A lesson for the liberal elite

[nakedemperor]

Don't ask what God can do for you, but what you can do for God.

I mean... what?

P.S. The Big Bang Theory is moronic. They say it began as a "cosmic egg" which exploded, creating the universe. Where did the cosmic egg come from??

A very interesting question. The red shift still baffles me. But the mysteries of science and the history of the universe remain largely unknown. I don't understand why "an intelligent diety whose power is completely unknowable to us" created life is more credible than "life evolved from no-life". Either way its a mystery, but to say that because we can't understand the complexities of the universe so there must be a God whose complexities we can't understand who made it...well, its just not a logical progression. As for evolution...either you buy it, or you're willfuly ignoring the scientific data in favor of armchair conjectural statements like "DNA is soooooo complicated! Man, that evolution stuff is WAY to complicated to be natural!"

 

[5stringJeff]

Personally, I have no problem believing that God created the universe through the Big Bang. I have no problem believing that God determined the laws of physics and chemistry, etc. And I have no problem believing that God created all life. In fact, science tends to confirm the tenets of Intelligent Design, not oppose them.

 

[Bonnie]

Personally, I have no problem believing that God created the universe through the Big Bang. I have no problem believing that God determined the laws of physics and chemistry, etc. And I have no problem believing that God created all life. In fact, science tends to confirm the tenets of Intelligent Design, not oppose them.

Neither do I, I believe it was all intelligent design, after all God's timetable is different than ours.

 

[Mariner]

who doubt evolution here on this board seem to have religious reasons for doing so. As someone with no such religious axe to grind, I can honestly say that quantum mechanics is a much more far-fetched theory, and yet 1/3 of our U.S. economy now relies on its useful consequences, from lasers to transistors. It seems pretty clear that this theory gives you guys a problem primarily because it conflicts with the creation myth in Genesis. Why not just do as generations of scientific Christians have already done, and let go the idea that the Bible is always literally true, and a science textbook?

The argument that "the odds are against conditions being perfect for life" is called the anthropic fallacy. Yes, the chance of life developing on any one planet is indeed slim, but only on such a lottery-winning planet would creatures evolve to marvel at the odds. There are hundreds of billions of stars, and even the most conservative estimates suggest that life must have arisen already on many planets within each galaxy, including ours.

Bonnie, why is it so hard to imagine DNA evolving? Look at the molecule itself--a simple ladder or sugars that twist naturally into a helix. The code is immensely imperfect, as are many other biological mechanisms, which give less of a sense of being intelligently designed than of being jury-rigged and practical, exactly as the Theory of Evolution predicts.

Amino acids form naturally--50 years ago a nice experiment was done in which a broth of chemicals of the type expected to be present on the surface of the early earth was subjected to radioactivity and electric discharges of the type predicted to have been present then--and organic molecules formed. It's not such a huge step to imagine such molecules, over more than a billion years, becoming self-replicating.

Evolutionary principles are also being used to design objects and computer programs--have you seen some of the amazing designs that have resulted? They truly show the power of a genetic system. Simple programs can develop highly complex structures, from "hands" to "eyes," given enough iterations.

Mariner.

 

[Deornwulf]

What if evolution is just part of God's plan?

 

[no1tovote4]

What if evolution is just part of God's plan?

An intelligent Deity would be able to design a genetic code that could grow and improve on itself as it worked to replicate. It seems logical to assume that in this case science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless of what many may think, there must have been a beginning and a reason for the energy of the Big Bang creating what we see and hear of every day.

 

[5stringJeff]

who doubt evolution here on this board seem to have religious reasons for doing so. As someone with no such religious axe to grind, I can honestly say that quantum mechanics is a much more far-fetched theory, and yet 1/3 of our U.S. economy now relies on its useful consequences, from lasers to transistors. It seems pretty clear that this theory gives you guys a problem primarily because it conflicts with the creation myth in Genesis. Why not just do as generations of scientific Christians have already done, and let go the idea that the Bible is always literally true, and a science textbook?

I have yet to see where the Bible and quantum theory contradict each other. Want to show us that one?

The argument that "the odds are against conditions being perfect for life" is called the anthropic fallacy. Yes, the chance of life developing on any one planet is indeed slim, but only on such a lottery-winning planet would creatures evolve to marvel at the odds. There are hundreds of billions of stars, and even the most conservative estimates suggest that life must have arisen already on many planets within each galaxy, including ours.

Bonnie, why is it so hard to imagine DNA evolving? Look at the molecule itself--a simple ladder or sugars that twist naturally into a helix. The code is immensely imperfect, as are many other biological mechanisms, which give less of a sense of being intelligently designed than of being jury-rigged and practical, exactly as the Theory of Evolution predicts.

The problems that evolutionsists must answer are: 1. How did DNA arise - spontaneously or by evolution? 2. If by evolution, were there other, more rudimentary means of protein creation before DNA (or RNA)? 3. If so, where are they? 4. If not, how did DNA, a very complex molecule, show up all of a sudden?

Amino acids form naturally--50 years ago a nice experiment was done in which a broth of chemicals of the type expected to be present on the surface of the early earth was subjected to radioactivity and electric discharges of the type predicted to have been present then--and organic molecules formed. It's not such a huge step to imagine such molecules, over more than a billion years, becoming self-replicating.

This is the Miller experiment, and no serious scientist today stands by the results. Miller used an "atmosphere" that is very different from what scientists today believe the early Earth was like. Basically, he set up his experiment to get the results he wanted. But even so, we have only come up with a few amino acids, and no method of self-replication.

 

[Mariner]

Jeff, re: the Bible doesn't contradict Quantum Mechanics. That's exactly my point. If it did, then you guys would be concocting theories of "Intelligent Schrodinger Equations" in order to fight back against the godless physicists.

Regarding the Miller experiment--I last read about it in high school, and I'm no expert in that area, so you could well be right that it was not a good experiment. But I know enough biologists (and enough biology) to know that organic molecules form naturally, and I have no trouble believing that self-replicating molecules could arise on an early earth over a billion years. After all, cells are just layers of fat molecules--fat organizes itself into layers automatically. There are thousands of other examples of such "self-assembly" in biological systems that don't require the active hand of an Intelligent Designer.

It's funny that the argument here is stuck on DNA now. When the idea of vitalism was giving up the ghost over several centuries, as science relentlessly demonstrated that biological systems were made from the same "stuff" as non-living things, the kidney was the last stand. The vitalists accepted that heart and lungs and everything else were made of regular molecules, but that the kidney, because if its amazing powers of filtration, must be evidence of God's hand. You guys are placing yourselves in the same position if you say, "I'll accept that the average biological molecule is just like any other molecule, but DNA is obviously intelligently designed."

By the way, why would an intelligent designer include miles of junk in our precious DNA? Our DNA itself is one of the more powerful supports for evolution, as it's filled with leftover, turned-off genes for things like tails and scales that we no longer need. Look at a human embryo--it looks like a fish! Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, and all that. Or compare human embryonic development to that of other creatures, and see how truly and averagely animal we are. Or look how much DNA we share even with plants, what to say of other animals. Why would an anti-evolutionary intelligent designer bother? Laziness?

But I'll come back to my main point: IDers are picking and choosing their scientific theories due to a religious preference. That alone should be reason to cast doubt on their ideas as science. All the while, they're driving cars, using laser pointers, and wearing fabrics made from genetically modified cotton, i.e. trusting and enjoying the very science they're seeking to tear down.

I have no problem with someone who says, "Maybe God created the Big Bang, the laws of the universe, and evolution." That seems to me the perfect way to reconcile religious belief with science. If I were a Christian, I'd put one of those Darwin fish-with-legs on my car face to face with a regular Christian fish, smooching.

Mariner.

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff, re: the Bible doesn't contradict Quantum Mechanics. That's exactly my point. If it did, then you guys would be concocting theories of "Intelligent Schrodinger Equations" in order to fight back against the godless physicists.

I honestly don't know where you are getting the whole "Christians hate science" thing. We don't. We just believe that God has a hand in science as well.

Regarding the Miller experiment--I last read about it in high school, and I'm no expert in that area, so you could well be right that it was not a good experiment. But I know enough biologists (and enough biology) to know that organic molecules form naturally, and I have no trouble believing that self-replicating molecules could arise on an early earth over a billion years. After all, cells are just layers of fat molecules--fat organizes itself into layers automatically. There are thousands of other examples of such "self-assembly" in biological systems that don't require the active hand of an Intelligent Designer.

The problem is that there are several parts of a cell that all need to be together at the same time in order to create life. There's a cellular membrane, DNA (and/or RNA), mitochondria, proteins (not just a few amino acids), enzymes, etc. All of these have to be incorporated all at once, with a meaningful DNA chain, in order for life to arise. Not possible, given the Earth's early atmosphere.

It's funny that the argument here is stuck on DNA now. When the idea of vitalism was giving up the ghost over several centuries, as science relentlessly demonstrated that biological systems were made from the same "stuff" as non-living things, the kidney was the last stand. The vitalists accepted that heart and lungs and everything else were made of regular molecules, but that the kidney, because if its amazing powers of filtration, must be evidence of God's hand. You guys are placing yourselves in the same position if you say, "I'll accept that the average biological molecule is just like any other molecule, but DNA is obviously intelligently designed."

Actually, I only use DNA because it is so unmistakably complex. The bacterial flagellum is a widely used example of irreducable complexity. It is a rotor that has three or four different parts, each of which is useless without its partners. Darwinian macroevolution states that such a thing would have to evolve piece by piece. But what advantage would that bacteria have with half of a rotor? Darwainian macroevolution states that it wouldn't, and so the extra pieces would be dropped before the whole flagellum evolved.
There are other examples, but those are two.

By the way, why would an intelligent designer include miles of junk in our precious DNA? Our DNA itself is one of the more powerful supports for evolution, as it's filled with leftover, turned-off genes for things like tails and scales that we no longer need. Look at a human embryo--it looks like a fish! Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, and all that. Or compare human embryonic development to that of other creatures, and see how truly and averagely animal we are. Or look how much DNA we share even with plants, what to say of other animals. Why would an anti-evolutionary intelligent designer bother? Laziness?

First, as to embryos, you are mistaken. Please see this primer for what embryos really look like. You may be surprised.
As to the genes you cite, many of these genes actually do have purposes that, with the help of genetics, we are just now discovering. Furthermore, we do share quite a bit of DNA with other living things (I think I heard that 67% of our DNA is common to a watermelon). But that actually supports ID, not evolution. We as humans design machines and objects that look a lot alike. Take cars, for example. There are many makes and models, yet look at the similarites: all have four tires, an internal combustion engine, doors, lights, and windshields. Yet, we designed some to be sporty, some to be efficient, some to haul cargo, etc. The same principle applies in life as well. Almost all animals have legs, for example, but some have 4, some have 6, some are different sizes, etc. depending on the animal.

But I'll come back to my main point: IDers are picking and choosing their scientific theories due to a religious preference. That alone should be reason to cast doubt on their ideas as science. All the while, they're driving cars, using laser pointers, and wearing fabrics made from genetically modified cotton, i.e. trusting and enjoying the very science they're seeking to tear down.

Again, Christians are not anti-science. Christians applaud science, but they also recognize God's hand in it. And ID uses scientific principles to prove the theory.

I have no problem with someone who says, "Maybe God created the Big Bang, the laws of the universe, and evolution." That seems to me the perfect way to reconcile religious belief with science. If I were a Christian, I'd put one of those Darwin fish-with-legs on my car face to face with a regular Christian fish, smooching.

Mariner.

Well, here's my take. God created the universe through the Big Bang. God set the principles of science into motion, to include physics, chemistry etc. God then stepped back into the universe and created life on Earth, and instituted biology - including microevolution.

 

[manu1959]

Well, here's my take. God created the universe through the Big Bang. God set the principles of science into motion, to include physics, chemistry etc. God then stepped back into the universe and created life on Earth, and instituted biology - including microevolution.

is it possible that the big bang simply occured with no outside influence and the chain reaction set in motion what we now have...if not so be it...question then...where was god and what was he / she / it up to prior to that moment?

 

[KarlMarx]

is it possible that the big bang simply occured with no outside influence and the chain reaction set in motion what we now have...if not so be it...question then...where was god and what was he / she / it up to prior to that moment?

The answer is.... there was no time before the big bang, because there was no space, either. Space and time are inter-dependent, one cannot exist without the other (that is not according to me, that is according to the latest cosmological theories that we have discussed at length in another post.). I conclude from this that God exists outside of time and space and there wasn't a "before" the big bang.

St. Augustine tackled this question in the 4th century, his conclusion was that God exists in eternity and for eternity to exist, there is no past or future only a "present".

We can't fathom that, because we are creatures that exist in time and space, so what is timelessness and spacelessness like? Only God can answer that question.

 

[5stringJeff]

is it possible that the big bang simply occured with no outside influence and the chain reaction set in motion what we now have...if not so be it...question then...where was god and what was he / she / it up to prior to that moment?

I think Karl Marx answered your question pretty right on. Not to mention, scientists have calculated that if the universe had been heavier by 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000, the universe would have collapsed on itself at the Big Bang within less than a second; had it been lighter by that much, stars would never had formed. Because the sum of the mass and energy of the universe is so precise, I conclude that there must have been some design into that number - namely, God.

What was God up to before that? Existing outside of the bounds of time and space.

 

[KarlMarx]

I think Karl Marx answered your question pretty right on. Not to mention, scientists have calculated that if the universe had been heavier by 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000, the universe would have collapsed on itself at the Big Bang within less than a second; had it been lighter by that much, stars would never had formed. Because the sum of the mass and energy of the universe is so precise, I conclude that there must have been some design into that number - namely, God.

What was God up to before that? Existing outside of the bounds of time and space.

Actually, I think that the number I heard had a lot more zeroes (somewhere between 30 and 60 zeroes all together), but then I could be wrong... well close enough for government work! I also have heard (well, I was listening to one of Stephen Hawkings' audio books a while back ... so that's what I meant by "heard") that other physical constants have precisions that are just as small, if not smaller.

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually, I think that the number I heard had a lot more zeroes (somewhere between 30 and 60 zeroes all together), but then I could be wrong... well close enough for government work! I also have heard (well, I was listening to one of Stephen Hawkings' audio books a while back ... so that's what I meant by "heard") that other physical constants have precisions that are just as small, if not smaller.

Correct... many of nature's constants are so precise that they could not just be random.

 

[manu1959]

Correct... many of nature's constants are so precise that they could not just be random.

why can't they be random?

remeber .... anything is possible

 

[no1tovote4]

why can't they be random?

remeber .... anything is possible

This whole discussion is beginning to sound like "God's Debris" by Scott Adams. Anybody else read that?

 

[Mariner]

You're falling for the anthropic fallacy again.

Maybe 1 with 60+ zero universes are being created every second, so that a new universe capable of supporting life is created 3600 times an hour.

I'm not sure why the idea of "outside time and space" necessitates a creator God, Jeff... ? If there's one thing science has taught us, it's that "common sense" doesn't apply very well in most physical realms, only in the everyday dealings of humans. It's not common sense that time slows down when you travel, that you can't exceed the speed of light, that a single electron approach a diffraction grid somehow senses the presence of the entire grid, and defracts, or that time and space might be just 4 of 26 total dimensions. The difference between all these scientific ideas and religious ones is that they are testable, while the religious ideas are based on faith. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you keep them distinct. If you ask me which is more important, scientific knowledge or ethical/religious, I'd choose the latter.

Mariner.

 

[manu1959]

This whole discussion is beginning to sound like "God's Debris" by Scott Adams. Anybody else read that?

hey anything is posible......one explanation of the begining, how we got here and why we are here is as likley as any other..... one day everyone will know the answer .... pitty you won't be able to tell anyone ...guess that keeps it fun

 

[manu1959]

i love the arogance of this discussion.....scientist make claims and say they can prove things .... which they can't .... and creationsist use the same data and say it proves there is a god ..... the moment of death will be interesting

 

[KarlMarx]

Being a spiritualist, I have moved away from organized religion with all it's pat answers and man made laws attributed to a 'god.' Don't get me wrong, I don't ever deny the religious beliefs of others being what works for them. It just stopped working for me a long time ago.

Thing is when you let go of brain washing and religious teachings and look to your inner self for answers and what makes sense to you, then eveolution just doesn't work either. Between the universe and how all things cosmic are placed and rotated to give us all we need here on earth and the needs of the human body, well to believe that a greater being, intellegent and powerful did not set it all in place but it just happened by evolution makes no sense. We'd have to ask if our evolution adapted to the universe or if the universe adapted to our needs. It's not logical that something turned into a creature that adapted to the universe.

Even if you believe the big bang theory, fine. But then I have to ask myself where did the stuff come from that banged? It just was there, you say? Really? There how? There from where? Nothing as big as a universe just is. So answer that. Where did teh universe that just *banged* come from?

Interesting ideas. Well, I have to ask you, what if mankind had decided long ago not to build upon the knowledge of all the previous generations but would instead rediscover knowledge for itself from scratch in each and every generation? We would be living in caves, without fire, without the wheel and certainly without the technology and knowledge that we have now.

Yet, without even thinking about it, many people do just that when it comes to religion and "spiritual" things.

In my earlier example, for instance, what if I had to discover the simple laws of mechanics on my own? What if I had to derive . the way a lever or a wheel worked? What if "my own truth" was wrong? Well.... for one thing, the lever and the wheel would not work!

You are looking at truth as if it is something that we each can define, that's not how it works. Truth exists outside of us , is independent of us. If I wait for answers that "make sense" to me, what if I find the truth, but it is too ugly and awful to deal with? What if the answer required me to give up things that I am dependent on, as in an addiction? More than likely, I’ll rationalize my present situation and not do anything about it.

What if my set of answers are in direct conflict with your interests? For instance, what if I decided that “the answer” that made the most sense to me required me to kill you, steal your property and/or rape your spouse?

No one would suggest that we each measure distance, time or weight according to what suits our individual tastes. The same is true for money. Instead, we submit ourselves to a standard or a set of standards. The same is true for the law. We each submit ourselves to a standard set of laws.

Even further, what if our survival depended on our cooperation? Suppose we had a common enemy to fight (either another tribe of people, a plague of locusts, or a disease). Wouldn’t it be easier to cooperate if we had a common set of values and beliefs in order to bond us together?

This is why organized religion and a common set of beliefs and values are so important to our survival. By submitting to these beliefs, we have a standard set of laws to live under, we have a common set of values which we share, and in effect we cooperate in ways that benefits all of us.