Originally posted by TaomanThen you are a supernaturalist? How does that differ from a theist? Not that there's anything wrong with being a theist, I am just trying to understand.
[b]Preliminary:
I am not a theist nor a creationist.
...
I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsTruly, mate.
These aliens could be these good and bad angels
that God created before he created man.
Truely,
RJHinds
I was going to reply to your other post.
I like to think that there is truth in the bible which matches up with the facts that science has presented us.
I also think that "aliens" are a part of our future.(and past)
S'all good, God is protecting us, after all we are humans ("After all we are Americans, and by God...." ...err forget that🙂 ), and all humans more or less are in the same predicament.
The fact that we fall into two major groups ,here at rhp, reflects strongly on where we are at as a race.
God bless, RJHinds
Originally posted by TaomanThanks Taoman I very much liked the way you described reality It is close to my own root experiences. You call it a form of monistic idealism. Maybe pantheistic would get close to how you described your perception of being. All and everything is pervaded and intrinsically part of a divine wholeness, but can manifest itself in separate entities.
Preliminary:
I am not a theist nor a creationist. I no longer conceive of a divine being outside of "his" creation, but something more mysterious and ineffable within all of life itself, something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness as a ground of all that arises from it. What you label it as is secondary. It is both personal and impersonal. It con ...[text shortened]... nnot allow a Divine foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Geneticist)
The article I found less convincing. It starts with the suggestion that it is hardly probably that life on earth as we know it can have developed from 'scratch'.
"Suppose you took scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on Earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, 'to be or not to be that is the question,' that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the Earth."
The chances that an RNA molecule developed on our planet or anywhere else in our universe might be infinite small. But in an infinite or almost infinite multi-universe it is very well thinkable and almost necessary.
But the rare chance of such development makes it rather probable that the earth is the only planet in our universe where intelligence developed. But still quite probable there is more (and higher) intelligent life in other universes.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou tell me the order in the Bible, and I will tell you where science disagrees. If I give you the order from the Bible and from science, you will simply tell me I am reading my Bible wrong and somehow change the order to fit.
Okay, what is the order compared to the Holy Bible
that you believe modern science disagrees?
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsSorry, I didn't read this before my last reply.
To Twhitehead:
To refresh your memory, the Holy Bible
says plant life was created first, then it says
sea creatures and winged birds, then other
creatures that live on the earth and creep on
the earth, then finally man. How is this
different from what modern science believes?
RJHinds
Science says first came single celled creatures (not plants), then a long chain of more and more complex life including far more than is in your list.
The very first plants were probably in the sea, so that creates a bit of a problem as they are 'sea creatures'.
The dinosaurs and many other land mammals came before birds, and surely they are 'other creatures that live on the earth'?
As for man, he is hardly the 'final' creature. There are new species appearing all the time, some since man.
So no, the two do not match.
Originally posted by souvereinI am afraid that we do not have enough information to know just how improbable the development of intelligence is.
But the rare chance of such development makes it rather probable that the earth is the only planet in [b]our universe where intelligence developed. But still quite probable there is more (and higher) intelligent life in other universes.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess you are right. We might discover one day that the development of intelligent life is less improbable than we think. Science might discover a fully acceptable explanation for such a development. Neither would I be surprised when science discovers that such a development is more complex than she thought before. In that case the existence of a multi-universe becomes more probable and likely.
I am afraid that we do not have enough information to know just how improbable the development of intelligence is.
Originally posted by souvereinAs I said, we simply don't have enough information, so I don't think 'science' currently has an opinion on the matter.
Neither would I be surprised when science discovers that such a development is more complex than she thought before.
It think that our world tells us that given multicellular life and a reasonably stable environment, the development of ever more complex life (including intelligence) is almost inevitable. However, we know very little about the probability for multicellular life evolving. We do know it took quite a long time on our planet (about 2 billion years or half the time that life has existed on earth).
We also know very little about how probable the development of single cellular life is. We have one known example of it happening. We don't even have concrete examples of it not happening ie we haven't really confirmed yet that other planets in the solar system do not have and have not had it in the past.
To Twhitehead:
So you are saying that modern science believes
creatures that can move came before plants
which can not move? Plants in the sea does not
make them creatures because creatures move
and plants don't move by their own power. If
you have a scientific reference for this, what is it,
because I would like to look it up.
RJHinds