November 8th, 2012, 10:29 AM
there is proof that a supreme being created the earth if u look at the symettry and organization that is in the field ofscience.
if microscopes and science proves that there was a supreme creator , like many christian scientists or christians say then what if i say what if 3 non supreme not all powerful gods came together with all there power and created the earth? where is the proof that there is only one God in science?
Last edited by PaulMichael; November 8th, 2012 at 11:50 AM.
If you put 5 balls in a bucket and several scoops of dried peas, cover with a magic scarf, and then shake the bucket long enough, you can probably remove the magic scarf with a "Ta-da!" and the balls will have magically risen to the top through the power of intelligent design...
...unless you understand the process... and figure the apparent magic is the effect of the properties.
Now take a look at the universe, pretty big place. If you look 7 lights years away in that direction, a few hundred kilometers to the right and two cm below that, you will find theres nothing magically complex and uber organized there, and pick randoms spots between galaxies and odds are there's nothing spectacular there either. If out of the whole universe various interactions occur, the properties will end up creating complexity that appears amazing from our perspective, but given the properties of the universe and the size, its not as amazing, a bit like seeing the balls risen to the top in the bucket.
And if we find ourselves godly anointedly lucky and chosen that the properties of the universe happen to be such that we are sentient i(in our tiny spec of the cosmic environment), you have to consider that had the properties not been such as to allow it (or if we put a frame of reference of 6 billions years ago) there would not be anyone wondering why they are the unchosen ones, so its almost a no brainer that the only universal parameter/cosmic situation/alternate universe in which consciousness happens is one in which it magically coincidentally happens to be possible.
Last edited by icewendigo; November 29th, 2012 at 04:55 AM.
I always get a kick out of those that claim that so many things in the universe are aranged just so and if they weren't life wouldn't be possible. That proves God created the universe. Some scientists follow that reasoning. I liken it to a mud puddle in a depression in the ground. The puddle says, "Oh looky, this hole fits me perfectly. God must have created it just for me."
This analogy of a mud puddle fitting into a hole takes into account three variables: the hole, the puddle, and the properties of water. In contrast, an argument for the improbability of life arising from a sequence of haphazard events takes into account the number of variables which are requisite for life to have been formed by the modern evolutionary synthesis. I do not currently have knowledge of a quantized database of how many variables this would exactly be; however, it would be possible to produce an estimate with the application of a supercomputer, if such has not been done already. This postulate does not have any relevance as to whether or not an outlying primary cause exists; it provides a ratio with which to demonstrate the odds of life arising to its current state without any input from a governing entity. This ratio is 1: (The amount of variables requisite).Originally Posted by slush33
I had put the colonto close to a parenthesis at first. Exactly that happened. That's a cool feature.
Last edited by Ye_Yodeling_Ice_Maelstrom; November 16th, 2012 at 09:40 AM.
These are the same Christian scientists who let their children die for lack of medical care while they're praying for a cure?
Those Christian scientists?
Maybe I've misunderstood your post but if you were trying to convey the opposite of how it comes across, you may want to reconsider how you expressed it.
What you said is inaccurate. Emergence is well established and the inevitability of organic reactions is just as well established. We developed here, and evolved here and you can assume that only here, in these conditions, can life develop and evolve.
Nonsense.
The abundance of organic chemicals and welcoming environments, along with the inevitability of organic chemical reactions make life as we know it a very likely result on any habitable world. This says nothing for life that is not like we know it.
The OP is only questioning the proof that there is one god. IOW why one, when many gods could have contributed to universe construction. All I can say is that in religion, anything goes, and if more than one god fits your ideology then go for it. The only thing unsymmetrical or unorganized is all of religion itself.....go figure. The one thing you'd think God or His buddies would want to get right. The universe is perfect but organized religion far from it. I would love to hear the explanation.
I would think that it's by the same principle as Morality. People don't always want the same things and when you define a thing by what you want it to be...
Well, not everyone is going to agree.
Uh, no. We're talking God here, not people. God creates this fantastic universe but can't get His followers on the same page. In fact He doesn't really have followers, the best He can do is have believers. Believers! That's it. Can't even establish His true self for people to follow.I would think that it's by the same principle as Morality. People don't always want the same things and when you define a thing by what you want it to be...
Well, not everyone is going to agree.
Maybe you are... to me, they are one - the same.
I'm not surprised. Let's say there is a God/Creator/Grand Designer. He created all of the Cosmos in painstaking detail and intricate function- only the humans can't get it right. This surprises you? We can't get anything right.
Not at all. Again you're talking about people. If there's a God then He did a shitty job creating us. One and the same is good, then nobody's perfect. Anyway we are probably going to get this thread whacked for going off the rails.....soMaybe you are... to me, they are one - the same.
I'm not surprised. Let's say there is a God/Creator/Grand Designer. He created all of the Cosmos in painstaking detail and intricate function- only the humans can't get it right. This surprises you? We can't get anything right.
The OP said there was proof of God but he didn't know if there was proof of more than one. I will now ask what everyone is thinking: What f**king difference would it make? Actually I really think the OP was eventually going to try and lead us to believe that each of the Abrahamic religions have their own god. He just wants them all to be right, that's all.
True...
The O.P. didn't make any sense so I didn't pay it much mind...
I do agree with the Christian Scientist who say, as you put :"there is proof that a supreme being created the earth if u look at the symettry and organization that is in the field ofscience." I deny, personally, that God has three entities. I'm not Christian, just trying to be tolerant.
Saying that symmetry proves the existence of a Designer or Creator is a bit like saying Sound proves the existence of language. It doesn't follow, you see. If you choose to believe in a creator, that's fine. But inventing 'false proofs' is an act of desperation.
For one thing, this "symmetry" is misleading; it simply is not there. It's just the concept that to the ignorant mind, well... things look a bit designed... so they must be designed. That's not investigative nor rational, it's calling a "proof" be declaring "I just can't imagine it being any other way." But things are not very symmetrical, at all. If they were, our ancestors might have easily figured out the Universe long ago.
No christian scientist would conclude that.if microscopes and science proves that there was a supreme creator ,
This question doesn't even deserve an answer it's ridiculous.
This from Dr Robert Stovold explains your error, very simply.
It is not dissimilar to the post by icewendigo.Sandwiched between a plagiarized biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as (and I paraphrase) “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”. I’ve refuted both lies with an analogy that I’ve used for years, which I’ll share with Freethinker readers in the form of an amusing conversation I once had with a Creationist:
Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!
Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?
Creationist: Yes.
Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box? Do you think it’s because God put them there?
Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.
Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well? Why do the small flakes fall further?
Creationist: I don’t know.
Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
Creationist: There must be more to it than that? There must be! There has to be!
[Walks away scratching his head....]
A more detailed refutation of Comfort’s nonsense is beyond the scope of this blog, but will appear in a future print edition of The Freethinker.
On the Origin of Specious Arguments
Dr Robert Stovold
This is a seriously flawed statement. Until we have established, in detail, a plausible and probable route from non-life to life and have thereby specified the conditions necessary for that process, we cannot assess how likely those conditions are to have existed on other worlds.
I repeat what I should probably put in my signature line. To extrapolate from a sample size of one is foolish. It is certainly not science.
At present we do not know if life is inevitable and to be found in all kinds of locales, including the interior of comets, the depths of inter-stellar space, or the atmosphers of Venus and Jupiter; or, if it is incredibly rare so that we may be the only expression of it in the entire galaxy, local cluster, super group, or entire universe.
As a matter of opinion, I lean much closer to the former than the latter, but that is only an opinion. It is certainly not science.
Are you saying no establishment of a plausible route of this has been done? Interesting....
Origin of Life - A Systems Perspective
http://cisneros-heredia.org/infotran...azcano1996.pdf
The Role of Self-Assembled Monolayers of the Purine and Pyrimidine Bases in the Emergence of Life - Springer
We've been mimicking the process of emergence for decades, repeatedly demonstrating the formation of the building blocks of life in the laboratory. Now, so far, we've never made a "Living" thing, but the plausible effect is well established.
That is not what's being done. What is being done is basic Chemistry- unless you're suggesting that chemistry and physics won't hold on other Earth-like planets...
I never said anything of the kind.
I said the chemistry of life is inevitable under the right conditions. (Habitable)
Which is worlds apart from what you just said. Or is the interior of a comet habitable?
But we can examine unusual conditions:
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/content/154/3/377.short
http://www.sysbio.harvard.edu/csb/Ch...ence_essay.pdf
Scroll down a bit...
Please don't play cute games with me. You are perfectly well aware that my thesis is contained in a complete sentence. Trite debating tricks will be ingored, as they deserve to be.
Until we have established, in detail, a plausible and probable route from non-life to life and have thereby specified the conditions necessary for that process, we cannot assess how likely those conditions are to have existed on other worlds.
It is not sufficient that the route be plausible.
It is not sufficient that the route be probable.
It must be plausible and probable and detailed.
We do not have a detailed plausible and probable process yet defined.
Therefore we cannot specify the conditions, including any choke point/road block/crticial step that may be required.
Therefore we cannot assess what range of conditions are required, or how narrow or wide these ranges are.
Therefore we cannot assess what the likelihood is of these conditions arising on other planets, or any other extra-terrestrial environment.
Of course it is world's apart. I am pointing out that life may be so darn easy to establish that it can occur in a bewildering variety of conditions. And yes the interior of a comet may indeed be a very habitable place for appropriate life forms. But we do not know. And we do not know because we have not yet established, in detail, a plausible and probable route from non-life to life and thereby specified the conditions necessary for that process, and so we cannot assess how likely those conditions are to have existed in other environments.I said the chemistry of life is inevitable under the right conditions. (Habitable)
Which is worlds apart from what you just said. Or is the interior of a comet habitable?
Granted- considering that I'm playing no games.
Please do not accuse me of doing things I am not- in addition to claiming I've said things I've not said.(Claiming I said life is inevitable in the interior of a comet <rolleyes)
Very well, a scrupulously high standard, but I'll accept it as reasonable for the topic.
I'll refine my statement for you:
The chemistry that leads to the building blocks that can emerge into self replicating molecules and life is inevitable under the right conditions.
Assess? No.
Speculate? Yes.
<Sigh>
Was I referring to the interiors of Comets for some lifeforms? No, I was not. In fact, I said that my statement does not apply to life that is not as we know it. To quote you:
Trite debating tricks will be ignored, as they deserve to be. If you're going to make claims about what I said, stick to what I said instead of injecting things I did not. I can consider that a "Game" or a "Trite trick" just as easily as you can accuse me of it.
If you are not playing games then please do not make the error of attacking a portion of an integrated argument as if that were the whole argument.
You are completely missing the point in relation to the 'life in a comet' and that is my responsibility for failing to express myself clearly.
I am specifying the two end members on a spectrum of the likelihood of life. At one end the process is so involved and intricate and has so many bottlenecks that life has emerged only once in the entire universe. At the other end it is an inevitable consequence of commonplace chemistry that can arise in a wide variety of environments including the interior of comets.
Since I am attacking your (faulty) apparent belief that life is inevitable in habitable environments I wished to make it clear that I think it just as likely that it might be damnably easy for it to arise. We just don't know.
So there was no debating trick there, simply some rhetoric that didn't deliver its intended clarity.
And while we are at it, in my book life as we know it means DNA based cellular life. I see nothing necessarily inhospitable about the interior of a comet for such life. You have ample supplies of organic and pre-biotic molecules. You have heating, either from episodic close approaches to parent stars, or from natural radioactivity in the rocky portions of the comet. Seems ideal to me. Maybe even nicer than the dry Antarctic valleys.
Allow me to try to separate points of contention then. It may result in your post being dissected then put back together in a different order, but I'll alter none of what you said.
Once that we know of and no evidence that it has anywhere else.
Reading upward, we come to my faulty expression.
I said habitable and habitable is just too general a word. I later worded it as "Under the right conditions."
I stand by the second statement I made in this regard; and I think you can agree with it. I'll quote it here:
Whether or not life will emerge under the right conditions is, as you pointed out, not so clearly established. I retract my earlier statements (I'll make lame excuses of thinking faster than typing and lack of sleep.)The chemistry that leads to the building blocks that can emerge into self replicating molecules and life is inevitable under the right conditions.
On this one, I disagree. Going by DNA based life, the periodic heating from the sun would be too quick and too far in between. The cold periods would be far colder than Antarctica (Although this link is interesting: Discover Magazine: The latest in science and technology news, blogs and articles - Did Life Evolve in Ice?) and to the best of my knowledge, you cannot pool the chemical soup in a warm enough environment, with a pressurized atmosphere of Methane, CO2 etc. along with strikes of lightning on the interior of a comet. The ingredients are there, but the environment is quite different. But this may be a debate for it's own thread.
I should have been far more specific than saying "Habitable" with my own assumptions as what that word meant inside of my head when I typed it.
| « I need to talk to someone smart | Twelfth Insight » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
