Science and Faith

[ABikerSailor]

You know.......EVERY element that exists in the Universe came from a star that exploded and got started in the fusion between hydrogen and helium.

When the Sun first lit off, it threw off a lot of energy, and various pieces of dust started to coalesce and became the planets that currently circle the Sun. All of those planets with the exception of one, were outside what is called the "Goldilocks zone", either too warm or too cold. Earth is just right.

Various processes went on over many years........the Earth cooled, water vapor started to form, and was helped out greatly by the occasional comet coming and slamming into the Earth.

With the water, the various minerals and such in the oceans, combined with the occasional zap of electricity, that is what started life.

But..........even though there is a very good scientific theory about how it all got started, there had to be SOMETHING that was watching over the whole process, fine tuning and adjusting as they went. That person was God.

I think Einstein said it best.........."Theology without science is crippled, and science without theology is blind".

 

[AVG-JOE]

I liked that. Thanks, ABS.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In science, the theory of the conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Buddhists totally agree and extend the principle to mind as well.

"Mind" in Buddhism means awareness of phenomena - either conscious or unconscious - and awareness of phenomena can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.

Particle physicists emphasize the role of the observer in defining anything. For example, from a certain point of view, light is matter; from another point of view, it is energy. What type of phenomenon light seems to exist as depends on many variables, particularly on the conceptual framework the investigator is using to analyze it. Thus, phenomena do not exist inherently as this or that from their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

Buddhism asserts the same thing: what things exist as depends on the observer and the conceptual framework with which the personregards them. For example, whether a certain situation exists as a horrible problem or as something solvable depends on the observer, the person involved. If somebody has the conceptual framework, "This is an impossible situation and nothing can be done," then there really is a difficult problem that cannot be solved. However, with the frame of mind that thinks, "This is complicated and complex, but there is a solution if we approach it in a different way," then that person is much more open to try to find a solution. What is a huge problem for one person is not a big deal for another. It depends on the observer, for our problems do not inherently exist as monstrous problems. Thus, science and Buddhism come to the same conclusion: phenomena exist as this or that dependent on the observer.

 

[edthecynic]

The postulation for life start at the atomic and molecular level began in the animo acids in a primordial pool, pond, swamp, whereby the spark that began cell division was instituted by electrical arcing of two cells into one, thus, beginning the repetition of division. There are three theories on this topic, all with the same hypothesis.

Thus, the beginning as we understand it requires; warmth, water, O2, organic matter, electrical energy (lightning), and the condition for all to interact, at least twice, and away it goes.......

Robert

Okay, then where did the warmth, water, O2, organic matter, and electrical energy come from?

Science has shown, or has tried to show, how life starts. However, it has failed to explain where all the components that are required come from in the first place.

All the components are energy in some form and it has been PROVEN that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

You could say that energy is the only God whose existence can be proven.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The postulation for life start at the atomic and molecular level began in the animo acids in a primordial pool, pond, swamp, whereby the spark that began cell division was instituted by electrical arcing of two cells into one, thus, beginning the repetition of division. There are three theories on this topic, all with the same hypothesis.

Thus, the beginning as we understand it requires; warmth, water, O2, organic matter, electrical energy (lightning), and the condition for all to interact, at least twice, and away it goes.......

Robert

Okay, then where did the warmth, water, O2, organic matter, and electrical energy come from?

Science has shown, or has tried to show, how life starts. However, it has failed to explain where all the components that are required come from in the first place.

All the components are energy in some form and it has been PROVEN that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

You could say that energy is the only God whose existence can be proven.

Interestingly enough, in the very first part of the Bible (i.e. Genesis), the first name that God uses is "ElOhim", which means God (El), of many powers (Ohim). It was when God used that particular name for Himself, that He shouted "Let there be Light".

Now........if you take what I'd written just up the thread, you'd see that the entire first part of Creation (as per the Bible) could be described using the same post as what I'd written about how science explains how things came to be.

"In the Beginning, there was chaos, and the world was without form and void". Kinda like what a whole bunch of swirling dust does, eh?

"Let there be Light". Ever thought about how a star is created? How's about the Big Bang?

 

[AVG-JOE]

God is Awesome! - is my statement!

Yes, this battle from some atheists will continue, they will to try to "disprove" God. Jesus Christ told us what would happen and as time goes on, it will get worse. (See Matthew 24 in the Bible for a glimpse) Christians will be hated, some even killed (as they are now in some countries) for their faith in Jesus. The love of most will grow cold because of sin. (We first sin against God) Although He made a way, because He loves us. A gift through Jesus Christ our Lord; but that will not be good enough for some, sadly. They want "proof" or some tangible sign - just as the Bible says. They come up with "FSM"- Flying Spagehtti Monster, yet "FSM" was a "creation" in itself. Where does the FSM get it's composition of its "noodley appendages" anyhow? lol.

It's a pretty good read, but why would I look for a glimpse of the future in a 1,500 year old book based on a 2,000 year old story?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

What would be a third explanation? Either it started spontaneously, or something made it happen, I can't think of a third possibility.

I'd be happier with the way you put it than the quote in the OP. That was more specific, spontaneous generation to evolution or god.

There's also the question of if the quote was supposed to be about any life, or life on Earth. If it is specific to Earth, then certainly alien intervention would be another possibility outside of god.

I didn't particularly like the OP either, but it is essentially correct. Even if we accept alien intervention as the reason life arose on Earth it still had to start somewhere and somehow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the right wing lexicon, there are only two choices about everything. The one they imagine and "reality". It's why they are so used to being wrong.

That sounds more like the way you think than the way a right winger thinks. Regardless, there are only two ways life could have started, spontaneously, or through the intervention of someone. If you can think of a third explanation I will gladly accept it.

 

[Montrovant]

What would be a third explanation? Either it started spontaneously, or something made it happen, I can't think of a third possibility.

I'd be happier with the way you put it than the quote in the OP. That was more specific, spontaneous generation to evolution or god.

There's also the question of if the quote was supposed to be about any life, or life on Earth. If it is specific to Earth, then certainly alien intervention would be another possibility outside of god.

I didn't particularly like the OP either, but it is essentially correct. Even if we accept alien intervention as the reason life arose on Earth it still had to start somewhere and somehow.

Like I said, it was the specifics of the OP that bothered me, not so much when you broadened it to spontaneously or through intervention.

Just for the sake of argument (because I enjoy arguing!) a third option might be that life has always existed, but as it rises and falls it is spread throughout the universe (through comets, perhaps). Pretty thin, I realize, I was just trying to see if I could come up with another option Since the argument that an intelligence created life leads to the question of where the intelligence came from, this came to mind.

I pretty much agree with the possibilities you present. I just like to keep that tiny sliver of doubt in mind, that perhaps my ignorance of the universe, the things which make it up, the forces which move it, how it sprang into being, etc. prevent me from seeing a third option. Practically (if anything about a discussion of this nature can really be thought of as practical) spontaneously or driven by some intelligence are the only two options.

/incoherent ramble off

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd be happier with the way you put it than the quote in the OP. That was more specific, spontaneous generation to evolution or god.

There's also the question of if the quote was supposed to be about any life, or life on Earth. If it is specific to Earth, then certainly alien intervention would be another possibility outside of god.

I didn't particularly like the OP either, but it is essentially correct. Even if we accept alien intervention as the reason life arose on Earth it still had to start somewhere and somehow.

Like I said, it was the specifics of the OP that bothered me, not so much when you broadened it to spontaneously or through intervention.

Just for the sake of argument (because I enjoy arguing!) a third option might be that life has always existed, but as it rises and falls it is spread throughout the universe (through comets, perhaps). Pretty thin, I realize, I was just trying to see if I could come up with another option Since the argument that an intelligence created life leads to the question of where the intelligence came from, this came to mind.

I pretty much agree with the possibilities you present. I just like to keep that tiny sliver of doubt in mind, that perhaps my ignorance of the universe, the things which make it up, the forces which move it, how it sprang into being, etc. prevent me from seeing a third option. Practically (if anything about a discussion of this nature can really be thought of as practical) spontaneously or driven by some intelligence are the only two options.

/incoherent ramble off

The problem with your little proposition is that you still have to explain the fact that, at some point, life had to start.

If you want a truly mind blowing alternative explanation to the two I presented you could always use the one I like to throw out when people start getting to sold on their point of view.

Life created the universe to have a place to live. This has the beauty of explaining God, evolution, and the origins of the Universe in a way all but the most fanatical can accept. As for the fanatics, joke them if they can't take a fuck.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Got a cite for that "proof"? I would think, if it's worth its salt, you'd provide it. It's very telling that you didn't. You're playing with words. The spontaneous generation Pasteur talked about is totally different from that believed to have started life on earth.

Uh, genius, that's what all that non-bolded print was after the quote: The citation. What are you, 15 or so, that you don't recognize a citation that doesn't involve the Internet? Once upon a time, my child, back when dinosaurs walked the Earth, we used these paper items called "books". Open one.

 

[uscitizen]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

There is a third option we were created as an alien high school students science experiment that he got a C on.

Why would it have to be a single all powerful God that magically created us?
There may well be several groups in the universe with the knowledge and means to seed a planet with life.

And there may well be several other options that we are just to ignorant to even imagine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

I would suppose whatever it is that qualifies him to write biology texts for Houghton-Mifflin, the textbook publishers.

 

[uscitizen]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

I would suppose whatever it is that qualifies him to write biology texts for Houghton-Mifflin, the textbook publishers.

that may just be as simple as being related to someone with power

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

I would suppose whatever it is that qualifies him to write biology texts for Houghton-Mifflin, the textbook publishers.

that may just be as simple as being related to someone with power

No. You would still have to have the degree, even if you were an utter twit.

 

[uscitizen]

I would suppose whatever it is that qualifies him to write biology texts for Houghton-Mifflin, the textbook publishers.

that may just be as simple as being related to someone with power

No. You would still have to have the degree, even if you were an utter twit.

True but some people with not much real sense at all hold degrees.

 

[Foxfyre]

One could hold PhD's in every scientific discipline that exists as well as every theological discipline that exists and have each give his/her best shot at the paradox and you are still left with one indisputable conclusion: Nobody know how the stuff of the universe came to be there.

For those of us who do have a personal relationship with God by whatever name that God be called, it is easy to believe in a Creator that could call the universe and all that is in it into being. That same Creator would also be the author of science so there need be no quarrel between creation and science.

Those who deny the existence of a "Creator" believe that the stuff of the universe has always been here and what we know of the universe and all that is in it happened purely by chance or accident.

The Creator theory is much easier to wrap one's mind around I think.

 

[edthecynic]

One could hold PhD's in every scientific discipline that exists as well as every theological discipline that exists and have each give his/her best shot at the paradox and you are still left with one indisputable conclusion: Nobody know how the stuff of the universe came to be there.

For those of us who do have a personal relationship with God by whatever name that God be called, it is easy to believe in a Creator that could call the universe and all that is in it into being. That same Creator would also be the author of science so there need be no quarrel between creation and science.

Those who deny the existence of a "Creator" believe that the stuff of the universe has always been here and what we know of the universe and all that is in it happened purely by chance or accident.

The Creator theory is much easier to wrap one's mind around I think.

The fact that energy can neither be created not destroyed has been proven by a repeatable experiment so it is not a "belief," it is a PROVEN FACT!!!

Those who deny the First Law of Thermodynamics have created a "personal" God in their image.

A repeatable experiment is infinitely more trustworthy than some imaginary non-thing created by primitive people a few thousand years ago.

What can you prove about your personal creator?

 

[Foxfyre]

One could hold PhD's in every scientific discipline that exists as well as every theological discipline that exists and have each give his/her best shot at the paradox and you are still left with one indisputable conclusion: Nobody know how the stuff of the universe came to be there.

For those of us who do have a personal relationship with God by whatever name that God be called, it is easy to believe in a Creator that could call the universe and all that is in it into being. That same Creator would also be the author of science so there need be no quarrel between creation and science.

Those who deny the existence of a "Creator" believe that the stuff of the universe has always been here and what we know of the universe and all that is in it happened purely by chance or accident.

The Creator theory is much easier to wrap one's mind around I think.

The fact that energy can neither be created not destroyed has been proven by a repeatable experiment so it is not a "belief," it is a PROVEN FACT!!!

Those who deny the First Law of Thermodynamics have created a "personal" God in their image.

A repeatable experiment is infinitely more trustworthy than some imaginary non-thing created by primitive people a few thousand years ago.

What can you prove about your personal creator?

Ed, sweetie, I think few scientists would use the word 'proof'.

We only know how things seem to work on Planet Earth and, in a much more limited basis, on the moon. We only know what can be rationally discerned of what we can observe out in space.

You don't know that energy has always existed or that it cannot be created or destroyed by something any more than I do. We only know that nobody has been able to do it on Planet Earth. Yet. All we know is via the science that we now have which I believe is a tiny fraction of the science that is available to know and understand.

Any scientist worth his salt has an open mind and is fully cognizant that what we know to be 'fact' today may well be proved to be folly tomorrow. I posted on another thread the definition of science as guideposts installed with each discovery or new conclusion and guiding the scientists on from that point to where the next will be placed.

 

[konradv]

Got a cite for that "proof"? I would think, if it's worth its salt, you'd provide it. It's very telling that you didn't. You're playing with words. The spontaneous generation Pasteur talked about is totally different from that believed to have started life on earth.

Uh, genius, that's what all that non-bolded print was after the quote: The citation. What are you, 15 or so, that you don't recognize a citation that doesn't involve the Internet? Once upon a time, my child, back when dinosaurs walked the Earth, we used these paper items called "books". Open one.

Don't care what you have to say on any topic. If I'm fifteen, then you've got to be what, 11?!?!