Some really good info from both of you .. thanks for taking the time.
The idea of how it MAY have happened makes as much or more sense as any i've heard. The theory of how the eye could have developed made more clear (to me) how time plays a role.
I guess i'll always have trouble with "the beginning" and how that led from lifeless matter to man. I've heard it explained as lightining striking the primoral ooze and ... presto-chango .. life.
This, to me, is the scientific verision of God picking up some dirt and forming Adam .. the idea of something from nothing to me equals some sort of creation.
The 1st cause explained by theists or scientests are equally .. creation. To the theist it's divine intervention; to the scientest it's lightining striking the ooze and by chance .. creating life.
It seems we only have two choices here .. created by a creator or created accidently by nature.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI wouldn't say you are wrong actually. A law is a (normally mathematical) description of a simple set of events, and is typically localised in time or space. A theory is an explanation of a very large data set, supposedly universal (i.e. not being time or space specific), having been rigorously tested, and found to have wide ranging predictive ability.
[i]The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. Typically scientific laws are more limited sets of rules for making predictions about the world than scientific theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can ...[text shortened]... as mistaken. Laws are subsets of Theories.
Edits are because I am stoned and made mistakes.
Originally posted by jammerIt is worth bearing in mind that "life" is nothing magical. It only refers to matter which conforms to a number of different parameters, normally 7.
Some really good info from both of you .. thanks for taking the time.
The idea of how it MAY have happened makes as much or more sense as any i've heard. The theory of how the eye could have developed made more clear (to me) how time plays a role.
I guess i'll always have trouble with "the beginning" and how that led from lifeless matter to man. I've he ...[text shortened]... ms we only have two choices here .. created by a creator or created accidently by nature.
Virus' for example, conform to 6 of the 7, many self replicating molecules (indeed DNA and RNA are two such, in the presence of zinc) conform to 5 or more. The evolution of life from non-life probably was by something which simply made that one further step. The earliest "life" would have been almost indistinguishable from simple chemistry.
Originally posted by jammerThat first cause gives many people problems so you're far from alone.
Some really good info from both of you .. thanks for taking the time.
The idea of how it MAY have happened makes as much or more sense as any i've heard. The theory of how the eye could have developed made more clear (to me) how time plays a role.
I guess i'll always have trouble with "the beginning" and how that led from lifeless matter to man. I've he ...[text shortened]... ms we only have two choices here .. created by a creator or created accidently by nature.
You're right I guess that we have two options: creator or nature.
But they are very different options.
A creator opens the door to the supernatural - and allows for pretty much anything you want to imagine: faeries, dragons, witches, vampires, unicorns, and so on. I know theists will dispute this, but it's a slippery slope from a god to pretty much anything else you want to believe. (Just look at scientology or wikka for examples of this.)
A natural explanation avoids any such problems.
Of course, your lightning bolt isn't really good enough is it. If it's a theory we want, we're going to need more than this to explain life's origins.
But remember, theories take time to develop. What we understand now is enormous in comparison to 200 or 300 or 1000 years ago. So, a reasonable theory of life's origins is not here yet, but doesn't mean we'll never have one.
Originally posted by amannionLet's not let such an important debate end in a whimper. Have we really gone 3000+ posts to leave it all hanging? Perhaps this thread itself is a prime example of the ineffectiveness of repetition producing anything of value.
That first cause gives many people problems so you're far from alone.
You're right I guess that we have two options: creator or nature.
But they are very different options.
A creator opens the door to the supernatural - and allows for pretty much anything you want to imagine: faeries, dragons, witches, vampires, unicorns, and so on. I know theists will ...[text shortened]... nable theory of life's origins is not here yet, but doesn't mean we'll never have one.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow does the "ineffectiveness of repetition producing anything of value." relate to Evolution at all?
Let's not let such an important debate end in a whimper. Have we really gone 3000+ posts to leave it all hanging? Perhaps this thread itself is a prime example of the ineffectiveness of repetition producing anything of value.
Originally posted by NosracI didn't immediately recognize the name, but after a quick wikipedia search, I realized I'd read a little about him and seen him on TV once or twice. This is what wikipedia gives as his beliefs although I don't see why you couldn't post this yourself.
I've a question for all you scientific folks out there:
Anyone heard of a Dr. Francis Collins?
What is his rational for the beginning (creation) ?
His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he defines as:
(1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago,
(2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life,
(3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time,
(4) Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required,
(5) Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes,
(6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow1. If he is willing to admit this, unlike most creationists, I'd say he will change his mind based on what physics says. There is no argument to be had here except by people who read the bible literally.
I didn't immediately recognize the name, but after a quick wikipedia search, I realized I'd read a little about him and seen him on TV once or twice. This is what wikipedia gives as his beliefs although I don't see why you couldn't post this yourself.
His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he defines as:
(1) The universe came into ...[text shortened]... and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
(2) This is the anthropic principle. It is meaningless and complete BS in my opinion, but it is a big argument in physics and certainly deserves its own thread, I'm sure it had one at some point.
(3-5)Fine with me. A creationist with some common sense who is actually vocal instead of only the crazies getting noticed.
(6)Utter rubbish.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowIt's difficult to isolate your vehement opposition to #6 without elaboration beyond two words. Are you honestly unaware of the impossible-to-explain gap between man and even the 'next' order of creation?
1. If he is willing to admit this, unlike most creationists, I'd say he will change his mind based on what physics says. There is no argument to be had here except by people who read the bible literally.
(2) This is the anthropic principle. It is meaningless and complete BS in my opinion, but it is a big argument in physics and certainly deserves it ...[text shortened]... on sense who is actually vocal instead of only the crazies getting noticed.
(6)Utter rubbish.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI see no gap. Right and wrong are merely defined by social pressures. We are evolutionarily inclined to be social animals. Modern society was likely induced to form by climate and food pressures, each individual had a better chance to survive in a group than on their own. To survive themselves, those societies must have certain similair rules, otherwise they tend to cease to exist.
It's difficult to isolate your vehement opposition to #6 without elaboration beyond two words. Are you honestly unaware of the impossible-to-explain gap between man and even the 'next' order of creation?
As for the search for God, there is nothing special about that, just people trying to explain the world, as we are prone to do. This leads to mythology, which, with a little craziness, a little sugestibility, and the desire of some people to control others gets us to religion.
Explaining the world is simply a by-product of our sentience and our monkey-like curiosity.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEvery species that lives in groups has a code of "right" and "wrong", humans are in no way special in that regard.
It's difficult to isolate your vehement opposition to #6 without elaboration beyond two words. Are you honestly unaware of the impossible-to-explain gap between man and even the 'next' order of creation?
