not be possible. If Earth were any closer to the sun or any further away from the sun -life would not be possible. If the size, composition, location, orbit, distance of the earth, sun and moon were any different -life would not be possible. They are all exactly where they must be in order for life to exist. If the surface temperature of the sun was slightly higher or lower -life would not be possible. If the earth rotated on its axis at any other speed, life would not be possible. If the cosmological constant (the energy density of empty space) were any different whatsoever -life would not be possible. If the thickness of the earth's crust were any different -life would not be possible. If our planet did not have an abundant supply of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus and calcium - life would not be possible. No other planet anywhere has been found to have all these crucial elements necessary to sustain life. If our planet were not covered with 4/5 water which gives us evaporation, rain and plays a crucial role in regulating temperatures -life would not be possible. If water did not have such a high boiling point AND if its solid form (ice) were not less dense than its liquid form (which isn't true of nearly all other chemical compounds) -life would not be possible.

And these are just a FEW of what scientists admit are BILLIONS of totally independent cosmic factors that must be exactly right in order for life to exist. Imagine BILLIONS of dials with an INFINITE range on each of them, one for each of the billions of cosmic variables involved here -and go ahead and try and convince yourself that just randomly spinning each of them is EVER going to result in each and every one of them falling exactly to the exquisitely precise point necessary on every single one of them in order for life to even exist. The odds that Mount Rushmore resulted from the random action of wind and rain on the rock are actually billions of times higher than that. And we know for a fact Mount Rushmore did not result as a random act but was man's deliberate creation.

Roger Penrose calculated that the mathematical probability of our universe “just popping out of nowhere” with the mind-boggling degree of fine-tuning that enables us to exist in our universe to be 10 to the 10123. This number is so vast that it can’t be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe.

Stephen Hawking wrote, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us.”

“The entire universe does indeed ‘cater’ to the needs of humanity after all, insofar as it is permeated with the very same structural specifications that are necessary for human existence…These cosmic ‘coincidences’ between distant branches of physics are so compelling, in fact, that many scientists are actually coming forward and admitting that ‘something must be going on behind the scenes.’ … Physicist Freeman Dyson also said ‘As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.’”

In fact, earth is even uniquely situated within our galaxy and our galaxy within the universe as to give man the best possible view of the universe -one that doesn't exist on any other planet in our galaxy or for any planet within any other known galaxy. Cosmic clouds and haze, dust, asteroid rings, nearby galaxies etc. limit the view anywhere else. Couldn't ask for a better spot from which to study the universe.

Scientists tell us that a single strand of DNA holds enough coded information to fill a 6,000 volume enclopedia. A code is something designed with the specific intent of conveying a specific MEANING that can be deciphered and that same meaning accurately interpreted by a receiver. DNA is a type of code that WE are learning to decode and comprehend as well. BUT in order for it to convey a specific meaning -then it must be sent for the purpose of being deciphered in a specific way in order to determine that meaning. And that means INTENT -as in deliberate and on purpose. In the manmade world, the only time code exists -it came about as the result of intelligent design. OURS. There is no such thing as a "random" unintentional meaningless code that just fell together by itself that just happens to "accidentally" be deciphered and understood by others to have MEANING. Everything from written and verbal language to Morse code to computer code -it must first have meaning to the creator and the INTENT that it be correctly deciphered in order to send that message. If it isn't sent with the intention of having a specific meaning -it cannot ever be decoded. "Intent" and "random chance" are diametric opposites and incompatible.

A very basic scientific fundamental truth is that when there are two examples of a similar phenomenon and you understand the cause of one of them, it is scientifically accurate to accept a similar causation as being responsible for the other. We know how all other examples of code originated -and all were purposely created. We know that an encoder must first intend to send a specific message and then encode it, that a receiver must be capable of deciphering that code in order to understand that specific message. There is INTENT to send a specific message with all other examples of code we know. To think otherwise is like pretending the gibberish a monkey pounds out on a typewriter actually conveys a specific message that is capable of being deciphered. It is still gibberish, has no meaning and is undecipherable -because it was sent with no intent of meaning in the first place. But the exquisitely specific message of DNA was created as an accident of nature, with no intent of meaning, no intent that it be correctly deciphered -but was just accidentally "deciphered" to have meaning anyway? LOL Without the intent of sending a message that has specific meaning -no code exists at all and no decoding can take place. The intent does not come from the receiver -but from the sender of that coded message. The receiver only needs to know how to decipher the code used by the sender in order to decipher the meaning of the message sent. If there is INTENT to convey a specific message and have it deciphered in a specific way in order to decipher the meaning of it -then it cannot also be random and meaningless!

To pretend that since our own intelligence did not create this code because it is beyond our capability to do so, and even though we can create far less complicated codes - that it somehow suggests that no intelligence at all was involved when it comes to a far more complicated code -is just sheer arrogance. In order to decode it, it must first have meaning to the encoder before it can have meaning to the receiver. The DNA itself is just the message, not the encoder. Common sense alone tells you it is actually far more likely to have been created by an intelligence that is also far, far more complicated and capable than our own.

Who created the creating "intelligence"?

 

[Diuretic]

That sir is silly. Facts require and interprtation. It is an unquestioned and unchallengeable fact that the universe appears to be quite old. Does that of necessity mean that it is quite old? No, unless of course you believe that David Copperfield really did make the Empire state building vanish...

Some things are, well, just a priori and some are a posteriori

That's all I know.

 

[PeterS]

Man was not literally created in the form of God. Just as Jesus was not actually born from some union between God and someone else. Pretty simple concepts.

Really? So when the bible says "Man is created in gods image" that's not what it means, correct? That's simple? Explain how god telling a lie about the form Man is created in is simple? To me that seems pretty complicated because now I have to wonder why god is a liar and if I am not created in his image then whose image am I created in...natures?

Lies and fallacies only simplify when one lack faith to see truth. For intelligent design to be true then the designer needs a creator independent of life. But note, no where is it predicated that the creator creates the designer with intent but only that the designer creates us with intent. So god can very well be the product of natural processes. And of course if god can be a product of nature then certainly so can we. In other words, we do not need god for our existence to be possible.

Science teaches us that life is the result of natural processes. Yes intelligent design is possible-we do it all the time-but that does not make us god or that life is anything more than the product nature. That is simple and understandable not god telling us a passel of lies...

 

[garyd]

What is meant by created in God's image is that man was created a sentient reasoning being. If it meant physical image which one would it be? God being spirit has no true physicla form. That is to say he can appear to man as anything he wishes to appear as.

God didn't lie you just misinterpreted the statement.

 

[PeterS]

What is meant by created in God's image is that man was created a sentient reasoning being. If it meant physical image which one would it be? God being spirit has no true physicla form. That is to say he can appear to man as anything he wishes to appear as.

God didn't lie you just misinterpreted the statement.

The debate isn't whether god is a shape shifter but whether or not Man is created in his image. And what those who believe in intelligent design should understand is that if god is any part of natural life--whether a donkey, or Man, or the organics that creates both--by the ID argument, he needs a creator to exist. The argument of intelligent design is a fallacy. In this case a circular argument. As for misinterpretation that is the whole purpose of every fallacy--to affirm a predisposed belief not confirm an unknown truth. Well, at least ID is successful in that area...

 

[Care4all]

it is not a physical image that we are created in, it is the spiritual image...

God is not a man or woman....unless He manifests himself in to such, like with Jesus!

(And yes, I know this all sounds illogical! That's why they have something called Faith, with sight unseen!! lol)

 

[PeterS]

it is not a physical image that we are created in, it is the spiritual image...

God is not a man or woman....unless He manifests himself in to such, like with Jesus!

(And yes, I know this all sounds illogical! That's why they have something called Faith, with sight unseen!! lol)

Well if we are created in gods spiritual image that opens a whole new can of worms...but that is a debate for another time. You are right on the last part though...it is a matter of faith, or should be. So why the fallacy of ID? All belief in the supernatural is irrationalism because there exists no rational proof of supernatural power. This is the basis of all irrational belief...that they cannot be rationally proved.

What has always bothered me about those who purport ID as a rebuttal of evolution isn't that ID is a fallacy but the fact that those who create fallacies instead of logical arguments do so because they lack the faith to believe what it is they believe. If one believes in the irrational then embrace it but stop attacking science because you lack the courage to standby, on faith, your beliefs...

 

[Care4all]

Well if we are created in gods spiritual image that opens a whole new can of worms...but that is a debate for another time. You are right on the last part though...it is a matter of faith, or should be. So why the fallacy of ID? All belief in the supernatural is irrationalism because there exists no rational proof of supernatural power. This is the basis of all irrational belief...that they cannot be rationally proved.

What has always bothered me about those who purport ID as a rebuttal of evolution isn't that ID is a fallacy but the fact that those who create fallacies instead of logical arguments do so because they lack the faith to believe what it is they believe. If one believes in the irrational then embrace it but stop attacking science because you lack the courage to standby, on faith, your beliefs...

I have NO IDEA why a Christian would put up ID against science.....to me, they are one and the same, yet totally separate....Christians should have learned their lessons on that over the Centuries! Science and Faith can't be mixed....they are not apples vs apples but apples vs oranges or bananas more like it!

The Bible was not and never claimed to be, a Science book....why people tried to make it such over the centuries is the arrogance and pride of people themselves.

I embrace science and so do all of my Christian friends and family and see no conflict what so ever, with my faith or the Bible and Science/knowledge?

I don't expect science to prove there is NO GOD, any time soon though!

Care

 

[Diuretic]

It seems to be those of a more fundamentalist or literalist bent who try to reject the theory of evolution as being incompatible with their religous beliefs. The Catholic Church accepted it during Vatican II under Blessed John XXIIII.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The debate isn't whether god is a shape shifter but whether or not Man is created in his image. And what those who believe in intelligent design should understand is that if god is any part of natural life--whether a donkey, or Man, or the organics that creates both--by the ID argument, he needs a creator to exist. The argument of intelligent design is a fallacy. In this case a circular argument. As for misinterpretation that is the whole purpose of every fallacy--to affirm a predisposed belief not confirm an unknown truth. Well, at least ID is successful in that area...

You're not getting it -- God is, was and always will be. He has no beginning, no end. He is infinite. He has no creator because He is the Creator. Yes it is logically irrational, which is where faith comes in. There is no 'proof' that God exists, just as there is no 'proof' that He doesn't.

 

[Diuretic]

You're not getting it -- God is, was and always will be. He has no beginning, no end. He is infinite. He has no creator because He is the Creator. Yes it is logically irrational, which is where faith comes in. There is no 'proof' that God exists, just as there is no 'proof' that He doesn't.

If there's no proof of God either way then it might be best for God to be the topic of metaphysical discussions and not to be introduced into non-metaphysical discussions.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If there's no proof of God either way then it might be best for God to be the topic of metaphysical discussions and not to be introduced into non-metaphysical discussions.

Whatever dude.

 

[Diuretic]

Cheers dude

 

[Missourian]

The debate isn't whether god is a shape shifter but whether or not Man is created in his image. And what those who believe in intelligent design should understand is that if god is any part of natural life--whether a donkey, or Man, or the organics that creates both--by the ID argument, he needs a creator to exist. The argument of intelligent design is a fallacy. In this case a circular argument. As for misinterpretation that is the whole purpose of every fallacy--to affirm a predisposed belief not confirm an unknown truth. Well, at least ID is successful in that area...

I don't believe evolution for the same reason...it's circular argument.


For example the giraffe's neck is so long that it has a series of one way valves that blocks blood from flowing up the neck when it stoops to get a drink of water.

If it didn't have those valves, it would pass out every time it stooped down.

So how would a giraffe go about evolving those valves.

Surely it didn't need them before it's neck got so long.

If it's neck was so long that it needed them, it was too late.

So how many giraffes drown from passing out in the lake while drinking before a mutation enabled those valves?

The Giraffe

 

[Diuretic]

I don't believe evolution for the same reason...it's circular argument.


For example the giraffe's neck is so long that it has a series of one way valves that blocks blood from flowing up the neck when it stoops to get a drink of water.

If it didn't have those valves, it would pass out every time it stooped down.

So how would a giraffe go about evolving those valves.

Surely it didn't need them before it's neck got so long.

If it's neck was so long that it needed them, it was too late.

So how many giraffes drown from passing out in the lake while drinking before a mutation enabled those valves?

The Giraffe

That's not my understanding of the evolution of the giraffe. The key word is adaptation if you look at a single species (stand by, I am about to reveal my ignorance of science in the hope that someone can help me out). Adaptation isn't always successful, I mean there are probably lots of species that used to be on the Earth that aren't here now because they couldn't adapt to changing environmental conditions. If you can't adapt as a species then you cease to be a species.

Anyway a short Google (given my ignorance I have to rely on it) and I found this interesting article

The Nature Institute - The Giraffe's Short Neck

You'll see lots of explanations about why/how giraffe's have such long necks, explanations that are overturned as we find out more things about them.

If a comic book site using a single example (said example reverberating through similar sites all over the internet, basically repeating and not questioning and examining the issues, persuades you that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory then that's fine, you have every right to believe what you wish. It doesn't affect the fact that the theory of evolution is mainstream science.

In terms of logic, the theory of evolution isn't a circular argument. A circular argument is this:

"God exists, God said so."

The theory of evolution seeks to explain observed natural phenomena and it does so using proper scientific approaches. Unlike a belief system it's being tested all the time and so far it's held fast. As soon as it's found to be without scientific validity it will be overturned, or more likely amended (apparently the Kuhnian notion of a complete overturning of a scientific theory in the well-known paradigm shift isn't totally complete, there is always something left, such as when Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's views, we still today refer to Newton's laws).

But what of the Catholic Church? That's a pretty big Christian denomination with some influence, what are their views on evolution?

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Pius XII Humani Generis 1950.

And from Pope John Paul II

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

That could change of course. The Catholic Church is as susceptible as any other organisation to shifts in ideology.

But at least the Vatican has - so far - seen no clash between the theory of evolution and its theology. It seems though that fundamentalists regard the theory of evolution as a serious affront to their understanding of Christianty, relying as they do on literal interpretations of the revealed text that is the Bible. Not for them the strenuous work of hermeneutics, it's easier to read the Bible as a DIY manual, not to be interpreted, not to be thought about, not to be discussed, only to be followed, down to the last letter.

But as I said, everyone is free to believe what they will. Science ignores belief and focuses on observation and tentative explanation and achieves progress. I'm afraid though that attempts such as ridiculing the scientific theory of evolution by a quasi-scientific (even "quasi" might be giving it too much credit) examination of the physiology of the modern giraffe won't dent the theory of evolution in the eyes of science or in the eyes of those who are not religious fundamentalists.

Ironically enough the greatest threat to the theory of evolution comes from science itself and its practitioners. But if and when it is amended then it won't be out of malice or fear, it will be out of scientific inquiry which is, relatively speaking, without ideology - political or religious.

 

[Missourian]

That's not my understanding of the evolution of the giraffe. The key word is adaptation if you look at a single species (stand by, I am about to reveal my ignorance of science in the hope that someone can help me out). Adaptation isn't always successful, I mean there are probably lots of species that used to be on the Earth that aren't here now because they couldn't adapt to changing environmental conditions. If you can't adapt as a species then you cease to be a species.

Anyway a short Google (given my ignorance I have to rely on it) and I found this interesting article

The Nature Institute - The Giraffe's Short Neck

You'll see lots of explanations about why/how giraffe's have such long necks, explanations that are overturned as we find out more things about them.

If a comic book site using a single example (said example reverberating through similar sites all over the internet, basically repeating and not questioning and examining the issues, persuades you that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory then that's fine, you have every right to believe what you wish. It doesn't affect the fact that the theory of evolution is mainstream science.

In terms of logic, the theory of evolution isn't a circular argument. A circular argument is this:

"God exists, God said so."

The theory of evolution seeks to explain observed natural phenomena and it does so using proper scientific approaches. Unlike a belief system it's being tested all the time and so far it's held fast. As soon as it's found to be without scientific validity it will be overturned, or more likely amended (apparently the Kuhnian notion of a complete overturning of a scientific theory in the well-known paradigm shift isn't totally complete, there is always something left, such as when Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's views, we still today refer to Newton's laws).

But what of the Catholic Church? That's a pretty big Christian denomination with some influence, what are their views on evolution?



Pius XII Humani Generis 1950.

And from Pope John Paul II



That could change of course. The Catholic Church is as susceptible as any other organisation to shifts in ideology.

But at least the Vatican has - so far - seen no clash between the theory of evolution and its theology. It seems though that fundamentalists regard the theory of evolution as a serious affront to their understanding of Christianty, relying as they do on literal interpretations of the revealed text that is the Bible. Not for them the strenuous work of hermeneutics, it's easier to read the Bible as a DIY manual, not to be interpreted, not to be thought about, not to be discussed, only to be followed, down to the last letter.

But as I said, everyone is free to believe what they will. Science ignores belief and focuses on observation and tentative explanation and achieves progress. I'm afraid though that attempts such as ridiculing the scientific theory of evolution by a quasi-scientific (even "quasi" might be giving it too much credit) examination of the physiology of the modern giraffe won't dent the theory of evolution in the eyes of science or in the eyes of those who are not religious fundamentalists.

Ironically enough the greatest threat to the theory of evolution comes from science itself and its practitioners. But if and when it is amended then it won't be out of malice or fear, it will be out of scientific inquiry which is, relatively speaking, without ideology - political or religious.

I read your link, it revealed no answer to my simple question.

It is not just the giraffe Di (and don't think I got the idea from the website, it was just the first one that popped up).

Evolution and Darwinism seems great on the surface when you only consider the animal kingdom, sure most animals share some similar features. But when you consider the plant kingdom, evolution takes a turn for the worse.

(Now keep in mind that scientifically we are in the same boat so it is quite possible that I am making a mistake in my thinking)

Are we to believe that plant life and animal life began at the same time?

If so that seems strange that a simpler and much more complex life form would evolve at the exact same time.

So I believe that plant life supposedly evolved first and animal life later.

And random events transpired that allowed oxygen breathing/carbon dioxide expelling animal life to evolve at a time when the dominant form of life on earth just happened to need carbon dioxide to survive? A little daunting, those odds.

And something being "mainstream" doesn't make it correct.


The circular argument in the evolution of the giraffe is:

Why would the giraffe "evolve" a system of blood vessel valves if it didn't have a long neck yet and therefore didn't need it? How could it "evolve" a long neck without the system of valves?

 

[Diuretic]

I read your link, it revealed no answer to my simple question.

It is not just the giraffe Di (and don't think I got the idea from the website, it was just the first one that popped up).

Evolution and Darwinism seems great on the surface when you only consider the animal kingdom, sure most animals share some similar features. But when you consider the plant kingdom, evolution takes a turn for the worse.

(Now keep in mind that scientifically we are in the same boat so it is quite possible that I am making a mistake in my thinking)

Are we to believe that plant life and animal life began at the same time?

If so that seems strange that a simpler and much more complex life form would evolve at the exact same time.

So I believe that plant life supposedly evolved first and animal life later.

And random events transpired that allowed oxygen breathing/carbon dioxide expelling animal life to evolve at a time when the dominant form of life on earth just happened to need carbon dioxide to survive? A little daunting, those odds.

And something being "mainstream" doesn't make it correct.


The circular argument in the evolution of the giraffe is:

Why would the giraffe "evolve" a system of blood vessel valves if it didn't have a long neck yet and therefore didn't need it? How could it "evolve" a long neck without the system of valves?

M. as I indicated, I'm not that smart to be able to answer your questions with any authority. I'm reaching here but I do seem to remember that – heck this goes back to high school which is a fair while ago, trust me – life may have evolved in different places (this is going to sound really dumb) before and after our planet got water. I think until we got water there wasn't much going on but there may have been very primitive life that didn't require oxygen to live.. I have absolutely no idea what the atmosphere of our planet was like when it first cooled down (heck it might not have had an atmosphere although I suppose it had some sort of gaseous atmosphere probably totally poisonous to oxygen-breathing mammals which is they weren't around at that time – hah I think I just used a circular argument!).

I don't know if we had plants before any other form of animal. I seem to remember that there may have been some sort of primitive algae on land which I suppose is a plant. I don't know if this was before water or concomitant with it or after it. But apparently when we did get water, as in gigantic oceans of H2O, life developed in it, maybe little monocellular animals perhaps. And if there were gigantic oceans of H20 it must be that that happened that somehow after the initial cooling down of the planet and the gaseous atmosphere that somehow we started to get an atmosphere that was conducive to making H20 type water. Anyway I think that if we had H20 water then we must have had an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Life began in the primal oceans and perhaps it was developing on land as well, but separately.

Someone who knows what they're on about should hop in and help me out here but I also seem to remember that the primal oceans were developing life, perhaps before land-based life. I know there was life in those oceans because I've seen and held fossils from early eras of the Earth's development. Maybe animal life developed from those oceans and found its way to land to develop in various forms. I don't know. Again memory tells me that there was an idea that early fish may have adapted to coastal and estuarine marine conditions and eventually adapted to live on land out of water. I know there were early forms of fish, I've seen an ichthyosaur skeleton in situ in a cave. Those buggers reminded me of modern sharks, only they were apparently worse.

I don't know the answers. I only know what I do know because I've read about them.

Why would the giraffe "evolve" a system of blood vessel valves if it didn't have a long neck yet and therefore didn't need it? How could it "evolve" a long neck without the system of valves?

Maybe the giraffe did it bit by bit?

And I've got a question of my own. Why have I got a coccyx?