questor Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 it's interesting to note that on this site are many people of obvious scientific knowledgewho are certain there is no God even though evdence points strongly to a creator. they strongly defend this position even though they themselves have no answer to many observable phenomena and the great Einstein was a believer.if man is the most technically advanced presence in the universe ( we have no evidenceto the contrary ), why don't we consider the most pertinent feature of man---life itself. not only life, but sentient consciousness. suppose we could examine the activity needed to produce life at its lowest, basic level...what is life? it can be observed, but can it be weighed, measured ? does it have direction, speed, mass ? does it just exist within the boundary of the cell, or is it a force, chemical reaction, or could it be a manifestation of the creator. if the superstring theory is correct, then the smallest particle of a human beingconsists of vibrating energy packets. what makes these packets vibrate and what causes them to become life ? does life really underly these smallest elements or does some other force underly them? whatever this underlying force is seems to have intelligence and information. without information evolution could not occur in an orderly mannerthe presence of an observable force and the presence of information leads me to conclude there is a supreme power and by definition, that power can be called God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 it's interesting to note that on this site are many people of obvious scientific knowledgewho are certain there is no God even though evdence points strongly to a creator. That evidence would be what? suppose we could examine the activity needed to produce life at its lowest, basic level...what is life?There is debate at where the line is drawn and what exactly life is. It is difficult to examine something when the we aren't still really sure what we are looking for. whatever this underlying force is seems to have intelligence and information. without information evolution could not occur in an orderly manner This is quite an assumption based on a false pretense. Evolution is not orderly. It jumps both in positive and retrograde directions. This in itself points to a lack of a "greater plan". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 FT, would you agree that the universe was either created or not created?would you say the universe is orderly or disorderly?evolution can be somewhat disordered on a small scale with mutations and aberrations, however it is almost as if someone was practicing creating different groups of fauna to see which one he likes. over the long haul, evolution seems ordered and intelligent, with the reproductive directions ( information ) encoded in the genes.life exists and is observable.. the question is.. what is it and how does it work?can you think of a case of the existence of information that has no intelligence behind it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 This type of argument really has absolutely nothing to do with neither theology nor science. It is perhaps a philosophical question but it has absolutely no scientific interest whatsoever. Why bother participating in a science forum if you can't handle that most people here are not believers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 FT, would you agree that the universe was either created or not created?Nothing is created. Laws of consevation of energy and matter. would you say the universe is orderly or disorderly?The universe function is a specific order, but that does not breed order. Entropy. life exists and is observable.. the question is.. what is it and how does it work?That is still undecided...we know how life works in many cases, but still don't have a clear-cut idea as to what the defining characteristics of life are(virus anyone?) can you think of a case of the existence of information that has no intelligence behind it?I can think of many pieces of information that have no intelligence behnd it. Are you speaking biologically? How about the human fetal gills? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 Tormod, you may not consider sub microscopic biological activity a branch of science, but i do. i don't care if most people here believe in creation or not. their belief is not important, the truth is important and so far a creator has not been disproved. i fail to see where this discussion is philosophical unless you consider all unknown issues philosophical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 FT.......how do you know there is entropy? and if there is, how do you know it is not part of the order of the universe?viruses can be seen with electron microscopy.. they are relatively large bodies with well understood characteristics.human fetal gills are vestigial oncological remnants why do you think there was no intelligence in the genetic information that produced them?please name information that is produced without intelligence, not something that you consider a mistake.i'm talking about the unknown, unseen force that causes these activities. i think if these questions were answered, they could be the greatest scientific advances we have ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 You seem to claim any mistake was made therefore with intelligence...That in itself is a bit of information that seems to be unintelligable.How about retrograde evolution? (panda's thumb is the classic example). Pelvic girdles on snakes. thare are plenty IMO. Enropy is an emperically derrived concept. We can and do show that it exists. As I stated, there is an order to the function of the universe, but that in itslef does not specifically produce order. We can see viruses, but there is debate on wheather they constitute life or not. They are incapable of reproduction on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harzburgite Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 please name information that is produced without intelligence, not something that you consider a mistake.Please define information so that I may attempt to answer this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 Harz, information is directional data which when used produces a specific result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insight Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 Here is Biblical evidence for the Big Bang: But first: I personally believe that: science (as it observes nature) and the Bible are the same things but that 'religion' and the Bible 'are not' the same things...and... science is right and religion is wrong. "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth...that stretches out the heavens like a curtain..." (Isaiah 40:22, 42:5a, Psalm 102:4) Notice the mention of 'circle' showing the earth is 'round'. The words 'stretches out' are self explanatory meaning the universe is still 'expanding' from the big bang. However, the word 'curtain' is obscure here but translated from Hebrew means 'to be broken up with a violent action' (big bang). The translation also suggests the 'curtain' is 'thin' as in 'thin dark matter'. ;) Oh well, If they would know what the bible means earlier, Gallilio wasn't in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 FTWikipedia:''Viruses form when molecules are assembled from organic compounds providing complex, microscopic structures which have the potential for self-assembly, and thus they have great implications for the study of the origin of life. Concerning whether viruses are alive or not, if the requirement for autonomous self-reproduction is abandoned, it can be argued strongly that viruses are indeed alive. Some small viruses are more efficient than most cellular life forms as their ratio of functions to working parts is so high. If viruses are alive then the prospect of creating artificial life is enhanced or at least the standards required to call something artificially alive are reduced'' i wouldn't call something that has these qualities and abilities dead, especially when they contain rna and dna.anyway, i don't need a semantic argument and i think there is no undisputable proof of entropy. if there is, how can you say it is not a reversal of the BB created by the sameforce that created the BB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justforfun Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 It seems to me that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven satisfactorily. Therefore agnosticism rather than atheism should be the scientist's choice. How can you say "God does not exist" unless you can prove He doesn't? And good luck doing that ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 It seems to me that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven satisfactorily. Therefore agnosticism rather than atheism should be the scientist's choice. How can you say "God does not exist" unless you can prove He doesn't? And good luck doing that ...I agree with that premise completely justforfun, even though I am a Christain, I will confess that I can never prove it to another. With the same reasoning an Atheist has the same problem, for he cannot prove his point of view any more than I can. The Agnostic recognizes this state of affairs and accepts the truth, that one cannot find physical evidence to support either position. Even though the scientific method suggests that one cannot accept something as fact just because they cannot disprove it, the Atheist will argue that "There is no God". To make this statement one needs proof and none exists. To be an Atheist, most reasonable men would assume that they hold to the position, There is no God, with no proof. Not very scientific if I may be allowed to make the observation? When making the statement: There is a God or There is no God, neither follows the scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 i think we make an error in thought when we try to put human characteristics or emotion onto the supreme creator. if he exists, he can be anything or any shape. he could be the charged particles that comprise superstring. he could be the ''strong force'' or gravity or he could be made of all these things and more. our brains are tied to our eyes and human experience and we can't contemplate the true nature of a force with the intelligence and power to create the universe. this is where science comes in. are physical laws and the function of the universe just happenstance or is there intelligent design. my vote says there has to be intelligent design. there are just too many factors pointed that way, and hardly any pointed to happenstance. all scientists are not neccessarily deep thinkers,orlogical, so maybe that's why some wet their knickers and run when they hear the word GOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 While one cannot definatively claim the existence or non-existenceof a deity, there seems to be plenty of contradictory evidence to the existence of the percieved Christian god. There is no emperical evidence of such an existence. IMO the best interpretation of such implys the lack of a god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 FT, at no place have i written about a christian deity or any other man made perception of God. here i am talking about the all-powerful creator of the universe. i'm not talking churches, holy books, angels or any of that stuff. i'm talking about the intelligent creation of the cosmos! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.