Afterlife stuff

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

You can always decide to not click the little link...

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

But... there's not. The universe continues to expand and is accelerating.

Oh, come on, D... your Google Fu is better than that. Simply search for disorder physics or entropy physics and you'll have plenty to read. It's basic Second Law of Thermodynamics stuff.

We've... already discussed that, D. I know God isn't provable; I'm not trying to prove His existence.

And? What's your point? Who created the big bang out of nothing? Or was it just there?

Explaining basic physics to you isn't productive to this discussion. It's like trying to explain the CCNP to someone who doesn't know what a computer is; there's no sense in continuing further.

Breeding isn't anywhere close to spontaneous creation and subsequent evolution. The proof simply isn't there.

- Louis Pasteur (chemist, microbiologist), who attempted to prove spontaneous generation, called it "a chimera".
- Isaac Asimov (biochemist, writer) said, "Pasteur's demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently.
- Lord Kelvin (physicist) said, "This [the commencement of life] certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."
- Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA) said that the evidence points to the origin of life being "almost a miracle".
- Edwin Conklin (biologist, zoologist) said, "The probability of life origination from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
- American Scientist published, "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."
- Hull, a physicist published in Nature, wrote, "The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is fatal to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."

You say you weigh the odds? It's simply not mathematically, chemically, or physically possible. But one thing is fairly certain: either life spontaneously evolved by accident or it was deliberately created. There's not really any room for other possibilities; it either was created or it wasn't created.

Um, no, you're not on to what I believe. I don't know whether the creation story as recounted in the Bible should be taken literally or figuratively. However, either way, it doesn't affect my belief one bit, because my belief doesn't hinge on either of those two things being true.

...and none of that disproves God. For all we know, He caused the Big Bang to happen. I have no idea - I neither believe nor disbelieve that. It really doesn't affect my belief in God either way.

No, there's no evidence... just words and writing. We've already said, time and time again, if proof is what you need, you're not going to find it. I'm not looking for that proof, because I know the proof can't possibly exist. Not because it never happened... but because it's not possible to find anything stronger than documentation. There are no more eyewitnesses alive today, and their written accounts of those miracles aren't good enough for you. Fair enough.

You say that you look at all the possibilities, weigh the odds, then come to a conclusion. So have I, and I have different "data" for my calculation that you don't have. I have seen the incredible complexity that exists in science. I have seen how mathematically improbable it is for life to have spontaneously generated. I have studied how the slight modification of just one single physics constant would change things so much that, at a minimum, life would not be able to exist. THAT is just a small piece of the scientific data I can use to make my logical choice... and that doesn't even count everything outside of science that leads me to believe.

You say my belief isn't logical. I say you have no idea how logical it is... and there's no way for you to know until you take a look for yourself. If you don't want to, that's fine. If you don't want to ever believe in a Creator, that's fine as well. But please, don't scoff at me and tell me that what I believe is illogical without first studying the data I've studied in detail for years.

 

I think it's pretty safe to say that you guys aren't going to convince each other any time soon.

 

No one has stepped out of line just yet, so no locking of the thread.

Yes, people will disagree on things like this, but it always makes interesting reading. Since neither side can either prove or disprove any theories, they can only speculate, it makes interesting an interesting debate.

 

I keep my beliefs to myself and would only discuss them with my closest friends.

What I would say I have observed during my 47 years is that there can be life changing events which cause you to re-evaluate and change your beliefs. That's based on seeing marriage, death, divorce, serious illness etc.

Each to their own.

 

I'm not a biologist or physicist so yes I figure we will both fall down on the details of complex scientific analysis.

However there are people that think the creation of RNA is not improbable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Since again we have evidence of adaptive complex chemical and biological processes it seems easier to believe that they are the answer rather than some mythical superbeing.

You chose the quotes and the results you feel justifies your beleifs and discard the rest, if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

 

Probably not, though I'm not trying to convince him. What I *am* doing is reaching out to hundreds or thousands of people who stumble across this thread who I just *might* convince.

 

There are adaptive chemical and biological processes... but spontaneous, random assembly still isn't probable, DESPITE there being so many different combinations. If it is possible, then why hasn't anyone been able to replicate it, despite being able to create favorable conditions?

Study the incredible complexity that exists in biochemistry for yourself - not just from a wiki article or evolutionist site - and then if it still seems logical to you to believe it "just happened", so be it. But please don't tell me that I don't know enough to make an informed, logical decision.

Eh? Should I quote things that I don't agree with? Come on, D, that's not logical. That'd be like me saying you should be posting quotes supporting creationism or the existence of God.

 

I think the idea of the animals in Noahs Ark was probably just some animals that were near Noah. I mean it would take a girrafe bloody years to walk from Africa and navigate the sea to get to Israel or wherever it was.

 

What do you call this then ?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

I'd be very interested to, unfortunately one person has only so much time. I can't be a computer expert and an expert in many other fields, I have to specialise like you reccomend to cert takers. I don't think you are qualified to judge me, I do not in general spend any time reading evolutionist or religious sites. I do not normally enter into such debates. I am not in general interested in religious or philosophical argument, maybe I have a passing interest in popular philosophy as a tool to help people make sense of everyday life. I used to read a lot of popular science 10 years ago and I watch a lot of documentaries, thats about it. A lot of my rationale is based on this and 'common sense', as such its quite possible I could have grasped the wrong end of the stick, afterall i'm not a professional scientist, I don't have a chemistry degree for instance, my knowledge of biology is really bad. However so far what I believe seems to be holding up pretty well, and I don't need to invent all kinds of funky stuff that sits outside of our knowable universe.

My point is not that you should argue against yourself. My point is you should look at the data with an open mind, approaching the data with a preconcieved notion colours your judgement.

You use miracles as justification for your religion but almost by definition miracles cannot be repeated or tested. You beleive of a 'god in the gaps', that cannot be verified. You make no testable assertions. Since your arguments often hinge on the absense of evidence and you require science to be 100% certain you feel you require only 1% doubt or missing evidence to prove your point.

You say you believe in a creator because there must be an intelligent designer. Even if this claim were true how does this prove that this is the same god you beleive in ?

If you don't look for the answers you won't find them, science seems to be the best way of looking for the answers we have. Making excuses that 'we cannot know the mind of god' etc or its all in the bible does nobody any favours.

If you believe religion is a useful good thing for people or society, what do you think of other religions ? They probably provide a useful mirror for your own religion. If people do things that you think are evil in the name of their religion are they bad ? Afterall they are following their religion devoutly, you can condem them and their religion. They can condem you and your religion. How does this move civilization forward ? Since no religion provides any objective rationale none of them provide any help in resolving such conflict.

 

I couldn't agree more. Rep given

 

LOL, reminds me of a conversation I had with my 9 year old daughter the other week. She asked if Noahs ark was real, how comes the dolphins didn't die when Noah took them out the sea, because they can't live out of water. Had to explain to her that if the Ark was real, Noah probably let the sea animals be, as a flood probably wouldn't hurt them too much (Although I could be wrong - brains don't run in our family)

 

when I was at Sunday school around 7 years old I asked the teacher Why didn't the lions or crocodiles eat the people or other animals? and how big was the ark? not that I got an adequate response.

 

Now the 'Creationism' argument is one that I will NOT sit on the fence of. Religion has no place in the science lab. I am perfectly willing to believe that there may well be some 'higher power' in the universe. However, what I am NOT willing to do, is let people who are, frankly, fruitcakes, attempt some bizarre form of (I can't think of another word that describes their aim, so forgive me) 'legitimisation' of religion by trying to convince people that it is - in any way - related to 'science'.

I just don't understand people who want creationism taught as a 'science'. The whole idea behind religion is that it is supposed to be a question of faith! Attempting to get it taught as a 'science' (or even as a 'scientific theory') is frankly insane. There is absolutely no way to refute scientific proof that:

The Earth is approximately 4.5 BY old,
That the earliest single-celled life appeared in the Paleoarchean/Mesoarchean eras,
That the earliest multi-cellular lifeforms have been dated to around the Stenian era (sorry 'bout that M3lt - Dawkins & Coyne are wrong - there is plenty of evidence to suggest a variety of multicelluar life as far back as 1-1.2 billion years ago - its just that most of it wouldn't have been fossilised due to there not being a skeletal/exoskeletal structure),
That the Cambrian explosion (and indeed, the Ordovician, Devonian, Triassic and Cretaceous extinctions) happened... etc etc etc

There are literally thousands of other examples, but you get the point. Trying to sit all this alongside 'God created the Earth in seven days' is ludicrous.

However - the fact remains, there is NO way that science can explain something that should be as laughably simple as 'consciousness' - let alone what led to 'the big bang'. This is where the possibility that something other than that which we hold to be able to prove as 'scientific' is responsible. It just needs to be kept out of the Science classroom, and in the Religious Education one.

 

Totally agree with your view of not allowing creationism into the science classroom zeb.

Why should 'consciousness' be simple ? Do things that appear simple but are actually complex require supernatural phenomenon ? People from 200 years ago would marvel at todays technology.

One day we might build self replicating robots to colonise other planets, they could even be quite crude in terms of a factory staffed by robots that can mine and build other factories. Over time they could even evolve. Monitoring systems used to keep the robots functioning could become so complex that you might even say they were conscious. None of this would require a supernatural god.

Some people have spent the past 20+ years trying to create intelligent learning machines, maybe even concious machines, they believe in AI, so far the progress has been very dissappointing. It may be that we just didn't have critical mass before, that computers weren't powerful enough etc, computer vision is one area thats looking very promising at present.

Yes, there is also the possiblity that it is a scientific phenomena but we just will not be able to prove it.

 

A recent development. Good work! If true, then that method would work if those conditions existed back then.

Still, there's no proof for species leap. We can breed different dog breeds all day long... but we have yet to see a dog mutate into/reproduce a different creature.

Why can't you? I'm living proof. If you were truly interested in it, you'd do the research. That said, I don't expect you to.

And for the record, I don't recommend specialization. In fact, I typically recommend the opposite: generalization. Keeps your employment opportunities open.

I'm not judging you at all; you can believe whatever you want. In fact, the opposite is true: you are the one who is saying I'm illogical for believing. I'm not saying anything about the logic of your belief at all. In fact, your belief is also quite logical, considering the subset of data you have.

If you did, perhaps you'd have a better understanding of the opinion of the other side.

Please. You're on this like a hungry dog on meat.

I'm not judging you on what you don't know. I'm saying that you shouldn't judge ME based on your lack of information.

What makes you think I haven't? Just because I don't agree with you? I've got an understanding of ALL of the argument presented by the evolution crowd (with the noted exception of that recent link you gave me), and I've got an understanding of science that you lack. And when I give you information on where to look to see my side of the story, you tell me you "don't have the time". Who is the one with the closed mind, D?

As a scientist, I don't start with a preconceived notion and work backwards. I look at the data and I make my choices. I have the data you have (because I've already studied the arguments behind evolution), and I have data that you don't. Then you call ME illogical, even though you won't look at what I've studied??

Noooo, I don't use miracles as justification for "my religion". Where do you get these assumptions from?!?

I don't require science to be 100% certain... particularly on something that can't be proven by science! Again, you're making another assumption. I don't need "missing evidence to prove my point". Know why? I CAN'T PROVE GOD EXISTS! Dude, where have you been this entire conversation? Why do you insist that I'm trying to prove God exists? Have you not read what I've said? Or are you again continuing to assume that you know what I believe or that you know why I'm saying what I'm saying??

I don't think there "must be" an intelligent designer, because I don't know. Again, you assume. What I said is that the complexity of the universe points to... lends credence to... indicates the possibility of... a creator.

How does it prove that this is the same God I believe in? It doesn't. Again, I can't prove God - underlined, bolded, and italicized, just in case you missed it.

Yep... the science that I've studied... and you haven't.

If you don't look for the answers, you won't find them.

Never said it was. Good has come from "religion", and bad has come from "religion".

Personally, all of that is irrelevant to my relationship with Christ. Because, see, that's what I have. I don't "have a religion". I "have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ".

Except... the religions are not the same. I don't believe religion is for the same thing that you think it's for.

Are they "bad"? I believe in sin... and sin is what is bad. But we're ALL sinners, so by that definition, we're all "bad".

But if you want to know whether I think they're sinning, I guess it depends on if they're doing something that goes against what the Bible says. If someone kills an abortion doctor in the name of Christianity, then yes, I believe that's a sin. I don't see the justification in their actions, because I don't believe that a true Christian would kill an abortion doctor.

Again, just because two different people follow two different religions, it doesn't make both of them right.

I couldn't care less whether we "move civilization forward", as you put it. Nor do I care about "resolving such conflict". I care about following the commands of my God, regardless of what others think about that.

 

Why don't lions eat other animals or the people at the zoo?

Dimensions for the ark are given in the Bible, if you care to know.

 

I am always puzzled as to how people who do not practice christianity are quick to want to justify how scientific things came about etc. It's quite simple there is a God that's a spirit who the human eyes can't see and let's be honest that on it's own sounds foolish.

However, christianity is a choice and no one is forced into practicing christianity but people are informed. As seeing that people are informed hence they themselves can make an informed decision or vice versa.

Lastly, it's like seeing someone about to be hit by a car and you know you can assist to save their life but you do nothing. God says in he's word the holy Bible that he's ways are foolish to man. God is a spirit so those whom must worship him much worship him in spirit and truth.

Just have a clear heart and read the Bible and let God and he's holy spirit do the rest of the convincing.

I really do pray that those who do not believe there is a God catch the revelation and be saved. Ultimately only God can make a human change he's or her mind as we're obviously not robots. Best wishes as a little is enough for a wise.

Am just a dirty sinner trying through the grace of God to stay away from being what God has asked or commanded for me not to be. Is that you too?

 

BM how did you develop a relationship with Christ as you put it?

And what is it that you know that makes you believe? and where does it come from?

 

Never said it should be. At most, I believe schools should say, "Some people believe that the universe was created; other people believe that creatures evolved". There's not really much else that needs to be said about the creation side of things, is there? There's no "science" to that.

Like I stated before, many people believe that a 4.5B year-old earth and an intelligent designer are not mutually exclusive. Still, none of the ID stuff can be proven.

I agree, if you mean BOTH sides ought to be kept out of the Science classroom. ID is certainly not proven, but neither is evolution. By all means, talk about geology, the fossil record, and whatnot... that part IS science.