Page 26 of 34 FirstFirst ... 162122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 675
  1. #501  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    cjvitek,

    Would you accept God as creator if there were no other explanation that made sense?
    It depends what you mean by no other explanation makes sense.

    If you mean that we have tested our ideas, and we simply don't know if they are true or not, than I would not accept God. Simply not knowing is not the same as requiring God for an explanation.

    If, in a theoretical sense, ALL hypotheses for the origin of life had been examined and rejected, that in itself would be evidence supporting the concept of a God, in which case I would accept God as the creator of life.

    Edit, let me rephrase that last part.

    If, in a theoretical sense, ALL scientific hypotheses for the origin of life involving natural laws and systems had been examined and rejected, that in itself would be evidence of a non-scientific hypothesis such as the concept of a God. I might not necesarilly accept the idea of God created life at that point, but I would be open to it
    Chris
    Last edited by cjvitek; 05/18/2007 at 11:56 AM.
  2. #502  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    cjvitek,

    Would you accept God as creator if there were no other explanation that made sense?
    Probably not. The least of nonsense is still nonsense.

    I think that the idea of special revelation is silly. Have thought so since the first time I considered the question.

    I think that the idea of God as conceived and recorded by his prophets makes a very good story but a very poor explanation of the universe. In the context of how little the prophets knew about the age and scope of the universe, it was as good an explanation as any, better than elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle. In the context of what we now know, it is trivial. While the idea of the Big Bang is not very satisfying either, it is easier to accept than the idea of a personal God that intervenes in human history and personal affairs.

    Throughout history there have been those who questioned the received wisdom of the day. I doubt that, in an earlier time, I would have been thoughtful or courageous enough to have been one of those. Today it does not take much courage to decline Pascal's wager.
    Last edited by whmurray; 05/18/2007 at 11:30 AM.
  3. #503  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    If, in a theoretical sense, ALL hypotheses for the origin of life had been examined and rejected, that in itself would be evidence supporting the concept of a God, in which case I would accept God as the creator of life.

    Chris
    When would you know that ALL hypotheses have been exhausted? When would you draw the line that there will never be a new hypotheses? This why acceptance of a God cannot be based on "Show me a sign....and then I will believe" as majority of the time that person will rationalize away the signs given as a sign not to believe.
  4. #504  
    I wonder how many of our theists also believes in spirits, clairvoyance and magic? If not, why not?

    Surur
  5. #505  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    The origin of life is something entirely different from the theory of evolution.
    Understood and accepted
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post

    The origin of life is still a matter for speculation and hypothesize. Some people beleive it generated from abiotic sources on earth. Others may believe that the first "life" on the planet originated from a meteor or something (although this just sidesteps the question, IMO).

    Evolution doesn't rely on any assumption about the origin of life. Evolution deals with how organisms change over time, based on the genetic processes that we know about. Nothing about how those genetic components originated. We know how organisms reproduce, we know how the genetic code works, we know how various factors can change DNA and organisms. These are the influences on evolution, not how life originated.
    But isn't that very knowledge what allows us to conclude that all life has common origin? Isn't it that knowledge that enables the confident dismissal of the one-male-one-female hypothesis?
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Right, and he is hypothesizing about how lfe originated, NOT how evolution occured. Presumably, he is saying that this crystalline structure replicates in a fashion similar to the way life replicates.

    No, he is just commenting on how there are similarities. He may be hypothesizing how life originated (devloping from this crystalline structure, because there are similarities) but he is not saying the evolution REQUIRES this method of origin of life, or anything like that.
    I'm saying that. If the theory allows me to trace back to a single point of origin, then I at least have to assume that such an entity existed. Likewise, I must assume it had (a) certain characteristic(s). While that may not in scope of the theory. If the existence of ruled out, the theory would have to be re-worked.
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post

    Often times people may use the phrase "evolved" when discussing the origin of life, but it is important to remember that there is this distinction.


    Chris
  6. #506  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    When would you know that ALL hypotheses have been exhausted? When would you draw the line that there will never be a new hypotheses? This why acceptance of a God cannot be based on "Show me a sign....and then I will believe" as majority of the time that person will rationalize away the signs given as a sign not to believe.
    That's why I said it was theoretical. However, I did just edit it to xlarify that I meant scientific hypotheses, not all hypotheses.

    I am who I am. I am a scientist, I believe in empirical evidence that I can see, taste, smell, hear, observe, test, etc. I believe the world and universe operate according to natural laws which can be observed, measured, tested, and recorded. If there is something I can't explain, I accept that fact that I can't explain it, but I still believe that there probably IS a rationale explanation. It is only when natural explanation can NOT explain something that I think we should move to supernatural.

    Chris
    Last edited by cjvitek; 05/18/2007 at 12:11 PM.
  7. #507  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    But isn't that very knowledge what allows us to conclude that all life has common origin? Isn't it that knowledge that enables the confident dismissal of the one-male-one-female hypothesis?
    \

    A common origin yes, but not what created that starting point.

    As for dismissing the one man/one woman argument, purely on a genetic level (as I mentioned, the idea of a bottleneck, genetic drift, and inbreeding) that would make a biologist question it.

    I'm saying that. If the theory allows me to trace back to a single point of origin, then I at least have to assume that such an entity existed. Likewise, I must assume it had (a) certain characteristic(s). While that may not in scope of the theory. If the existence of ruled out, the theory would have to be re-worked.
    Correct, there may be some "original" type cell, or something like that. But HOW that cell came into existance is what we don't know, and what the theory of evolution does not deal with.

    Chris
  8. #508  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Would you accept God as creator if there were no other explanation that made sense?
    Which God?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #509  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    That's why I said it was theoretical. However, I did just edit it to xlarify that I meant scientific hypotheses, not all hypotheses.

    I am who I am. I am a scientist, I believe in empirical evidence that I can see, taste, smell, hear, observe, test, etc. I believe the world and universe operate according to natural laws which can be observed, measured, tested, and recorded. If there is something I can't explain, I accept that fact that I can't explain it, but I still believe that there probably IS a rationale explanation. It is only when natural explanation can NOT explain something that I think we should move to supernatural.

    Chris
    Can not possibly, not simply has not.
  10. #510  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Which God?
    lol
  11. #511  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Can not possibly, not simply has not.

    That's what I said previously. I said there may be a rationale explanation that we just don't know because of the limits of our knowledge. In that case, IMO we should jsut say we don't know - it does not warrant jumping to the conclusion that a diety exists.

    Chris
  12. #512  
    Sure makes a case that it might exist. Ben
  13. #513  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Sure makes a case that it might exist. Ben

    The fact that we may not know how something works is a case, all by itself, for a diety?

    Chris
  14. #514  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    The fact that we may not know how something works is a case, all by itself, for a diety?

    Chris
    I think that the most that can be said is that it may leave the question open. It certainly does not make a strong, much less a convincing, case. That so many people resort to the idea of God to explain what they do not understand does not strengthen the case.
  15. #515  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    cjvitek,

    Would you accept God as creator if there were no other explanation that made sense?
    You'd have to put forward an absolutely stunning piece of logic to convince me that there were "no other explanations". I doubt you could.

    All too often, in fact, I see this same "there's no other way it could happen" argument put forward for the existence of God. Personally, I think this is an extremely anti-intellectual approach. The boundaries of knowledge keep getting pushed back and what could not be explained yesterday suddenly becomes much, much clearer today.

    With the question being one of stunning significance to my personal belief system, I will not rely on indirect implication, innuendo, anecdotal evidence, majority rule, or negative option arguments to believe in the existence of a supernatural being.
  16. #516  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS View Post
    You'd have to put forward an absolutely stunning piece of logic to convince me that there were "no other explanations". I doubt you could.

    All too often, in fact, I see this same "there's no other way it could happen" argument put forward for the existence of God. Personally, I think this is an extremely anti-intellectual approach. The boundaries of knowledge keep getting pushed back and what could not be explained yesterday suddenly becomes much, much clearer today.

    With the question being one of stunning significance to my personal belief system, I will not rely on indirect implication, innuendo, anecdotal evidence, majority rule, or negative option arguments to believe in the existence of a supernatural being.
    Patrick, why don't you tell him what you really think?
  17.    #517  
    It's funny seeing all of these comments ( a page back, I think) about how we can predict what will happen based on the (paraphrased) laws of nature, when some of the founders of our current scientific laws all believed there was a creator, and because there was a creator there must be laws set down by such that could be discovered. Sir Isaac Newton was one of those scientists.
  18. #518  
    Again, you are talking about two different things.

    The ORIGIN of the various laws of nature (where they created by a divine being, where they controlled by physics, etc) and the APPLICATION of the various laws of nature (when we can predict what will happen because of those laws).

    It is completely possible for a scientist to believe that a God laid the foundation for our universe, and that our universe is now controlled by the very laws of nature that God set in motion. There is no contradiction there, yet you seem to be trying to make one.

    Some scientists, on the other hand, may believe differently about the origin, but still believe in the same laws.

    What makes them a scientist is that they believe that we CAN discern the truth about the "laws of nature" by observation and experimentation.

    Chris
  19. #519  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    It's funny seeing all of these comments [...] when some of the founders of our current scientific laws all believed there was a creator [...]
    A 'creator' != 'the God of any particular version of the Bible', though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #520  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    If the theory allows me to trace back to a single point of origin, then I at least have to assume that such an entity existed. Likewise, I must assume it had (a) certain characteristic(s). While that may not in scope of the theory. If the existence of ruled out, the theory would have to be re-worked.
    The formation of the first progenitors of a cell from abiotic (not living) origins is called abiogenesis. As already pointed out by others, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a proven scientific fact, regardless of how the first cell-like structure started.

    I find it slightly amusing how some conservative Christians in the US nowadays find it totally impossible that life started without a creator. In the good old days of religious dogmas, it was commonly accepted that animals come into existence spontaneously from abiotic origins. It was assumed that e.g. mice are formed spontaneously on an every day basis in dirty hay, or frogs in the mud. Only after early modern scientists started dealing with the questions, those myths were debunked, but not without the religious/non-scientific proponents making fun of the idea that life is NOT formed spontaneously on a regular basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis, specially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogen...ous_generation
    Last edited by clulup; 05/21/2007 at 04:57 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions