Thread: How Evolution Proves the Existence of God

Let's assume that Darwin's theory is true, that life seamlessly evolved in infinitesimally small steps from non-living materials. One question you might ask is what came just before the generation of the simplest life form you can think of?

What ever it was, it was obviously less alive than the simplest life form, but that precursor to life had to be more alive than the generation preceding it. We could then postulate that the previous previous generation was even less alive, but more alive than the previous previous previous generation, and so on.

What can ultimately be postulated then is that all things are alive to some extent, that there is no sharp division between the living and non-living. If there is, then Darwin's theory is called into question and the implication is that life was created.

If Darwin's theory is true, then all things in the universe are alive to some extent. Surely a rock is less alive than a human, but it is made of essentially the same stuff that makes up all life.

If we break any living thing down into it's simplest components, we find those components to be "non-living" if we assume a sharp division between life and non-life. Even under those circumstances, when those components are combined, we have life.

Therefore, the rock by itself may not seem like much, but when we combine it with all other things, we have a living universe, complex and wondrous to behold!

Originally Posted by williampinn

Let's assume that Darwin's theory is true, that life seamlessly evolved in infinitesimally small steps from non-living materials. One question you might ask is what came just before the generation of the simplest life form you can think of?

The answer to your question is a far-from-equilibrium environment in which the highly nonlinear mathematics governing the behavior of the forms of energy involved allows for the spontaneous generation of a self-organizing process. This is how life begins, but its very simple fundamental capacity to become more than it is through the complexification of its own dynamic structure (in bifurcation events) in response to environmental changes, means that its potentialities are infinite. It is like the way that the simplest mathematical process of adding one to a number implies infinity.

Originally Posted by williampinn

What ever it was, it was obviously less alive than the simplest life form, but that precursor to life had to be more alive than the generation preceding it.

Incorrect. Life has the basic ability to learn and grow, which means that what comes before does NOT need to be more alive that what comes after. The simplest examples demonstrate this. A petri dish can be completely empty of life, but if you introduce a single bacterium it will quick produces billions and so the whole petri dish will "come alive".

Life is quantitative NOT qualitative. It is not just a matter of whether something is alive or not but how alive is it. The quantitative measures of life are numerous, and it is by such measure that we instinctively relate to the world of biology with terms refering to lesser and greater forms of life.

Originally Posted by williampinn

What can ultimately be postulated then is that all things are alive to some extent, that there is no sharp division between the living and non-living. If there is, then Darwin's theory is called into question and the implication is that life was created.

If Darwin's theory is true, then all things in the universe are alive to some extent.

Nonsense. No such conclusion follows. The implication is precisely the opposite, that life arises from non-life.

What we CAN say is that the laws of the universe have within them the potentiality for the life process to begin. Some scientists like myself may perceive this as suggesting design and purpose in how the universe is put together. But as a scientist I know VERY WELL that this is a subjective perception and neither scientific NOR required by logic.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Surely a rock is less alive than a human,

On that I quite agree. In fact: a virus is less alive than a bacterium which is less alive than an amoeba which is less alive than a tree which is less alive than a wolf which is less alive than a human being.

Originally Posted by williampinn

but it is made of essentially the same stuff that makes up all life.

That is irrelevant. Life has nothing to do with what things are composed for it is a dynamic process. If I shoot you in the head then with the bullet removed your composition will be completely unchanged but you will be dead because the process that is life will have ceased.

Originally Posted by williampinn

If we break any living thing down into it's simplest components, we find those components to be "non-living" if we assume a sharp division between life and non-life. Even under those circumstances, when those components are combined, we have life.

Incorrect, you can combine all the components you want until you are blue in the face and you will not have life. This is perfectly obvious in the example of your body made dead by that bullet. Life is not about mixing the right ingredients. It is a self-organizing dynamic structure of cyclical processes. In some sense the materials are actually irrelevant, certainly the specific matter is irrelevant for that is constantly being replaced (e.g. our skin is completely replaced every 14 days). If similar self-organizing dynamic structures of cylical processes were to be encountered in a completely different medium (in different forms of energy), then we would still recognize it as a form of life. (In fact I believe that the human mind is an example of such a form of life in a different medium.)

Originally Posted by williampinn

Therefore, the rock by itself may not seem like much, but when we combine it with all other things, we have a living universe, complex and wondrous to behold!

LOL poetry?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The answer to your question is a far-from-equilibrium environment in which the highly nonlinear mathematics governing the behavior of the forms of energy involved allows for the spontaneous generation of a self-organizing process. This is how life begins, but its very simple fundamental capacity to become more than it is through the complexification of its own dynamic structure (in bifurcation events) in response to environmental changes, means that its potentialities are infinite. It is like the way that the simplest mathematical process of adding one to a number implies infinity.

Can you give a specific example?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

What ever it was, it was obviously less alive than the simplest life form, but that precursor to life had to be more alive than the generation preceding it.
Incorrect. Life has the basic ability to learn and grow, which means that what comes before does NOT need to be more alive that what comes after.

You mean less alive than what comes after, right? So you disagree that what came before the simplest life you can imagine is less alive? Aren't all non-living things less alive by definition?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The simplest examples demonstrate this. A petri dish can be completely empty of life, but if you introduce a single bacterium it will quick produces billions and so the whole petri dish will "come alive".

So you believe that the bacterium was created, introduced rather than evolved? If not, what was its predecesor? and the one before that...and so on? Where was the cut off point between life and non-life?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Life is quantitative NOT qualitative. It is not just a matter of whether something is alive or not but how alive is it. The quantitative measures of life are numerous, and it is by such measure that we instinctively relate to the world of biology with terms refering to lesser and greater forms of life.

If life is not qualitative then what about the qualities you mentioned earlier, i.e., "the ability to learn and grow..."? How alive something is is precisely my point. (See post above.) You are just making my point all over again.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Nonsense. No such conclusion follows. The implication is precisely the opposite, that life arises from non-life.

Then evolution is false? You can't have it both ways. Either life was created or it came about in gradual steps. You choose. If it came about gradually, then life is a matter of degree, and your choice of separation between living and non-living is purely semantic. The seperation is rooted in the creationist philosophy, that everything was dead until God breathed life into them.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

What we CAN say is that the laws of the universe have within them the potentiality for the life process to begin.

So you believe life was created then. There were no half lives or quarter lives, etc. Life just appeared suddenly.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Some scientists like myself may perceive this as suggesting design and purpose in how the universe is put together. But as a scientist I know VERY WELL that this is a subjective perception and neither scientific NOR required by logic.

I agree that life is a subjective perception along with design. But logic can be rooted in a subjective premise and scientific data can be interpreted subjectively. You need to provide specific details regarding what you know VERY WELL.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Surely a rock is less alive than a human,
On that I quite agree. In fact: a virus is less alive than a bacterium which is less alive than an amoeba which is less alive than a tree which is less alive than a wolf which is less alive than a human being.

Well now you are getting the point.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

That is irrelevant. Life has nothing to do with what things are composed for it is a dynamic process. If I shoot you in the head then with the bullet removed your composition will be completely unchanged but you will be dead because the process that is life will have ceased.

My composition will have changed. Case and point: I have a bullet in my head. Additionally, life will not have ceased completely. If you look at my tissue under a microscope (even after I am stone dead) you will see signs of life.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If we break any living thing down into it's simplest components, we find those components to be "non-living" if we assume a sharp division between life and non-life. Even under those circumstances, when those components are combined, we have life.
Incorrect, you can combine all the components you want until you are blue in the face and you will not have life. This is perfectly obvious in the example of your body made dead by that bullet. .

It depends on the components, does it not. Let's go by your list of which components are necessary to make life happen.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Life is not about mixing the right ingredient.

Agreed. When I say components I use the term very liberally to include any and all things necessary for life.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It [life] is a self-organizing dynamic structure of cyclical processes.

That sounds like a description of the inner workings of the sun, or perhaps the weather. In fact that description is so general, it could fit many non-living systems.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

In some sense the materials are actually irrelevant, certainly the specific matter is irrelevant for that is constantly being replaced (e.g. our skin is completely replaced every 14 days). If similar self-organizing dynamic structures of cylical processes were to be encountered in a completely different medium (in different forms of energy), then we would still recognize it as a form of life. (In fact I believe that the human mind is an example of such a form of life in a different medium.) .

Can the human mind exist apart from the body?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Therefore, the rock by itself may not seem like much, but when we combine it with all other things, we have a living universe, complex and wondrous to behold!
LOL poetry?

Go ahead and frame it, then hang it next to your booby prize. LOL!

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The answer to your question is a far-from-equilibrium environment in which the highly nonlinear mathematics governing the behavior of the forms of energy involved allows for the spontaneous generation of a self-organizing process. This is how life begins, but its very simple fundamental capacity to become more than it is through the complexification of its own dynamic structure (in bifurcation events) in response to environmental changes, means that its potentialities are infinite. It is like the way that the simplest mathematical process of adding one to a number implies infinity.

Can you give a specific example?

That question makes no sense. It is like if you asked me what is water and I answered that it was a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom bound together in a chemical bond. Would it then make sense for you to ask, "can you give a specific example?"

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Incorrect. Life has the basic ability to learn and grow, which means that what comes before does NOT need to be more alive that what comes after.

You mean less alive than what comes after, right? So you disagree that what came before the simplest life you can imagine is less alive?

These two sentences contradict each other. Yes it is the nature of life that it grows and develops becoming more alive than it was. No I do not disagree that what came before the simplest life I can imagine is less alive.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Aren't all non-living things less alive by definition?

Correct.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The simplest examples demonstrate this. A petri dish can be completely empty of life, but if you introduce a single bacterium it will quick produces billions and so the whole petri dish will "come alive".

So you believe that the bacterium was created, introduced rather than evolved?

I do not see how you come to that conclusion. The bacterium evolved. It was not created any more than a teacher creates the doctors, lawyers and engineers that his students become.

Originally Posted by williampinn

If not, what was its predecesor? and the one before that...and so on? Where was the cut off point between life and non-life?

The universe is full of simple self organizing processes. Hurricanes and tornadoes are primitive examples. They draw energy from their environment to maintain their own structure just as living things do. Yet they are not considered alive. But perhaps this is only a relative judgement which says that .00000000000000001 is nothing compared to 10000000000. They are examples of self organizing phenomena of the simplest kind. But shall we go further and ask what goes before the hurricane and tornado? Why the answer is as I said before in the part of my response that you quoted first: "a far-from-equilibrium environment..." Self-organizing dynamic structures arise spontaneously in the right environment and these can eventually evolve into the more complex self-organizing dyamic structures that we call life.

Originally Posted by williampinn

If life is not qualitative then what about the qualities you mentioned earlier, i.e., "the ability to learn and grow..."? How alive something is is precisely my point. (See post above.) You are just making my point all over again.

I disagree. Your argument is flawed and incorrect. Self organizing phenomena arise spontaneously in the right environment.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Then evolution is false?

Evolution is correct. If I have said anything is false it is claims that you have made, which are incorrect.

Originally Posted by williampinn

You can't have it both ways.

I don't know what two ways you are refering two but there are many things which are simultaneously two different ways at the same time. For example light is both a wave and a particle even though these two concepts would seem to be completely incompatable.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Either life was created or it came about in gradual steps. You choose.

If I must choose then the answer is that life evolved. It is the nature of living things that they learn and grow - thus creating themselves. But you are wrong, I do not have to choose any more than I must choose whether light is a wave or a particle. Can living things be created? Not in the same way that non living things can be created, for it is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation, for otherwise they would not be alive.

Does the farmer create the tomatoes he sells in the grocery store? Does the shepherd create the wool that he sells? Does the teacher create what his students become? If you so understand the word "create" such that the answer to these questions are yes, then I would agree that in this sense life is created. But I do not believe that such a thing can be proven or concluded scientifically.

Originally Posted by williampinn

If it came about gradually, then life is a matter of degree, and your choice of separation between living and non-living is purely semantic. The seperation is rooted in the creationist philosophy, that everything was dead until God breathed life into them.

Nonsense. Life is not a substance to be added to something in order to make it alive. That sort of thinking rooted in medeival necromancy must be abandoned. I have explained how life comes from non-life. Your magical "Goddidit" philosophy explains nothing at all.

However, although I am a scientist, I am also a Christian and so I do believe that God created the universe and all living things, but not by any medieval necromancy. It is by the same kind of love, care and nurturing, that a farmer, shepherd and teacher creates living things that God breathed live into the living things of this world. In the case of Adam and Eve, He spoke to them and taught them what it means to be a person (or child of God). It is absolutely no different in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER from the way that God breathes new life into the Christian that accepts the gift of salvation that God offers to all. But again, this is not something which can evaluated, proven or concluded scientifically.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

What we CAN say is that the laws of the universe have within them the potentiality for the life process to begin.

There were no half lives or quarter lives, etc. Life just appeared suddenly.

On the contrary there were .00000000001 alive, .0000000001 alive, .000000001 alive, .00000001 alive .0000001 alive, .000001 alive, .00001 alive, .0001 alive, .001 alive, .01 alive, .1 alive, 1 alive, 10 alive, 100 alive, etc... The human body for example, has 50 trillion individual cells living in a cooperative community. The universe is full of self organizing phenomena and there is no sharp line to be drawn between what is alive and what is not alive.

If you are looking for the design input of God then I think you must look to the mathematical physical laws that are a part of the geometric space-time structure of this universe.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Some scientists like myself may perceive this as suggesting design and purpose in how the universe is put together. But as a scientist I know VERY WELL that this is a subjective perception and neither scientific NOR required by logic.

I agree that life is a subjective perception along with design. But logic can be rooted in a subjective premise and scientific data can be interpreted subjectively. You need to provide specific details regarding what you know VERY WELL.

I did not say that life is a subjective perception, for that is not true. Life is an objectively observable phenomena, for otherwise we would have no science of biology. It is this perception of design in the physical laws of the universe which I said is subjective, as is the perception of the work of God in my own life as a Christian.

I can adopt the premise that pink unicorns eat grass to prove that lawn mowers are un-neccessary but what would be the point. If a perception is subjective then a proof based on such a perception will only succeed in proving something to yourself, but not to anyone else.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Surely a rock is less alive than a human,
On that I quite agree. In fact: a virus is less alive than a bacterium which is less alive than an amoeba which is less alive than a tree which is less alive than a wolf which is less alive than a human being.

Well now you are getting the point.

Well I am glad that you are understanding me on this point, but I got that point 15 years ago. But are you getting the point? That remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

That is irrelevant. Life has nothing to do with what things are composed for it is a dynamic process. If I shoot you in the head then with the bullet removed your composition will be completely unchanged but you will be dead because the process that is life will have ceased.

My composition will have changed. Case and point: I have a bullet in my head. Additionally, life will not have ceased completely. If you look at my tissue under a microscope (even after I am stone dead) you will see signs of life.

Meaningless quibbling, which is even so stubborn that you ignore the fact that I said the bullet is removed. Your composition and chemistry alters with every change of diet. The point is that life is not about composition but about process. When the process ceases then life ceases.

Originally Posted by williampinn

It depends on the components, does it not. Let's go by your list of which components are necessary to make life happen.

But I do not believe that this is so. The same processes with different components would still be life. Your list would only be relevant to a particular example of life - life on this planet, and there is no reason to believe that life elsewhere necessarily has the same composition.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It [life] is a self-organizing dynamic structure of cyclical processes.

That sounds like a description of the inner workings of the sun, or perhaps the weather. In fact that description is so general, it could fit many non-living systems.

Exactly. These are your examples of things which are .0000001 alive and .000001 alive. Not really alive by our standards, for what is .0000001 compared to 50000000000000 or more?

Originally Posted by williampinn

Can the human mind exist apart from the body?

No more than a fish can exist outside water or a man inside the photosphere of the sun. Every living thing is dependent upon the natural environment in which it lives, and the human mind is no different.

Mitchell is doing a fine job dealing with the logical inconsistencies in William's argument. I simply wish to point out that Darwin's theory says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life, it is about the origin of species. (And it says precious little about that either, but that's a topic for another day.)

Originally Posted by williampinn

Evolution Proves the Existence of God

we have a living universe, complex and wondrous to behold!

Sure. It seems you are reconciling religion with science in good faith. Why quibble?

MM believes life has the basic ability to learn and grow ...toward God. It's kinda a Hindu samsara theme, with slugs naturally rolling their eye-stalks around the bottom.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by williampinn

Evolution Proves the Existence of God

we have a living universe, complex and wondrous to behold!

Sure. It seems you are reconciling religion with science in good faith. Why quibble?

On the contrary you cannot reconcile religion with science in good faith if you make such a claim that evolution proves the existence of God. It proves no such thing. A proper reconciliation between science and religion must show a correct understanding of what these are and how they stand in relation to one another.

Originally Posted by Pong

MM believes life has the basic ability to learn and grow ...toward God. It's kinda a Hindu samsara theme, with slugs naturally rolling their eye-stalks around the bottom.

I believe that life has the basic ability to learn and grow. Period. BUT it is the nature of life - of living things that they are radically open to their environment - they are influenced by things outside of themselves and that is why we can say that farmers, shepherds and teacher play the role of a creator of living things, for without their participation in the lives of these living things they may very well not exist at all - not those tomato plants which the farmer sows the seeds for, not those sheep which the shepherd protects from predators, and not those doctors, lawyers and engineer which could not be what they are without the proper education.

Likewise, I also do not believe that the infinite potentiality of living things can be realized without the participation of an infinite God. I don't see the Hindu connection at all, nor do I have any idea what Pong sees in slugs. If it is his intention to ridicule, by reducing the theory of evolution to an idea that we have some identity with slugs, then I would respond that I greatly prefer this to the typical creationist watchmaker God ideology that would identify us with machines and tools. I very much prefer to be a slug which is alive to being a socket wrench which is not alive at all.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Can you give a specific example?
That question makes no sense. It is like if you asked me what is water and I answered that it was a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom bound together in a chemical bond. Would it then make sense for you to ask, "can you give a specific example?"

But you haven't articulated a specific example.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

You mean less alive than what comes after, right? So you disagree that what came before the simplest life you can imagine is less alive?
These two sentences contradict each other.

Like light waves and particles? Let me clarify these sentences for your benefit: the first is a question regarding a possible typo you made. The second sentence is another question reagarding your position on the issue of spontaneous creation vs. gradual steps or evolution.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

No I do not disagree that what came before the simplest life I can imagine is less alive.

If you do not disagree, then we agree.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Aren't all non-living things less alive by definition?
Correct.

We agree again.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

So you believe that the bacterium was created, introduced rather than evolved?
I do not see how you come to that conclusion.

Not a conclusion. I'm asking you a question.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The bacterium evolved.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If not, what was its predecesor? and the one before that...and so on? Where was the cut off point between life and non-life?
The universe is full of simple self organizing processes. Hurricanes and tornadoes are primitive examples. They draw energy from their environment to maintain their own structure just as living things do. Yet they are not considered alive. .

Granted, but they do share the "self-organizing" element with that which you would consider "alive." Therefore, hurricanes can be considered partially alive, the term "life" can be used liberally in speech to describe the "life" cycle of a hurricane, so it is not a stretch to consider it at least partially living.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But perhaps this is only a relative judgement which says that .00000000000000001 is nothing compared to 10000000000. .

Yes, the division between life and non-life is a relative judgment. Thank you!

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

hey are examples of self organizing phenomena of the simplest kind. But shall we go further and ask what goes before the hurricane and tornado? Why the answer is as I said before in the part of my response that you quoted first: "a far-from-equilibrium environment..." Self-organizing dynamic structures arise spontaneously in the right environment and these can eventually evolve into the more complex self-organizing dyamic structures that we call life.

A far-from-equilibrium environment. Let's label that X. Before X, there was .99X, before that--.98X.... 0.5X... 0.1X all the way down to equilibrium. The spontaneous events you speak of can be differentiated no doubt into infintesmally small steps (dx) of progress along the curve to the final value of X.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I disagree. Your argument is flawed and incorrect. Self organizing phenomena arise spontaneously in the right environment.

Define spontaneous. At what point does the alleged spontaneous phenomena happen? At X+dx or X+2dx? How about X+100dx? Take your hurricane example. At what precise point in spacetime, using coordinates x, y, z, and t is the hurricane manafested?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Then evolution is false?
Evolution is correct. If I have said anything is false it is claims that you have made, which are incorrect.

OK, if you think evolution is true, then you should not have a problem with the notion that life evolved from non-life in gradual, infintesmal steps. If, on the other hand, you are a creationist, then I can see why you would prefer to reject it.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

You can't have it both ways.
I don't know what two ways you are refering two but there are many things which are simultaneously two different ways at the same time. For example light is both a wave and a particle even though these two concepts would seem to be completely incompatable.

I suppose you could label the hurricane you mentioned a spontaneous event, but you could also say that X (the-far-from equilibrium event) was not spontaneous, nor was the hurricane that followed, since the spacetime between these events can be differentiated. I think you have to decide for yourself which way you want to look at the process if you want to be consistent. If not, it does not really matter.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

for it is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation, for otherwise they would not be alive.

A snowball must be alive then. As it rolls down hill, it gathers more snow unto itself and grows and grows; it participates in its own creation. An atom is alive. It may start out as a nucleus; it then attracts electrons and grows into a full grown atom. It participates in its own creation. I could give an infinite number of examples.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Does the farmer create the tomatoes he sells in the grocery store? Does the shepherd create the wool that he sells? Does the teacher create what his students become? If you so understand the word "create" such that the answer to these questions are yes, then I would agree that in this sense life is created. But I do not believe that such a thing can be proven or concluded scientifically.

That depends on how you define create. You can prove or falsify anything if your definitions are clear. For example: If you define creation as a farmer growing tomatoes, and if farmers do in fact grow tomatoes then you will have no problem proving your understanding of creation.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If it came about gradually, then life is a matter of degree, and your choice of separation between living and non-living is purely semantic. The seperation is rooted in the creationist philosophy, that everything was dead until God breathed life into them.
Nonsense. Life is not a substance to be added to something in order to make it alive. That sort of thinking rooted in medeival necromancy must be abandoned. I have explained how life comes from non-life. Your magical "Goddidit" philosophy explains nothing at all.

I think you misunderstand me. I was not stating my philosphy here, I was stating a fact about the evolution (pardon the pun) of our language. Our language tends to divide things into absolutes extremes: big/small, alive/dead, etc. I suspect the arbitrary division between life and the non-living is rooted in religion, since it preceeded modern science.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

However, although I am a scientist, I am also a Christian and so I do believe that God created the universe and all living things, but not by any medieval necromancy. It is by the same kind of love, care and nurturing, that a farmer, shepherd and teacher creates living things that God breathed live into the living things of this world. In the case of Adam and Eve, He spoke to them and taught them what it means to be a person (or child of God). It is absolutely no different in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER from the way that God breathes new life into the Christian that accepts the gift of salvation that God offers to all. But again, this is not something which can evaluated, proven or concluded scientifically..

Again, whether something can be proven depends on your definition. I won't dispute that you can't scientifically prove your beliefs. To prove that God loves you, for example, seems improbable, since you can't know God's thoughts. My God, on the other hand, can be easily proven with a simple theorem:

1. God is nature--premise.
2. Nature exists--premise.
3. God exists--transitive property and conclusion.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

What we CAN say is that the laws of the universe have within them the potentiality for the life process to begin.
There were no half lives or quarter lives, etc. Life just appeared suddenly.
On the contrary there were .00000000001 alive, .0000000001 alive, .000000001 alive, .00000001 alive .0000001 alive, .000001 alive, .00001 alive, .0001 alive, .001 alive, .01 alive, .1 alive, 1 alive, 10 alive, 100 alive, etc... The human body for example, has 50 trillion individual cells living in a cooperative community. The universe is full of self organizing phenomena and there is no sharp line to be drawn between what is alive and what is not alive.

I am not sure what your position is. "Life just appeared suddenly..." or "...there is no sharp line to be drawn between what is alive and what is not alive."

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If you are looking for the design input of God then I think you must look to the mathematical physical laws that are a part of the geometric space-time structure of this universe.

Why would your god or mine stop there? Even Darwin, in the final edition of his book "Origin of Species" gave God a shout out, and gave him credit for the design of evolution. Darwin merely contested the notion that all species were created independantly. He postulated that they all had a common ancestor. For him it was not so much about who done it, but how he done it.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I did not say that life is a subjective perception, for that is not true. Life is an objectively observable phenomena, for otherwise we would have no science of biology. It is this perception of design in the physical laws of the universe which I said is subjective, as is the perception of the work of God in my own life as a Christian.
I can adopt the premise that pink unicorns eat grass to prove that lawn mowers are un-neccessary but what would be the point. If a perception is subjective then a proof based on such a perception will only succeed in proving something to yourself, but not to anyone else.

Of course your point here is entirely subjective. Not only can you prove to yourself that lawn mowers are unnecessary due to pink unicorns, but you will also prove it to your cult followers who share your interest in such things. When you speak of objectivity, you have to know the difference between an assumption and a fact. Assumption: I can only prove to myself pink unicorns exist. Fact: You can prove your hypothesis to others if they share your frame of reference.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

"]
My composition will have changed. Case and point: I have a bullet in my head. Additionally, life will not have ceased completely. If you look at my tissue under a microscope (even after I am stone dead) you will see signs of life.
Meaningless quibbling, which is even so stubborn that you ignore the fact that I said the bullet is removed. Your composition and chemistry alters with every change of diet. The point is that life is not about composition but about process. When the process ceases then life ceases.

I think life is about composition and process, and that composition manifests processes and vice versa. But have it your way.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It depends on the components, does it not. Let's go by your list of which components are necessary to make life happen.
But I do not believe that this is so.

I said let's go by YOUR list of components (i.e. whatever you deem necessary) and you tell me "you don't believe this is so."

LOL!

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The same processes with different components would still be life.

I don't dispute that. Remember? My postion is that all things are alive to some extent.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Your list would only be relevant to a particular example of life - life on this planet, and there is no reason to believe that life elsewhere necessarily has the same composition.

My list? I advised you to use YOUR list. You are debating yourself at this point. I don't dispute that life elsewhere could have a different composition. Life elsewhere may be silicon based instead of carbon based. However, I believe that the compostion (whatever it may be) and the processes are interdependant as opposed to independant. My belief is based on the biology class I took in college.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

That sounds like a description of the inner workings of the sun, or perhaps the weather. In fact that description is so general, it could fit many non-living systems.
Exactly. These are your examples of things which are .0000001 alive and .000001 alive. Not really alive by our standards, for what is .0000001 compared to 50000000000000 or more?

Well 500000000000000 - .000000001 = 4.9999999999....

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Mitchell is doing a fine job dealing with the logical inconsistencies in William's argument. .)

LOL!

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I simply wish to point out that Darwin's theory says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life, it is about the origin of species. (And it says precious little about that either, but that's a topic for another day.)

What about the finches? The common ancestor theory? Natural selection? I would like to point out that modern evolutionists go all the way back to the Big Bang. Even Darwin said in an interview that he believed that life probably originated in a pond. (See the NOVA Evolution DVD series, and Origin of Species.)

Better yet, here is a link that I am sure you will find educational:

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Here is an excerpt from that link:

"Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". "

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by williampinn

Evolution Proves the Existence of God

we have a living universe, complex and wondrous to behold!

Sure. It seems you are reconciling religion with science in good faith. Why quibble?

MM believes life has the basic ability to learn and grow ...toward God. It's kinda a Hindu samsara theme, with slugs naturally rolling their eye-stalks around the bottom.

Thanks for your input. I like the image of the slugs rolling their eye-stalks. LOL!

It is pointless to argue about the origin of life when you do not actually know what life is.

Begin with a definition. What is life?
The best definition I ever came across was a few years ago, and I am going by memory, so the actual wording below may be clumsy.

"Life is a chemical system based on nucleic acids with the dual ability of replicating itself and evolving over time."

Some people will argue that hypothetical alien life may not conform to this definition. Fine, but the definition stands until such alien life is found.

This definition covers Earth life of all types. By this definition, there is no distinction between fully living and half living etc. In the genesis of life, there would have been a stage of molecules, including macromolecules, kind of replicating, but not quite. They were not living. Then the macromolecules. probably with the assistance of surrounding molecules of different kinds, achieved a state in which both replication and evolution took place. Once that state was reached, we had life.

There is nothing magical about life. There is no mystical 'life force' which separates living and non living. Life is a chemical system, and can reproduce itself, and change over time. By this definition, the simplest forms are living. But those not able to reproduce and evolve are not.

You are doubtless familiar with the Miller experiments, and the numerous similar experiments done since, which show that organic molecules are synthesized by natural processes when the ancient atmosphere of the Earth is subject to strong energy discharge, such as lightning, solar ultra violet, or meteor heat as they plunge through the atmosphere.

Thus, organic molecules, including the amino acids that form proteins, and the purines/pyrimidines etc that form nucleic acids, form naturally and can accumulate on the early Earth.

You may be familiar with the fact that many of these simple organic molecules line up when exposed to certain surfaces, such as the mineral Montmorillonite, and can thus naturally form simple polymers. You may be aware of the fact that simple lipoproteins that can be formed in this way, when in water will form 'bubbles' similar to simple cell membranes, and may trap organic molecules within them.

Using these ideas, it is not hard to speculate about the simplest chemical system forming that met the life definition. It seems probable that some such process led to the first life, which then evolved into more complex forms.

If this is correct, then there is no need to postulate a creator God as part of the process.

Originally Posted by skeptic

"Life is a chemical system based on nucleic acids with the dual ability of replicating itself and evolving over time."

That's good, I like it. But contrast this definition under which we designed Martian soil tests: "Life eats, and excretes." Yet the hurricane is good too. Can't we synthesize all these?

Pong
The definition that includes eating and excretion is useful if we are looking for some parameter to measure. It falls down on a more academic level in that it includes fire as a life form (not a problem if we are looking at Mars), since fire also 'eats and excretes'. In fact, fire includes most of the qualities used to define life, with the notable exception of the ability to evolve.

Thank you for your lucid and informative post! I will try my best to contend with it.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is pointless to argue about the origin of life when you do not actually know what life is.

That makes sense. Although I am arrogant enough to believe I think I know what life is as are so many.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Begin with a definition. What is life?
The best definition I ever came across was a few years ago, and I am going by memory, so the actual wording below may be clumsy.

"Life is a chemical system based on nucleic acids with the dual ability of replicating itself and evolving over time."

You think this is the best definition, the implication being that it is not the only definition. According to Webster, life can simply be the time a thing exists. Even the scientific community uses the word liberally. For example, the half-life of a radioactive nucleus.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Some people will argue that hypothetical alien life may not conform to this definition. Fine, but the definition stands until such alien life is found.

Your definition may be out the window, since alien life fossels have been found here on earth. When I say alien, I am refering to fossel evidence that shows that different and strange strains of life originated and coexisted along with the strain we are familiar with.

Originally Posted by skeptic

This definition covers Earth life of all types.

That is the theory. However, if memory serves, only a fraction of the species on earth have been examined.

Originally Posted by skeptic

By this definition, there is no distinction between fully living and half living etc. In the genesis of life, there would have been a stage of molecules, including macromolecules, kind of replicating, but not quite. They were not living. Then the macromolecules. probably with the assistance of surrounding molecules of different kinds, achieved a state in which both replication and evolution took place. Once that state was reached, we had life.

We had life to what degree? 100%? 99.5%. I would argue that an electron is dx% alive since all life as you define it depends upon electrons. Here's an analogy: an engine is not a complete car, but it is part of or a fraction of a car. It is X% car (0 < X < 100).

Originally Posted by skeptic

There is nothing magical about life. .

Now you must define magical. lol. Knowing how God did it does not take away the magic for me. The trick still works.

Originally Posted by skeptic

There is no mystical 'life force' which separates living and non living.

Mystical and life force. More words, more definitions needed.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Life is a chemical system, and can reproduce itself, and change over time. By this definition, the simplest forms are living. But those not able to reproduce and evolve are not.

A rolling snowball can grow bigger, reproduce itself (split into two or more snowballs on impact) and change (melt, re-freeze, vaporize) over time. Same is true for rivers and streams.

Originally Posted by skeptic

You are doubtless familiar with the Miller experiments, and the numerous similar experiments done since, which show that organic molecules are synthesized by natural processes when the ancient atmosphere of the Earth is subject to strong energy discharge, such as lightning, solar ultra violet, or meteor heat as they plunge through the atmosphere.

Thus, organic molecules, including the amino acids that form proteins, and the purines/pyrimidines etc that form nucleic acids, form naturally and can accumulate on the early Earth.

You may be familiar with the fact that many of these simple organic molecules line up when exposed to certain surfaces, such as the mineral Montmorillonite, and can thus naturally form simple polymers. You may be aware of the fact that simple lipoproteins that can be formed in this way, when in water will form 'bubbles' similar to simple cell membranes, and may trap organic molecules within them.

Using these ideas, it is not hard to speculate about the simplest chemical system forming that met the life definition. It seems probable that some such process led to the first life, which then evolved into more complex forms.

If this is correct, then there is no need to postulate a creator God as part of the process.

If what you mentioned is correct and if your conclustion is correct, then there is no need for chance or nature or any other substitute for God used to describe that which we do not completely understand. When you study nature or chance or anything else, what are you really studying? To suggest that God is not part of the process is to suggest there is no player behind the paddle that hits the ping pong ball. If you believe in a thing called nature, for example, then you are including your own god in the process. To the extent that you use a word like nature in your speech is the extent you need a god (i.e. nature) in your life.

When you talk about chance, what are you really saying? You are saying something happened by chance. This is another way of saying, "I don't know why this happened but I'm sure God had nothing to do with it and we don't even need to consider the possibility." Chance, by its defintion, is unpredictable. Why? Because you don't know why an event happened. Because you don't know, you can't reasonably presume that you do know. That's the rub of Atheism.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Pong
The definition that includes eating and excretion is useful if we are looking for some parameter to measure. It falls down on a more academic level in that it includes fire as a life form (not a problem if we are looking at Mars), since fire also 'eats and excretes'. In fact, fire includes most of the qualities used to define life, with the notable exception of the ability to evolve.

Define "evolve." Fire evolved from potential energy.

Replying to two posts.

First : evolve.
Evolution has no end point, unless extinction occurs. Fires and snowballs did not evolve. Evolution can lead to greater complexity, of massive degree, over a long period of time. Fires and snowballs do not qualify.

Interestingly, there is a non-life item that does evolve. And that is certain software programs. However, the definition gets around that by stating life is a chemical system based on nuclear acids.

To William
We need to ignore other uses of the word 'life'. Half life of an element is quite a different phenomenon, and the life of a business or product is not what we are talking about. Life is the central subject of biology. Let's not quibble about other uses of the word.

There is no alien life discovered as yet. Some people have made claims, but they have not been upheld. If and when it happens, we can change definitions.

When I talk about 'magical', 'mystical' etc., in this context, I am referring to some superstitions such as vitalism, which have been popular in the past, but are not a part of modern science. If we stick to what is known and tested empirically, such ideas are not needed.

You said :
"To suggest that God is not part of the process is to suggest there is no player behind the paddle that hits the ping pong ball."

There are lots of processes with no player. For example : Your rolling snowball has no-one pushing it. Gravity is sufficient.

The idea of God as creator of life in the beginning is one hypothesis. In a sense, it has as much merit as other hypotheses, except for one sad fact. There is no way to test that idea empirically. Other ideas are being tested all the time, with laboratory experiments, and real world observation. In this way our knowledge grows.

Religious belief requires an act of faith. Faith is not, however, an adequate tool for true science to use to work towards improving our models of reality.

Originally Posted by williampinn

But you haven't articulated a specific example.

A specific example of what? You asked what comes before the simplest form of life. I answered. You need me to point to a specific water molecule to point out the two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? How peculiar. But take the take the tornado for example, there is a self-organizing dyanmic structure that appears spontaneously in the right kind of far from equillibrium environment.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Like light waves and particles? Let me clarify these sentences for your benefit: the first is a question regarding a possible typo you made. The second sentence is another question reagarding your position on the issue of spontaneous creation vs. gradual steps or evolution.

No idea what you are talking about. How can what you said have anything to do with something you have never mentioned?

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

No I do not disagree that what came before the simplest life I can imagine is less alive.

If you do not disagree, then we agree.

Incorrect conclusion. I never said that I do not disagree with you. The correct conclusion would be that I agree that what came before the simplest ife I can imagine is less alive.

But what you concluded was: "What can ultimately be postulated then is that all things are alive to some extent". And with that I disagree.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Aren't all non-living things less alive by definition?
Correct.

We agree again.

Well maybe not. Zero is less than non-zero. Therefore to say all non-living things are less alive by definition obviously does not mean that they are alive.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Granted, but they do share the "self-organizing" element with that which you would consider "alive." Therefore, hurricanes can be considered partially alive, the term "life" can be used liberally in speech to describe the "life" cycle of a hurricane, so it is not a stretch to consider it at least partially living.

But the point is that hurricanes arises spontaneously in the right far from equillibrium environment.

To put it in quantitative terms the simplest "form of life" must consist of at least one cyclical process. There no way of fractioning that requirement. Therefore before this there is no life at all only a far from equillibrium environment where such a cyclical process can arise spontaneously.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But perhaps this is only a relative judgement which says that .00000000000000001 is nothing compared to 10000000000. .

Yes, the division between life and non-life is a relative judgment. Thank you!

No. That is not what I said and that is not correct.


[quote="williampinn"]

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

A far-from-equilibrium environment. Let's label that X. Before X, there was .99X, before that--.98X.... 0.5X... 0.1X all the way down to equilibrium. The spontaneous events you speak of can be differentiated no doubt into infintesmally small steps (dx) of progress along the curve to the final value of X.

LOL That is nonsensical. Next you will be using Xeno's paradoxes to prove that there is no such thing as motion. The universe and its events are not a continuum because of the reality of quantum physics. Reductionism has this as its bottom line. A quantum wave collapse is the ultimately irreducible spontaneous event.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I disagree. Your argument is flawed and incorrect. Self organizing phenomena arise spontaneously in the right environment.

Define spontaneous. At what point does the alleged spontaneous phenomena happen? At X+dx or X+2dx? How about X+100dx? Take your hurricane example. At what precise point in spacetime, using coordinates x, y, z, and t is the hurricane manafested?

It happens when it happens. it is like the fall of a knife perfectly ballanced on its tip. It will fall because it is unstable. The slightest deviation is magnified and deviations are inevitable and unavoidable because of quantum physics.

In any case I don't see what you are trying to prove. That everything has a cause? Physical determinism is dead. To go beyond that is to go beyond the limits of what can be called scientific or objectively provable.

Originally Posted by williampinn

OK, if you think evolution is true, then you should not have a problem with the notion that life evolved from non-life in gradual, infintesmal steps. If, on the other hand, you are a creationist, then I can see why you would prefer to reject it.

Incorrect, I told you the universe is not perfectly continuous. You are making arguments over a well of ignorance about what you are talking about. I already explained how life evolved from non-life. It is all about there being the proper environment for evolving processes to arise spontaneously. You should focus your theological queries on these two things: First where did that proper evironment come from and second is there any possible involvement of the kind of God, that you believe in, in this process by which life developed and evolved.

Now I believe in a God that is intimately involved in the life of living things but not in a manner that can be evaluated or manipulated by scientific methods. That sort of God can most certainly be involved in the development of life but not in any way that can be proven logically or scientifically to anyone who exercises the least bit of skepticism.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

for it is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation, for otherwise they would not be alive.

A snowball must be alive then. As it rolls down hill, it gathers more snow unto itself and grows and grows; it participates in its own creation. An atom is alive. It may start out as a nucleus; it then attracts electrons and grows into a full grown atom. It participates in its own creation. I could give an infinite number of examples.

Incorrect. What I said was that it is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation. I DID NOT say that anything you can judge as particpating in its own creation in some sense must therefore be alive. The process of snoball formation is about as mechanical as you can get. It is not alive.

An atom is not alive. It does not "start as a nucleus", for there is no reason to concude that an atom begins as an ion. For example, a hydrogen atom can be formed by free neutron decay. Other atoms have their origin in the decay or splitting of other atoms. This is not a growing process and this is not at all what is meant by "participating in their own creation".

You can generate a large number of meaningless examples which prove no point. Do you in fact have any point or have you as I suspect even forgotten what point it is that you were trying to make?

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Does the farmer create the tomatoes he sells in the grocery store? Does the shepherd create the wool that he sells? Does the teacher create what his students become? If you so understand the word "create" such that the answer to these questions are yes, then I would agree that in this sense life is created. But I do not believe that such a thing can be proven or concluded scientifically.

That depends on how you define create. You can prove or falsify anything if your definitions are clear. For example: If you define creation as a farmer growing tomatoes, and if farmers do in fact grow tomatoes then you will have no problem proving your understanding of creation.

The point was to ask you what you mean by the word create, in order to answer the question about whether I believe living things were created. There is no effort at all on my part to "prove" any understanding of creation.

Originally Posted by williampinn

I think you misunderstand me. I was not stating my philosphy here, I was stating a fact about the evolution (pardon the pun) of our language. Our language tends to divide things into absolutes extremes: big/small, alive/dead, etc. I suspect the arbitrary division between life and the non-living is rooted in religion, since it preceeded modern science.

LOL I can equally say that primitive science preceeded modern religion.

Modern science and religion both came out of a process by which the activities of man become more defined and specialized.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Again, whether something can be proven depends on your definition. I won't dispute that you can't scientifically prove your beliefs. To prove that God loves you, for example, seems improbable, since you can't know God's thoughts. My God, on the other hand, can be easily proven with a simple theorem:

1. God is nature--premise.
2. Nature exists--premise.
3. God exists--transitive property and conclusion.

LOL Which just goes to show how meaningless is the whole question of whether God exists, as I expain in the following: http://www.astahost.com/page-19-t13349-s180.html

Originally Posted by williampinn

I am not sure what your position is. "Life just appeared suddenly..." or "...there is no sharp line to be drawn between what is alive and what is not alive."

Neither. That is why I did not say either of these things.

My scientific position is in support of the theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) and evolution.

My theological position is that the universe was specifically designed and created for the purpose of giving birth to life, in such a way that God could be a participant in the lives of living things in order to care for, stimulate, guide and teach living things to reach out for the greater potentiality which they are capable of.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Why would your god or mine stop there?

Mine wouldn't -- as I have already explained above.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Assumption: I can only prove to myself pink unicorns exist. Fact: You can prove your hypothesis to others if they share your frame of reference.

Proving something to people who agree with you already serves what purpose?

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It depends on the components, does it not. Let's go by your list of which components are necessary to make life happen.
But I do not believe that this is so.

I said let's go by YOUR list of components (i.e. whatever you deem necessary) and you tell me "you don't believe this is so."

I told you life is not about the components it is about the process.

Originally Posted by williampinn

I don't dispute that. Remember? My postion is that all things are alive to some extent.

Thus in this way you not only render the word "life" completely meaningless but questions about life meaningless too.

Originally Posted by williampinn

My list? I advised you to use YOUR list. You are debating yourself at this point. I don't dispute that life elsewhere could have a different composition. Life elsewhere may be silicon based instead of carbon based. However, I believe that the compostion (whatever it may be) and the processes are interdependant as opposed to independant.

Yes they are interdependent in a specific example of life. But they are NOT the issue when trying to understand the nature of life in general.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Well 500000000000000 - .000000001 = 4.9999999999....

incorrect and typical...

500000000000000 - .000000001 = 499999999999999.999999999

4.9999999999.... = 5

Originally Posted by skeptic

Replying to two posts.

First : evolve.
Evolution has no end point, unless extinction occurs. Fires and snowballs did not evolve. Evolution can lead to greater complexity, of massive degree, over a long period of time. Fires and snowballs do not qualify.

Ah, but without fire and water, energy and H20, life would not happen. Both water and fire have evolved into systems of greater complexity. So has carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. In fact they, in some cases, have evolved so much, you do not recognize them anymore. The complexity you call life is made of all these components you claim are incapable of evolving. Fire and water are common ancestors to many complex things.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Interestingly, there is a non-life item that does evolve. And that is certain software programs. However, the definition gets around that by stating life is a chemical system based on nuclear acids.

Interestly, software did not jumpstart its own evolution. It had some outside assistance.

Originally Posted by skeptic

We need to ignore other uses of the word 'life'. Half life of an element is quite a different phenomenon, and the life of a business or product is not what we are talking about. Life is the central subject of biology. Let's not quibble about other uses of the word.

You need to ignore other uses of the word because they don't fit your world view. You need to ingnore any evidence that does not fit. If I point out to you empirical evidence (i.e. Webster, and half-lives), you need to ignore it, because they do not fit your world view. However, science is not about finding only the evidence that fits. It's about finding the evidence that does not fit. Scientists attempt to disprove their theories all the time. That's how science "evolves."

Originally Posted by skeptic

There is no alien life discovered as yet. Some people have made claims, but they have not been upheld. If and when it happens, we can change definitions.

No one changed any definitions. All definitions mentioned are valid ones so far. You have arbitrarily decided to cut some definitions that are widely accepted because they do not fit with what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by skeptic

When I talk about 'magical', 'mystical' etc., in this context, I am referring to some superstitions such as vitalism, which have been popular in the past, but are not a part of modern science. If we stick to what is known and tested empirically, such ideas are not needed.

You do not need them. If we stick to what is currently known, then nothing new will come out of science. We must push the envelope. So far vitalism seems unmeritorious for now. A future unifying theory might include it however.

Originally Posted by skeptic

There are lots of processes with no player. For example : Your rolling snowball has no-one pushing it. Gravity is sufficient.

Gravity is analogeous to the ping pong paddle. Gravity may be sufficient explanation for you. Some people have even less curiousity, and some have none. I am very curious. I want to know the source of gravity. Curved spacetime? Still not enough to satisfy me. Why does curved spacetime have to work? Why does gravity have to work? In the absence of a divine power with purpose, why does any physical law have to work? I'm sure I'll have even more questions as each of these questions are answered. My learning curve never ends. It does not stop. It evolves. LOL! Let's assume there is no god or intelligence. Let's assume there is no purpose behind any of the laws of physics or biology. Why does anything have to work? In the absence of a god, none of it has to work. Math and science have no value in such a cold, non-caring universe. The snowball does not have to roll down the hill because gravity does not have to work because nothing gives a hoot whether it works or not. Why should a non-caring universe produce caring humans? Can a series of purposeless events (evolution) eventually do something on purpose? We can resolve this contradiction if we are at least willing to consider that there is a purpose behind evolution. Chaos theory shows that nothing really happens by chance. The dice aren't random at all if we know all the initial conditions and hidden variables.

Originally Posted by skeptic

The idea of God as creator of life in the beginning is one hypothesis. In a sense, it has as much merit as other hypotheses, except for one sad fact. There is no way to test that idea empirically. Other ideas are being tested all the time, with laboratory experiments, and real world observation. In this way our knowledge grows.

You can test the God theory empiracally if you define God specifically. My theorem once again:
1. Nature exists--premise.
2.Nature is God--premise.
3. God exists--transitive property and conclusion.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Religious belief requires an act of faith.

So does scientific belief. What do you really know? Speaking for myself, most of my knowledge is hearsay: what I read in books, what my professors told me, etc. The empiracal evidence they speak of may exist or it may not. I have not seen much of it first hand. I either take their word for it or I don't. I either have faith in evolution or I don't. Did I dig up all those alleged fossels? Did I test the merits of the carbon 14 dating process. NO! The only knowledge I can truly say is pure and not faith is my own personal experiences.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Faith is not, however, an adequate tool for true science to use to work towards improving our models of reality.

Faith is the best tool in human history for improving our models of reality. Faith in your predecesor's work allows you to stand on their shoulders. You don't have to re-invent the wheel. If Einstein says E=MC2, you go with it unless it fails you. You might be able to punch holes in scientific theories (e.g. general relativity vs. quantum mechanics), but you use them whereever they work for you. If religion helps you live a better life, again you don't fret over inconsistancies in the doctrine, unless you're a pain in the ass like me, and you boldly question everything in your path. This slows down my progress though, and if I want to speed things up, I must have faith rather than re-invent the wheel.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Like light waves and particles? Let me clarify these sentences for your benefit: the first is a question regarding a possible typo you made. The second sentence is another question reagarding your position on the issue of spontaneous creation vs. gradual steps or evolution.
No idea what you are talking about.

No idea what I'm talking about. Your words, not mine. I am going to hold you to them. LOL!

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

We agree again.
Well maybe not. Zero is less than non-zero. Therefore to say all non-living things are less alive by definition obviously does not mean that they are alive.

OK. We obviously disagree upon the definition of life.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Granted, but they do share the "self-organizing" element with that which you would consider "alive." Therefore, hurricanes can be considered partially alive, the term "life" can be used liberally in speech to describe the "life" cycle of a hurricane, so it is not a stretch to consider it at least partially living.

But the point is that hurricanes arises spontaneously in the right far from equillibrium environment.

To put it in quantitative terms the simplest "form of life" must consist of at least one cyclical process. There no way of fractioning that requirement. Therefore before this there is no life at all only a far from equillibrium environment where such a cyclical process can arise spontaneously.

Only one cyclical process is required? Cool, then all atoms are alive because they each have at least one cyclical process: at least one electron spins around the nucleus at least once. The cycle is complete when the orbit is complete.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But perhaps this is only a relative judgement which says that .00000000000000001 is nothing compared to 10000000000.

Yes, the division between life and non-life is a relative judgment. Thank you!

No. That is not what I said and that is not correct..

Uh huh.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

A far-from-equilibrium environment. Let's label that X. Before X, there was .99X, before that--.98X.... 0.5X... 0.1X all the way down to equilibrium. The spontaneous events you speak of can be differentiated no doubt into infintesmally small steps (dx) of progress along the curve to the final value of X.
LOL That is nonsensical. Next you will be using Xeno's paradoxes to prove that there is no such thing as motion. The universe and its events are not a continuum because of the reality of quantum physics. Reductionism has this as its bottom line. A quantum wave collapse is the ultimately irreducible spontaneous event.

I disagree. quantum events have stacked probabilities that cancel the exremes and attract toward the means creating the continuum, so the differentiation still works on the macro scale. On the micro scale I have never heard of the quantum wave collapse as being irreducible. Perhaps you are misinformed. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse

Here is a quote: "The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated,"

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I disagree. Your argument is flawed and incorrect. Self organizing phenomena arise spontaneously in the right environment.

If your mother says so. lol.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Define spontaneous. At what point does the alleged spontaneous phenomena happen? At X+dx or X+2dx? How about X+100dx? Take your hurricane example. At what precise point in spacetime, using coordinates x, y, z, and t is the hurricane manafested?
It happens when it happens. it is like the fall of a knife perfectly ballanced on its tip. It will fall because it is unstable. The slightest deviation is magnified and deviations are inevitable and unavoidable because of quantum physics.

The knife falls because of quantum physics? I think Newtonian physics would serve better in this instance. Based on what I have read, the graviton has not been discovered yet, so I question your knowledge of quantum theory at this point.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

for it is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation, for otherwise they would not be alive
A snowball must be alive then. As it rolls down hill, it gathers more snow unto itself and grows and grows; it participates in its own creation. An atom is alive. It may start out as a nucleus; it then attracts electrons and grows into a full grown atom. It participates in its own creation. I could give an infinite number of examples.

Incorrect. What I said was that it is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation. I DID NOT say that anything you can judge as particpating in its own creation in some sense must therefore be alive. The process of snoball formation is about as mechanical as you can get. It is not alive. .

I hate to break this to you but I don't have to judge the way you want.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

An atom is not alive. It does not "start as a nucleus", for there is no reason to concude that an atom begins as an ion. For example, a hydrogen atom can be formed by free neutron decay. Other atoms have their origin in the decay or splitting of other atoms. This is not a growing process and this is not at all what is meant by "participating in their own creation".

I think you meant that only living things like dogs and cats can participate in their own creation. However, life, as you define it, would not exist if atoms could not participate in creating themselves, compounds, etc. You can think of a group of atoms as a living entity evolving to the point you would call life.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Again, whether something can be proven depends on your definition. I won't dispute that you can't scientifically prove your beliefs. To prove that God loves you, for example, seems improbable, since you can't know God's thoughts. My God, on the other hand, can be easily proven with a simple theorem:

1. God is nature--premise.
2. Nature exists--premise.
3. God exists--transitive property and conclusion.

LOL Which just goes to show how meaningless is the whole question of whether God exists, as I expain in the following: http://www.astahost.com/page-19-t13349-s180.html

If it is so meaningless, then why are you here? My beliefs should be no threat to you then.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

My scientific position is in support of the theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) and evolution.

My theological position is that the universe was specifically designed and created for the purpose of giving birth to life, in such a way that God could be a participant in the lives of living things in order to care for, stimulate, guide and teach living things to reach out for the greater potentiality which they are capable of.

What happened to quantum mechanics? LOL!

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Proving something to people who agree with you already serves what purpose?

Agreed, but proving something to those who share the same frame of reference with you does serve a purpose, since they may not agree with you.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It depends on the components, does it not. Let's go by your list of which components are necessary to make life happen.
But I do not believe that this is so.
I said let's go by YOUR list of components (i.e. whatever you deem necessary) and you tell me "you don't believe this is so."
I told you life is not about the components it is about the process.

Just the process? The process can be one of the components necessary to make life happen.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I don't dispute that. Remember? My postion is that all things are alive to some extent.
Thus in this way you not only render the word "life" completely meaningless but questions about life meaningless too.

Nah! I looked life up in the dictionary. Why don't you?

Originally Posted by williampinn

No idea what I'm talking about. Your words, not mine. I am going to hold you to them. LOL!

Please do, perhaps someday you may even understand them. Perhaps someday you may even understand what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

We agree again.
Well maybe not. Zero is less than non-zero. Therefore to say all non-living things are less alive by definition obviously does not mean that they are alive.

OK. We obviously disagree upon the definition of life.

You think? LOL

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Granted, but they do share the "self-organizing" element with that which you would consider "alive." Therefore, hurricanes can be considered partially alive, the term "life" can be used liberally in speech to describe the "life" cycle of a hurricane, so it is not a stretch to consider it at least partially living.

But the point is that hurricanes arises spontaneously in the right far from equillibrium environment.

To put it in quantitative terms the simplest "form of life" must consist of at least one cyclical process. There no way of fractioning that requirement. Therefore before this there is no life at all only a far from equillibrium environment where such a cyclical process can arise spontaneously.

Only one cyclical process is required? Cool, then all atoms are alive because they each have at least one cyclical process: at least one electron spins around the nucleus at least once. The cycle is complete when the orbit is complete.

Again you show as much in ability in simple logic as you show in simple arithmetic. What you care to call a cycle is certainly not sufficient for life, and even your example reveals the boundless well ignorance you have in science. There is nothing even remotely cyclical about electron orbits because these do no move in cyclical motions about the nucleus like planets around the sun. LOL ... sigh...

What I said was that life consists of cyclical processes - a very special kind of cyclical process (of which a planetary orbit is certainly not an example) and the point was that one of these cycles is the farthest that you can reduce the life process down to. Without a single one of these cyclical process, there can be no life. But this is of course pointless because you have no wish to learn anything....

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But perhaps this is only a relative judgement which says that .00000000000000001 is nothing compared to 10000000000.

Yes, the division between life and non-life is a relative judgment. Thank you!

No. That is not what I said and that is not correct..

Uh huh.

I was comparing things that are alive and the conclusion was that many things that we do not consider alive may really only be classified as not alive by a relative judgment and that is not the same thing, for there are still many things which are not alive in any way whatsoever - absolute zero, 0.

Originally Posted by williampinn

I disagree. quantum events have stacked probabilities that cancel the exremes and attract toward the means creating the continuum, so the differentiation still works on the macro scale. On the micro scale I have never heard of the quantum wave collapse as being irreducible. Perhaps you are misinformed. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse

Here is a quote: "The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated,"

Yes a lot of people disagree with and hotly debate things like special relativity and the fact that the earth is a an oblate sphere rather than flat, but whatever fringe you care to join I will stick with the consensus of the scientific community, which in regards to quantum physics is the Copenhagen interpretation. But this is not a topic which I will continue to pursue with you.

Originally Posted by williampinn

I hate to break this to you but I don't have to judge the way you want.

Unconstrained by anything so insignificant to you as mere logic, there is nothing that is more obvious to me than this fact that you don't have to judge anything in the way that I do.

Originally Posted by williampinn

If it is so meaningless, then why are you here? My beliefs should be no threat to you then.

talking to you, you mean? Well people do make mistakes.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Neither. That is why I did not say either of these things.

My scientific position is in support of the theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) and evolution.

My theological position is that the universe was specifically designed and created for the purpose of giving birth to life, in such a way that God could be a participant in the lives of living things in order to care for, stimulate, guide and teach living things to reach out for the greater potentiality which they are capable of.

What happened to quantum mechanics? LOL!

What happened to the relevance of your words? The comment I was responding to was: "I am not sure what your position is. 'Life just appeared suddenly...' or '...there is no sharp line to be drawn between what is alive and what is not alive.'"

Apparently I waste my time attempting to clarify your confusion, the condition seems to be permanent. I at least confess defeat. I cannot help you.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Proving something to people who agree with you already serves what purpose?

Agreed, but proving something to those who share the same frame of reference with you does serve a purpose, since they may not agree with you.

And so what are you going to do about that?

...

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I don't dispute that. Remember? My postion is that all things are alive to some extent.
Thus in this way you not only render the word "life" completely meaningless but questions about life meaningless too.

Nah! I looked life up in the dictionary. Why don't you?

Well this has become rather childish, I shall let you continue this conversation with Q.

The issue before the court is whether life is distinctly different than non-life. I contend that life does not exist in a vacuum, neither does the science of biology. They are connected and related to the physical world. Where would life be without electrons, for instance?

Let me try to put things in perspective. Let's assume that we are talking about humans rather than life in general. Most will agree that a snake and a chimp are not human. But if I were to ask which is more human, what would be your response? Most would probably respond that the chimp is more human than the snake. Why? Because the chimp is more closely related. All animals, plants and non-living things could be classified as to how well or how poorly they stack up to the "human" standard.

Now let's look at the transition from non-life to life. Some non-living things are obviously more closely related to life than other non-living things. It would be silly to suggest that all non-living things are equal. By varying degrees they compare to the standard of life whatever that standard might be. Take three things: a rock, fire, and a human. Most would agree that the human is alive and the rock and fire are not. But which is more alive? The rock or the fire? My guess is the fire, since it is more closely related to the definition of life. It can grow and feed itself, change and spread, it is animated more so than the rock. Therefore all non-living things can be classified as to how well or how poorly they stack up to the "life" standard.

This change in the way we normally classify things does not change the truth about anything. It merely provides a way to bridge the gap between life and non-life. If evolution is correct, then it should not be a stretch to suggest that non-life evolved into life, and is capable of doing this because not all non-life is equal (equally distant from life), and there are physical laws that provide a selection process.

The alternative would be the spontaneous creation of life from non-life. Poof! Abacadabra! Life comes into existence then evolves by gradual stages? Clearly anyone can see the contradiction here.

Another alternative is the theory that there was enough time for life to spontaneously come into existence from "pure" non-life (as if all non-life is equally distant from life). The problem here is the math. According to Dawkins the universe is not nearly old enough to overcome the astronomical odds against a jump or hop (as he describes it) from the non-living to the living.

I am confused about why this is supposed to be any sort of argument for the existence of a god. Williampinn seems to be arguing that "aliveness" is some sort of intrinsic property that all things possess to varying degrees. Even if we assume for a moment that this is true, I don't see how that's supposed to be evidence for a god. The idea that life is an intrinsic property seems orthogonal to the idea that a supremely powerful being exists that controls the universe.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

I am confused about why this is supposed to be any sort of argument for the existence of a god. Williampinn seems to be arguing that "aliveness" is some sort of intrinsic property that all things possess to varying degrees. Even if we assume for a moment that this is true, I don't see how that's supposed to be evidence for a god. The idea that life is an intrinsic property seems orthogonal to the idea that a supremely powerful being exists that controls the universe.

if God is everywhere and exists in all things, they would all be at least partially alive.

Originally Posted by williampinn

if God is everywhere and exists in all things, they would all be at least partially alive.

Even if one accepts that "aliveness" is an intrinsic property that all things have, it doesn't need to have anything to do with god. Perhaps it's just another intrinsic quality that things have in various amounts, like enthalpy. Or are you going to argue that enthalpy is the result of god's presence in all things now?

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Even if one accepts that "aliveness" is an intrinsic property that all things have, it doesn't need to have anything to do with god.

Then the intrinsic "aliveness" of the cells in your body need not have anything to do with you. We could just interpret you as a set of cells, molecules, or whatever. Each of us is free to interpret data any way we like. However, not seeing the conection between you and your cells does not seem more scientific to me as is the failure to see the connection between life and god.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Perhaps it's just another intrinsic quality that things have in various amounts, like enthalpy. Or are you going to argue that enthalpy is the result of god's presence in all things now?

If you look at the big picture then you will realize that I've been there an done that. I don't think I need to argue that god is behind enthalpy. That is already implied if god is the cause of all things.

A question you might ponder is why does everything have these intrinsic properties called life or enthalpy, etc.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by williampinn

if God is everywhere and exists in all things, they would all be at least partially alive.

Even if one accepts that "aliveness" is an intrinsic property that all things have, it doesn't need to have anything to do with god. Perhaps it's just another intrinsic quality that things have in various amounts, like enthalpy. Or are you going to argue that enthalpy is the result of god's presence in all things now?

William is arguing for a pantheistic god, you know a God = Nature sort of thing. At least this is what he says in previous posts. Anyway if he wants to call nature by the name "God", he can. But of course I wouldn't call that proving anything either. He can hardly expect an argument to make other people call nature by his pet name now can he?

Originally Posted by williampinn

According to Dawkins the universe...

No argument here, just found that phrase hilarious.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by williampinn

if God is everywhere and exists in all things, they would all be at least partially alive.

Even if one accepts that "aliveness" is an intrinsic property that all things have, it doesn't need to have anything to do with god. Perhaps it's just another intrinsic quality that things have in various amounts, like enthalpy. Or are you going to argue that enthalpy is the result of god's presence in all things now?

William is arguing for a pantheistic god, you know a God = Nature sort of thing. At least this is what he says in previous posts. Anyway if he wants to call nature by the name "God", he can. But of course I wouldn't call that proving anything either. He can hardly expect an argument to make other people call nature by his pet name now can he?

Ah, you know I'm greedier than that. Nature is pretty much established. But the idea that all things are alive to some extent is not quite so obvious. If it was, you would not have paid me a visit. I appreciate the interest. I really do. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by williampinn

According to Dawkins the universe...

No argument here, just found that phrase hilarious.

I am glad I could amuse you. Here is a phrase that will make you laugh so hard you will wet your pants:

To universe the Dawkins according...

I scrambled the words. Hahahahahahahahaha! Email it to your friends. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Originally Posted by williampinn

I scrambled the words. Hahahahahahahahaha! Email it to your friends. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And your brain also, by the content of your replies, lol.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by williampinn

I scrambled the words. Hahahahahahahahaha! Email it to your friends. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And your brain also, by the content of your replies, lol.

LOL! Gud'n!

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by williampinn

I scrambled the words. Hahahahahahahahaha! Email it to your friends. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And your brain also, by the content of your replies, lol.

LOL! Gud'n!

Please Williampinn. You claim to be a man of science, but you take no notice of any science; yet, even more, you ridicule the scientific community.

Are you by any chance VenomFangX from Youtube ? http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rch_type=&aq=f This man has also a remarkable view on the planet; such view as you have; namely : 'So granit/stone also must be a living thing'. No morons; only carbon-based 'unliving things' might be [as they are the base of life].

Please do visit the YouTube channel of VenomFangX; I suspect you will enjoy that very much, as I enjoy the defeats and 'headbengs' and 'kicks at the balls' he and other religious bystanders get. The atheists [read scientists] are very well organised on YouTube.

Please, see some video's and after you did, look at this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7vustPgLbo [VenomFangs Lawyer]
And look for : RabidApe, Thunderf00t and ThetaOmega also; maybe they can teach you some basic science.

(Moron)

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Originally Posted by williampinn

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by williampinn

I scrambled the words. Hahahahahahahahaha! Email it to your friends. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And your brain also, by the content of your replies, lol.

LOL! Gud'n!

Please Williampinn. You claim to be a man of science, but you take no notice of any science; yet, even more, you ridicule the scientific community.

Are you by any chance VenomFangX from Youtube ? http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rch_type=&aq=f This man has also a remarkable view on the planet; such view as you have; namely : 'So granit/stone also must be a living thing'. No morons; only carbon-based 'unliving things' might be [as they are the base of life].

Please do visit the YouTube channel of VenomFangX; I suspect you will enjoy that very much, as I enjoy the defeats and 'headbengs' and 'kicks at the balls' he and other religious bystanders get. The atheists [read scientists] are very well organised on YouTube.

Please, see some video's and after you did, look at this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7vustPgLbo [VenomFangs Lawyer]
And look for : RabidApe, Thunderf00t and ThetaOmega also; maybe they can teach you some basic science.

(Moron)

Well, so far, you have taught me no science whatsoever! LOL! Your comment is nothing but an emotional diatribe filled with meaningless platitudes rattling around in your skull. I am sure people with names like "rabbidape" can teach me a lot about science, but first I have to finish my study of tensor calculous and the General Relativity Theory field equations. Then I will look into your "basic" science that you are studying in your high school science class. Nah! Been there, done that.

Here is a little science history lesson for you:

Not all scientists are Atheists. Einstein, Planck, Darwin, Faraday and many others were religious. I was surprised to see Darwin on the list, but in his fourth edition of Origin of Species, he gave God a shout out.

I was once an Atheist myself, but gave up the habit. The problem with being an Atheist is that you have to be cock sure that there is no god whatsoever. As an Atheist I used to say that some things happened by chance, not by God's will. The problem with this position is that "chance" is merely just a word invented by mankind to describe unpredictable events, events that we do not fully understand or comprehend. The science of Chaos shows us that if we knew all the initial conditions and varibles, we could predict those "random" events. The implication is that everything happens for a reason. Basically, when we say something happens by chance, we are saying "we don't know why it happened but we are absolutely sure it had nothing to do with God."

Do you see the absurdity yet? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and will assume that you do. If you are rational, at the very least, you have to acknowledge your own ignorance regarding chance events and at least consider the posssibility that there might be a god.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Basically, when we say something happens by chance, we are saying "we don't know why it happened but we are absolutely sure it had nothing to do with God."

Do you see the absurdity yet?

So, an earthquake that kills thousands or a tsunami that kills hundreds of thousands just might actually have had something to do with god?

yes, i still do not see the validity of the tragedy-no god connection

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by williampinn

Basically, when we say something happens by chance, we are saying "we don't know why it happened but we are absolutely sure it had nothing to do with God."

Do you see the absurdity yet?

So, an earthquake that kills thousands or a tsunami that kills hundreds of thousands just might actually have had something to do with god?

Nah, only a great flood that wipes out the entire planet save for Noah and the arc is the work of God. The smaller tragedies are the devil's work. LOL!

Originally Posted by williampinn

Nah, only a great flood that wipes out the entire planet save for Noah and the arc is the work of God. The smaller tragedies are the devil's work. LOL!

Really? And you, the alleged arbiter of the supernatural, are here to help us distinguish between gods work and the devils work?

Well, it would appear by YOUR logic that god is in fact the one who is a murderous, maniacal despot, compared to the devil, due to wiping out the entire planet in one fell swoop. I noticed too that instead of simply stopping the hearts of everybody, he felt it necessary to have them die painfully and slowly by drowning. Nice guy.

Williampin wrote:

Nah, only a great flood that wipes out the entire planet save for Noah and the arc is the work of God.

When did that happen? In Bruce Almighty it flooded only a small village because the dam broke.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Not all scientists are Atheists. Einstein, Planck, Darwin, Faraday and many others were religious. I was surprised to see Darwin on the list, but in his fourth edition of Origin of Species, he gave God a shout out.

Not really true.

Einstein was not religious. He did not believe in any kind of personal gods. Check this link http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/
The same case applies for darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion.

Originally Posted by Dipumon

Originally Posted by williampinn

Not all scientists are Atheists. Einstein, Planck, Darwin, Faraday and many others were religious. I was surprised to see Darwin on the list, but in his fourth edition of Origin of Species, he gave God a shout out.

Not really true.

Einstein was not religious. He did not believe in any kind of personal gods. Check this link http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/
The same case applies for darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion.

You want to know rather than believe? I don't get that impression. I get the impression that you want to believe that what I posted is untrue. Your Darwin link leads to a page that says nothing on Darwin's views of God, and your Einstein link confirms that Einstein did believe in some sort of god. He was NOT an Atheist.

Originally Posted by williampinn

Let's assume that Darwin's theory is true, that life seamlessly evolved in infinitesimally small steps from non-living materials. One question you might ask is what came just before the generation of the simplest life form you can think of?

You can ask yourself that question william, of course you can, but there is no need to assume the truth of Darwin's theory to do so. What is required before you ask yourself that question is that you should have a very clear idea of what is a life form. It seems obvious to me that you cannot ask yourself, What came just before the... simplest life form you can think of? until you have a clear idea of what a life form is. Otherwise, how do you know which is the simplest life form you can think of?

Your first step is to figure out what is, and what is not, on the tree of life; you need a definition of what life is. Earlier in this thread mitchellmckain had a go at this and he said it was:

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It [life] is a self-organizing dynamic structure of cyclical processes.

Which seems to me to be a pretty reasonable place to at least start the discussion. You replied to this...

Originally Posted by williampinn

That sounds like a description of the inner workings of the sun, or perhaps the weather. In fact that description is so general, it could fit many non-living systems.

And, generally, that is your problem here. Any definition of life you can come up with will include things that aren't really alive in the sense in which we mean life.

Later on you said...

Originally Posted by williampinn

the term "life" can be used liberally in speech to describe the "life" cycle of a hurricane, so it is not a stretch to consider it at least partially living?

Another good illustration of your difficulty. The word "life" is commonly used in contexts that don't really apply to your current debate; manufactured goods have a life cycle but there is no sense in which any of us would consider a calculator to be "alive". So the questions just get harder: If all things that have life-cycles can be assumed to be alive in some sense for that very reason, what is the difference between the sense in which we mean a hurricane is alive and the sense in which we mean a calculator is alive?

You can't answer that question until you have properly answered the original question, what exactly do we mean by alive, or more importantly, since you are the one asking the question, what do you mean by alive?

But then you say...

Originally Posted by williampinn

Yes, the division between life and non-life is a relative judgment. Thank you!

Which reads to me as though you are saying that the answer to the definition of life is purely subjective; the question does not have a scientific answer but a philosophical answer.

Originally Posted by williampinn

You can prove or falsify anything if your definitions are clear.

Precisely. My mathematics tutor had a dictum that he hammered into me through constant repetition; first, define your terms.

That's jolly good advice, and I would encourage you to start there. Skeptic had a go at encouraging you to define life but you simply quoted Webster's dictionary and said that everything is alive to some degree as though, as Scifor Refugee pointed out, "aliveness" were a fundamental property of all things. Well okay, you can believe that if you want, but if that is what you believe then your original question makes no sense whatsoever, because for you there is nothing at all that comes before the simplest life form you can imagine.

What you really need to do is make a choice:

• Are all things alive in some sense? If you answer this with a yes your original question makes no sense at all.
• If at least some things are not alive, what do you mean by life?

p.s. Since you like to include scientific sounding terminology and pseudo-logical inferences into your posts it might not be a bad idea to start learning what those terms mean and some basic rules of logical inference. For example, you say...

Originally Posted by williampinn

My God, on the other hand, can be easily proven with a simple theorem:

1. God is nature--premise.
2. Nature exists--premise.
3. God exists--transitive property and conclusion.

Your first premise assumes the very existence of that which you seek to prove. Your conclusion is based on the logical inference that If 1) is true, and If 2) is true, then 3) follows. So all this says is...God exists because I assumed he does, and all it proves is that you don't yet understand the nature of proof.

Personally, I think you have more chance of learning how to write a logically correct proof than you have of defining life, but I wouldn't care to bet on you ever being able to do either.

Originally Posted by numbers

Originally Posted by williampinn

Let's assume that Darwin's theory is true, that life seamlessly evolved in infinitesimally small steps from non-living materials. One question you might ask is what came just before the generation of the simplest life form you can think of?

You can ask yourself that question william, of course you can, but there is no need to assume the truth of Darwin's theory to do so. What is required before you ask yourself that question is that you should have a very clear idea of what is a life form. It seems obvious to me that you cannot ask yourself, What came just before the... simplest life form you can think of? until you have a clear idea of what a life form is. Otherwise, how do you know which is the simplest life form you can think of?

Your first step is to figure out what is, and what is not, on the tree of life; you need a definition of what life is. Earlier in this thread mitchellmckain had a go at this and he said it was:

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It [life] is a self-organizing dynamic structure of cyclical processes.

Which seems to me to be a pretty reasonable place to at least start the discussion. You replied to this...

Originally Posted by williampinn

That sounds like a description of the inner workings of the sun, or perhaps the weather. In fact that description is so general, it could fit many non-living systems.

And, generally, that is your problem here. Any definition of life you can come up with will include things that aren't really alive in the sense in which we mean life.

Later on you said...

Originally Posted by williampinn

the term "life" can be used liberally in speech to describe the "life" cycle of a hurricane, so it is not a stretch to consider it at least partially living?

Another good illustration of your difficulty. The word "life" is commonly used in contexts that don't really apply to your current debate; manufactured goods have a life cycle but there is no sense in which any of us would consider a calculator to be "alive". So the questions just get harder: If all things that have life-cycles can be assumed to be alive in some sense for that very reason, what is the difference between the sense in which we mean a hurricane is alive and the sense in which we mean a calculator is alive?

You can't answer that question until you have properly answered the original question, what exactly do we mean by alive, or more importantly, since you are the one asking the question, what do you mean by alive?

But then you say...

Originally Posted by williampinn

Yes, the division between life and non-life is a relative judgment. Thank you!

Which reads to me as though you are saying that the answer to the definition of life is purely subjective; the question does not have a scientific answer but a philosophical answer.

Originally Posted by williampinn

You can prove or falsify anything if your definitions are clear.

Precisely. My mathematics tutor had a dictum that he hammered into me through constant repetition; first, define your terms.

That's jolly good advice, and I would encourage you to start there. Skeptic had a go at encouraging you to define life but you simply quoted Webster's dictionary and said that everything is alive to some degree as though, as Scifor Refugee pointed out, "aliveness" were a fundamental property of all things. Well okay, you can believe that if you want, but if that is what you believe then your original question makes no sense whatsoever, because for you there is nothing at all that comes before the simplest life form you can imagine.

What you really need to do is make a choice:

• Are all things alive in some sense? If you answer this with a yes your original question makes no sense at all.
• If at least some things are not alive, what do you mean by life?

p.s. Since you like to include scientific sounding terminology and pseudo-logical inferences into your posts it might not be a bad idea to start learning what those terms mean and some basic rules of logical inference. For example, you say...

Originally Posted by williampinn

My God, on the other hand, can be easily proven with a simple theorem:

1. God is nature--premise.
2. Nature exists--premise.
3. God exists--transitive property and conclusion.

Your first premise assumes the very existence of that which you seek to prove. Your conclusion is based on the logical inference that If 1) is true, and If 2) is true, then 3) follows. So all this says is...God exists because I assumed he does, and all it proves is that you don't yet understand the nature of proof.

Personally, I think you have more chance of learning how to write a logically correct proof than you have of defining life, but I wouldn't care to bet on you ever being able to do either.

Nice try, but my question is in the second person. In other words, the question does not refer to my definition of life, but yours. Even if life is YOUR definition, life is still relative, since it does not exist in a vacuum.

When you study the subject of Geometry, you will learn about proofs and theorems. All such proofs start with one or more premises.