Reply With Quote
So then how can you rule out God? Or are you just unsure of the Bible based God?
Telling of what? In your honest opinion, you believe that something as complex as DNA randomly happened?
i cant say that with any sort of certainty. it has been demonstrated that early earth conditions allowed for a spontaneous and natural assembly of amino acids and nucleic acids which are the foundations of all known life. the slightest changes in formation and arrangement can drastically alter the functions of such compounds, which includes replication. any sort of protein structure that had a replicating function would be the kickstart of terrestrial life.
its also entirely plausible that life was "delivered" via meteorite, but we would ultimately have the question of how, where, and when THAT life originated.
i think the fact that a spontaneous assembly of amino acid/nucleic acid/protein structure has been demonstrated is pretty telling
So then how can you rule out God? Or are you just unsure of the Bible based God?
Telling of what? In your honest opinion, you believe that something as complex as DNA randomly happened?
as i've said on numerous occasions, there is a difference between not believing in god and claiming for fact that god doesn't exist. as of now, i dont see evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that god exists, and even less evidence for the judeo-christian god. the only "evidence" i see that would point to god at this point is a god of the gaps fallacy... such as "we dont know for certain where life comes from, so lets believe in god because it would answer that question."
we have seen early-earth conditions emulated in laboratories that within a relatively short period of time gave rise to basic proteins. extrapolate that data to 100 years. then 1000. then 10,000... and keep going. its very difficult for us to actually fathom just how long 100,000 years is.Telling of what? In your honest opinion, you believe that something as complex as DNA randomly happened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment
in a 26 year span, there were about 60,000 generations of E. Coli, for instance. now of course we arent starting from E Coli, but we are starting from basic proteins. but also rather than 26 years, we are talking not 1,000's, not 100,000's, and not even millions of years, but potentially in the billions. that is a ridiculously long period of time. i mean ridiculous.
also, consider the sheer number of planets that exist... in the milky way galaxy alone, there are "as many stars as there are grains of sand on a beach." and the number of galaxies in the universe are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions... these are insane numbers when you put them all together.
i don't think something as complex as replicating DNA is something that is very probable to spontaneously occurring. maybe 1 in 100 billion, or even less. but when you also consider the sheer number of "attempts" (if you count each planet as an "attempt") its probable that there are more than one planet that has its own spontaneous life
Food for thought, will consider.
take a jar of marbles that is perfectly organized. all yellow marbles on the top layer. all blue in the 2nd. all green in the 3rd, etc.
now i tell you to shake that jar for 10 seconds. what happens? they all become mixed up, no orgnanization, all chaos. now what if i told you to keep randomly shaking the jar in 10 second intervals until the jar is perfectly ordered again. you do this 1, 2, 3 times. you do it 100 times, and u say "its impossible." which it seemingly is. the odds are microscopic that they would randomly end up ordered again. but what if i had a machine that kept doing it for years. you dont think that maybe, 150 years of constant 10 second shuffles or so would eventually get lucky?
an event with a small probability can still occur if there are enough attempts. i dont think you understand just how long billions of years are, or just how many planets/stars there are
But in the case of that study, its life creating more life, isn't it? I wanna know if scientist know how life originated in the first place. Also, where it came from.
I understand, I don't understand how scientists believe life got here.
as i said, that case study IS starting with E Coli, and we are starting with basic proteins. but im also explaining that we aren't limiting ourselves to 26 years, but rather 100's of millions, and even billions of years. the point is just to show how many changes occur in relatively simple single celled organisms in such a short period of time
i dont think you'll meet many scientists who will ever tell you "i know exactly how life got here."
however, i've met many creationists that tell me they know exactly how life got here. therein lies the difference, friend
I doubt that's the case. How many scientists deny the existence of God or a Creator? How can they be so sure when they don't know how life began or got to Earth.
This is interesting now that you quoted this especially the part about "If, though, you want to enter into life.....".
Some translations have used "eternal life" instead of just "life".
This is what Random was saying about the original languages, and is a very good point to consider.
This is why I contend that you absolutely cannot take the bible, or other religious book, literally.
Surely, if the bible were the "infallible" Word of God, then surely God would have made sure there would be no errors, inconsistencies, or discrepancies regardless of language, but there are, and many.
That brings up the question as to Who said it was infallible in the first place?
Man did.
Why?
To discourage questioning the religious authorities, and to control the people.
Back to Life i.e. Eternal life, everlasting life, etc., I believe eludes to the fact that our spirit, the en y within our body that animates it, thinks, etc., is eternal although our bodies return to dust, dust being another form of energy.
Our spirit however returns to and merges with God according to some, if you have led a good life in the material realm.
The odd part of this is that Jesus calls this "life" rather than death, which makes me feel even more confident that science is on the right track and that this world we presently live and breathe in, is just an illusion, made up of total energy and all connected to each other on a subatomic plain.
i cant speak for "all scientists" but i dont think most will outright say "god doesn't exist." in general, its a scientific fallacy to try to claim a negative. rather than saying "i can guarantee that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist" a scientist would say "there is no reason for anybody to believe in the existence of a flying spaghetti monster." i've made this point more than once in this thread, and i sincerely hope you are able to understand the difference.
they're just not giving into the god of the gaps...How can they be so sure when they don't know how life began or got to Earth.
btw off topic, but i'm wondering if i'm allowed to call myself a scientist if I have a BS in Biochemistry even though i'm enrolled in law school
You either believe in the big bang or that the earth has always been here. If you believe in the big bang, how can something come from nothing? How is that logical? If you believe the Earth has never had a beginning then why is it impossible for God to always have existed?
Good enough for me, imo.btw off topic, but i'm wondering if i'm allowed to call myself a scientist if I have a BS in Biochemistry even though i'm enrolled in law school
nobody said it is impossible for god to always have existed, but the main reasoning for the belief in that is once again a god of the gaps. i've been using that phrase a lot, but you've been presenting it as one of your main forms of argument.
fyi... God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
Everlasting. This just means - time perduring forever - everlasting is still - "within time"
this is not the same as eternal -
Eternal means - timeless - "no time"
The human mind "scientists included"
cannot understand that - it is beyond comprehension.
The human mind can understand "time" and can "deny time" - but what is "timeless" is beyond our comprehension -
this is why you won't find me arguing this point with "sleeping scientists" because they haven't even woken up yet - and they are trying to argue "evidence" and "logical fallacies" and other scientific terms - but this has nothing to do with "god" with "eternal" with "timeless" - these are things that cannot be "measured"
It cannot be comprehended by the human mind. Period.
Well spurraider, I don't agree with all of your points but good well thought and respectable answers.
No God? Your move spurraider.
And that to me is God, Who always was, always is, and always will be, the Eternal Essence.
God cannot be measured.
God encompasses everything there is, and everything there isn't.
God is eternal.
Thus Jesus was saying we would return to "life" i.e. God.
And because as you say it cannot be comprehended by the human brain, then it is inherently pointless to debate God. Discuss? Yes. Debate? No.
No God? Your move spurraider.
Hey Rob, do you think Blake calls his own kid a jeebo ?
Other kids will, I am sure!
Hey Rob, do you think Blake calls his own kid a jeebo ?
Other kids will, I am sure!I almost feel bad for the guy. Never seen someone so confused in my life.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
