14 Sep '10 16:13>1 edit
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
Huck
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundIt is pretty well accepted that life originated without supernatural being.
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundDo you mean with our current knowledge or in general (i.e. if it's not impossible)?
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundno its not possible to disprove it, the arguments focus around the plausibilities. Those with a purely materialist view believe that life originated in a pre organic soup, that amino acids formed themselves into proteins which self replicated to produce the amazingly complex cell, which self replicated and formed the basis for the diversity of all life. It must be noted that the probabilty of life have arisen this way is somewhere in the region of one chance in 10^113, that is,
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA mute point Rob, but a hippopotamus is the closest living relative to whales.
no its not possible to disprove it, the arguments focus around the plausibilities. Those with a purely materialist view believe that life originated in a pre organic soup, that amino acids formed themselves into proteins which self replicated to produce the amazingly complex cell, which self replicated and formed the basis for the diversity of all ...[text shortened]... to answer your question directly, no they cannot disprove that there was no supernatural agency.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI stand corrected,
A mute point Rob, but a hippopotamus is the closest living relative to whales.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI think the question is misguided. With our current state of knowledge it's hard to imagine how, but who knows what types of technologies we'll have in 100000 years?
I mean, is it actually possible to disprove that a higher being had a part or hand in our creation?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe Op asked about the origin of life and whether one can disprove evidence of a supernatural agency.
I stand corrected,
Hippos, the closest modern relative of whales, also dive for water when threatened, a behaviour that may have been lost over time by other modern species such as sheep and antelope.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8137000/8137922.stm
whales became whales because they decided that plankton were tastier th ...[text shortened]... p asked about the origin of life and whether one can disprove evidence of a supernatural agency.
Originally posted by Proper Knobthank you my friend, if the righteous one should strike me it would be like honey to my lips!
[b]the Op asked about the origin of life and whether one can disprove evidence of a supernatural agency.
This is true Rob, but you know me, i have to correct when you are wrong. Actually hippos spend 90% of their life in water, they give birth in the water, they suckle their young in the water.
Maybe i'll start a thread on the topic. It should be a laugh.[/b]
Originally posted by avalanchethecatactually no! it begins with the idea that there are over 100 known amino acids, 20 or so of which need to be the correct type and in the correct sequence, here is a rather excellent yet simple analogy
Please excuse the cut and paste approach...
"The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable u really that's all you need in order to outweigh the 'infinite' or 'magical' alternative.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis calculation I would be happy to see. It's a merry figure, of course, nothing more. Use the number zillions of zillions instead, makes more sense.
1 in a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 chance
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI just deleted a huge amount of statistical data I've been dredging up. Fact is, there's a helluva lot of stats out there that claim either to show that the 'godless' origin of life is impossible, unlikely, possible, likely or inevitable, depending on whose theories you favour, and as far as I can see, without specific knowledge of the actual mechanism by which life came into being, none of 'em are worth that heap of beans of yours. A believer is always gonna buy into the god version and will favour stats that support that. Unbeliever the other. Personally I'm agnostic, but I still don't see the need for a god in order for life to start - if there is some sort of creator, my view is that he would have created a universe where life would spontaneously happen without his direct intervention. The christian god is all a bit ad-hoc for my tastes.
actually no! it begins with the idea that there are over 100 known amino acids, 20 or so of which need to be the correct type and in the correct sequence, here is a rather excellent yet simple analogy
It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile (pre organic soup) containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also ...[text shortened]... y of your friendly neighbour hood spider witnesses, at a participating bible study near you! 🙂