91. eM, your wrote: "but usually when it doesn't replicate exactly as it should, bad things happen (genetic abnormalities, creation/ strengthening of diseases, birth defects, retardation, death in general of every single human being)."

Most mutations are reproductively neutral or nearly neutral. For most mutations, if they cause any loss in reproductive fitness, the loss is so small that it only affects the organisms over many many generations. Many scientists think that most mutations are purely neutral. But probably the leading theory, and I tend to think the more reasonable, is that most mutations are what they call "nearly neutral." But the overwhelming majority of new mutations are not fatal. I was most certainly born with some new mutations. According to conservative estimates, humans average about 3 new mutations per sexual generation among coding DNA. And I'm fine. The mutations aren't going to affect my ability to reproduce. So there are two leading theories on the reproductive affect of mutations:

1. Most mutations are reproductively neutral.

2. Most mutations are NEARLY reproductively neutral in the sense that the loss in fitness tends to only affect organisms over many generations.

Wes at 5:43PM on Jun 17th 2007

92.
What exactly caused the first living thing to appear on Earth is not known for sure, and it is true there are a number of possibilities. However the Universe existed long before our solar system formed, and eventually our Sun will grow to the point where it swallows the Earth and kills every living thing on it.... So that was poor planning on any creators part if life on Earth, let alone mankind (after evolving seemingly unnecessarily for millions of years), was it's primary purpose, or if that creator is innately "good" by human standards.

There are a multitude of theories that have a lot more evidence to support them, like that since it's apparent now there were once oceans on Mars, perhaps a simple organism managed to survive the vacuum of space (there are living creatures on earth who actually can) and plant the mother species on Earth which we all evolved from.

Granted, nothing is proven as to what started life here (but science is pretty damn close to establishing the link between inorganic and organic, as I suggested in my last post), but this argument doesn't seem to be about what planted the seed of life on Earth, you also seem to be discounting the process of evolution judging by your Creationist talking points regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the "it's so complex there must be a creator", and your "mutations are almost always harmful arguments. None of those assertions are even remotely true, they are outright lies. Wes already explained why your assertion about the 2nd law is entirely bunk. And I've already explained why life is not too complex to have evolved. If complexity resulted in the blink of an eye, you could make a case for a creator judged on that, but we can -prove- it didn't happen in the blink of an eye, it happened over hundreds of millions of years, and that's a lot of time to develop our modern complexity. And lastly, most mutations are neutral, not adverse. I'll bet you have quite a few mutations in your genetic structure and don't even know it. Who knows, maybe one of those mutations gives you an immunity to a disease you don't even know about. Then let's say that disease wipes out half the males within 50 miles of you: Now you have a lot less competition in the ol' genetic pool and your unique trait is going to get passed on to a larger population. That, of course, is a hypothetical situation, but the point of it is, you don't know what all of your mutations are, or whether they have been, are now, or will be sometime in the future, advantageous or disadvantageous to your survival. There's a random chance that you have a mutation you'll never know about but it'll somehow save your childrens childrens childrens children. So really, you're just making that crap up.

Also, I allow for a Creator of the Universe and not for life on Earth (although I don't entirely discount it) because at the point before the Big Bang, all the natural laws break down: There is no plain of existence, no time, no space, but somehow, there was light and dark matter to get this whole Universe thing moving. There are only metaphysical explanations for that, nothing we can observe in the natural world can explain the circumstances that would create matter from nothingness, or account for the existence of matter outside of space/time. Maybe the matter itself is God, and we're all made up of tiny pieces of God? I don't know.

Unlike that, there are natural explanations for the emergence of life, and although more research is definitely needed, the evidence supporting those natural explanations is a lot more convincing. The debate on that is still ongoing: But the debate on evolution is long over, and no matter how many times you repeat this bunk about the 2nd law or complexity or mutations it doesn't make them anything more than lies disproven long ago.

Peter at 8:13PM on Jun 17th 2007

93. Please forgive me if I am restating something that has already been brought up, but in post 74, the scientific method is misrepresented.

What scientists strive to do is look at all of the competing hypotheses and to eliminate as many as possible by performing experiments and collecting data. If an experiment can be designed that will discriminate between two competing hypotheses it is performed and the one that cannot be reconciled with the data is discarded. As more and more data are obtained, one hypothesis may be strongly favored over the others. There are times when the data do not fit any of the current hypotheses and either a completely new hypothesis must be developed that reconciles all of the data, or a currently existing hypothesis must be refined to fit all of the existing data. In addition experiments and measurements are repeated to check their validity as much as possible.

So if creationists want their hypothesis to be accepted over evolution they DO have to provide data that disproves evolution, which to my knowledge does not exist. Furthermore, their hypothesis must fit the data, which means that they have to accept the fossil record and radioisotope dating and a very large set of scientific observations and measurements and refine their hypothesis away from the Biblical creationist story. Scientists have already disproved the Biblical account and evolution is in agreement with the data even if there are gaps in the data that are being explored further.

This does not mean that we understand completely how evolution was set into motion or where matter and energy came from originally or if matter and/or energy always were. Modern scientific discovery is a tiny blip in the vastness of time and the universe, so maybe with time we can fill in the gaps. If you come up with a good hypothesis and experiment to test that let us all know.

As far as I am aware there is no way to test for the presence of God, unless you believe in an intelligent being that can communicate with humans as depicted in the Bible. In that case we could ask him/her/it to make itself present to all members of the human race in some physical form all at a single instance and explain why it misrepresented itself in the Bible and why the Bible depicts God in so many contradictory ways (All loving yet jealous and willing to kill off those that it created that sinned, even though God could have chosen not to let sin happen. Also willing to send those to hell that do not believe in it even though it had the power to reveal itself to them if it really wanted to.) Good luck however for the Biblical God appears to like to play games with humans.

If however your conception of God is more abstract and relating to energy fields or forces that imbue all of nature and the universe that we cannot yet comprehend, we have to wait until we have a better understanding and a testable hypothesis to reveal this. Maybe one day we will be able, but for now all we can do is wonder at the amazing beauty, complexity and vastness of the universe and ponder our role in it all. Could it be a number of chance coincidences that led to our presence and ability to think and comprehend? Possibly with as vast as the universe is, but maybe not, there is really no way for us to know at this time.

Personally, I am open to the possibility of a divine presence, I believe I can feel it around me, but maybe those are just ordinary energy fields and waves. I believe that we as humans try to name and put a human face on this phenomenon or presence and that there are many paths to the divine. I do not believe in a literal Biblical depiction of God, but I believe that the stories of the Bible and other myths created by humans are meant to portray aspects of the divine in ways we can relate to. We won't all relate to all of the stories of the divine, because we are all unique and have unique life experiences. I do not believe that I will be condemned to hell by not believing in one version of God over another.

By the way, as a general comment and as I tell my students, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. Some of the information posted there is inaccurate. Pretty much anyone can post, and those with expertise in the field frequently don't go check out the postings. I have seen fundamental errors in students papers that have cited Wikipedia. Surf the web with caution and research your sources carefully.

Lisa at 9:12PM on Jun 17th 2007

94.
Lisa - That's what I've been trying to explain to the person you responded to for about 3 pages of comments now, it just doesn't seem to click that he's fundamentally misunderstanding science.

Wikipedia is definitely a bad source, here's a much much better one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

eM - you can find an answer to any question about or complaint against evolution you might have there. There are a variety of easily accessible FAQ's that answer your specific accusations about the 2nd Law, or evolution simply being a matter of belief, or any other dishonest argument you try to make like those. Here's a good excerpt from the faq, you'll have to actually go to the link I provided for more detailed answers (even though I know that's not going to happen, so I'll list the FAQ's that specifically deal with your accusations):

Q: Isn't evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?

A: No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. See the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ.


Q: If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?

A: Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.

Q: No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true?

A: Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Has Never Been Observed and 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.



Q: Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

A: Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ listing some more observed speciation events.



Q: Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation?

A: No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal characteristics. See the Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature FAQ.



Q: According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable?

A: Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Proceeds by Random Chance.



Q: Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.

A: Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQs and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Q: The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.

A: And irrelevant. Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes *I suggested it was possible, but stated it was my opinion beforehand*. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors. See the Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs.

Q: Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong?

A: The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ, the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs, Quotations and Misquotations and Creationist Arguments: Misquotes

(These FAQ's are all linked from the page I linked above, you can see the actual evidence supporting these answers by following the links included in the answers)

Any of those questions sound familiar? Funny how the same objections are raised over and over again despite being disproven. Is that the defense strategy they teach you in sunday school? The problem is you can't be an honest person and assert those things, because trying to make disingenuous accusations about the theory like that makes you a liar.

Peter at 10:16PM on Jun 17th 2007

95. Lisa: I completely agree with you on Wikipedia. Also, I stand corrected on my wording of the scientific method. What I have been trying to say through these posts is that the basic approach to the *very* origins of life are different and encompass different assumptions in trying to disprove each other. They use different criteria, and cannot be reliably compared to each other. What is judged as something that "disproves" the theory of intelligent design is only as credible as the belief in the assumptions in the "disproving" theory. I also agree with you that modern scientific theory IS a blip in what we know of as time. Therefore, I have a reasonable right to question/ critically think about the very origins of life on earth... I have said over and over, science itself is an evolving concept. We are not in disagreement here.... Except perhaps I consider science humanity's way of exploring the universe, defined in human terms.

Peter: As for your first paragraph, I agree with you on the sun eventually overtaking the earth. However, I do not presume to think that the earth was made in order to exist indefinitely. Clearly, we have no choice in that matter.

Furthermore, I am not trying to disprove or disagree with the *entire* theory of evolution. Certainly, it is true.... to an extent. It is the extent to which it is true that I question. It has NOT proved that living cells, able to recreate themselves, came out of elements. You find the existing "evidence" of these facts convincing. You also chose to make certain presumptions, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist for a very long period of time. I am not convinced, and am not unreasonable in being unconvinced. Truly, I am open-minded ... for example, certain discoveries, such as if we can find any kind of civilization currently existing/ evolving on another planet, even if it's not humans, but self-replicating life forms that originally sprang from another planets' elements and continued to evolve, may make me re-examine my current stance...

However, science has only been furthered by those who question it and encourage further discovery. So I do fail to see why you apparently feel disturbed by the concept of people (and not just me, there ARE scientists who question these same premises about the origins of life -- otherwise this couldn't be a global debate) who want to reach beyond "well there's nothing else that explains it so it must be self-replicating cells." You shouldn't feel frustrated or threatened by someone questioning your scientific theory... after all, if it is absolutely, positively the truth, it will eventually prove itself undoubtedly so, no? But, instead, you chose to believe that is already indelible fact and anyone who questions this one aspect is close-minded. Sound like any other story.... Galileo, anyone? (I'm sure this was the story to be brought up soon anyway -- it's a favorite among people giving the example of religion trying to "stifle" science. In fact, it's an inaccurate depiction -- the church had already accepted the widely popular scientific views of the earth/ universe initiated by the pantheistic Greeks. There was nothing "biblical" about their stance.)

Your indignance over my position is especially interesting, considering I'm not exactly an evangelical Christian trying to cram the Genesis story down your throats. I do not agree with the blind acceptance of anything. I question the origin of the planet, especially as it relates to the beginning of intelligent life. You are as free to reject the theory of intelligent design as I am to reject the theory of evolution self-starting life on earth, and you may base it on your lack of evidence of or experience with a God or not.... but a perceived lack of "scientific" evidence of/ experience with such a God on our human level does not disprove its existence or its involvement in the beginnings of the universe/ planet Earth.

To share personally, I think the very laws of science we have discovered and are continuing to discover are by themselves the evidence given to us as "proof" of God, which we are free to accept, or to reject and create our own theories, which we have done on many different levels.... and also we have done so in what I look at as our own little goldfish bowl, the earth. But then, there I go, acting all like I might be shoving religion down your throats or something... I'm waiting for the accusations... Although I don't think what I said came from the bible (which I don't think is meant as a scientific text, nor should it be used as such). It's just a personal opinion -- you shared yours about the origins of the gases, etc., that comprised the planet... this is mine.

eM at 11:20PM on Jun 17th 2007

96. Let me clarify a sentence in the third paragraph that jumped out at me after the post: It is not proven that living cells created themselves out of the elements existing on the planet.

It has been proven that such cells ARE of the elements on the planet, just not that they emerged alone, by themselves and able to re-create themselves, from the elements.

eM at 11:23PM on Jun 17th 2007

97. THERE IS NO "CONUNDRUM" AN ATHEIST DOES NOT BELIEVE IN "GOD",ANY GOD, THERFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF WHO CREATED "GOD",AT LEAST IN THE SENSE OF A LIVING OR EXISTING ENTITY OF SOME SORT, HOWEVER IF YOU MEAN "GOD AS A CONCEPT", THEN MOST LIKELY THE ATHEIST WILL TELL YOU THAT MONKEY/MAN CREATED "GOD",IN ORDER TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO GOD-LIKE STATUS ABOVE HIS FELLOW PRIMATE BRETHEREN TO GIVE HIMSELF COMFORT,TO COMBAT HIS FEAR OF THE NIGHT, THE UNKNOWN ETC. THIS IS A CONUNDRUM IN THE SENSE THAT NEITHER POINT CAN BE PROVED CONCLUSIVELY TO EVERYONE'S SATISFACTION,FACT,OR FAITH? WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER? KNOWING THAT THE WORMS WILL BE THE VICTOR AND YOU WILL ROT,OR THAT THERE IS A LOVING "GOD" WHO WILL RESURRECT YOU(IF YOU BELIEVE AND BEHAVE)AFTER YOU DIE?

frankenmier at 11:24PM on Jun 17th 2007

98. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT TO OFFER: PERHAPS IT NOW IS NOT AS IMPORTANT TO FIGURE OUT WHO OR WHAT CREATED MAN OR LIFE, BUT TO KNOW THAT AT THIS RATE OF SCIENTIFIC "PROGRESS" IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE MAN WHO DESTROYS ALL LIFE WITH THE HELP OF HIS "GOD of SCIENCE",BECAUSE WITHOUT A "GOD" TO TEACH OR DEMAND MORAL BEHAVIOR, WE ARE LEFT TO OUR OWN DEVICES,AND WITHOUT THE FEAR OF "GOD" WE WILL MOST CERTAINLY MISBEHAVE,CULMINATING IN OUR OWN EXTINCTION,MAYBE SOMETIME IN THE FAR DISTANT FUTURE A NEW BREED OF ARCHAELOGISTS WILL DIG UP OUR CHARRED REMAINS AND PONDER THESE SAME QUESTIONS,STILL WITHOUT THE ULTIMATE ANSWER FOR THE LARGEST QUESTIONS,AND IT WILL START AGAIN....

deleted at 12:02AM on Jun 18th 2007

99.
I do not wish to argue with you about what -first- created life, because that actually is a matter of belief and I've said that many times now. I only gave you my opinion on the issue, and outlined several other possibilities that would differ from my opinion, and I stated as such. That's not what this is about: You made a number of other claims about evolution, such as the 2nd law bit or that "mutations are generally harmful" or that this level of complexity is impossible through evolution. Those are assertions which are not true, and I have every right to get indignant when you portray something as fact when it is blatant falsehood, and prove you wrong with scientific evidence, which I have done if you'd care to follow the link I provided and educate yourself about this issue. If you are not close-minded about this, why not prove it and look into this, and see if your claims about the theory are actually supported by anything.

Unfortunately, there is not really a debate about evolution in the scientific world anymore. There is a debate in the public sphere certainly, either out of ignorance of the science or religious apologists that try to warp it into something wholly unproven and unsupported like intelligent design. In academic circles, however, the basic principle is accepted by nearly all scientists, and those who deny it tend to have questionable credentials and make arguments without scientific merit.

Your definition of intelligent design might differ from most peoples; if you are asserting that God planted the first living organism on Earth which we all evolved from, that's fine and dandy. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of -life-, it has everything to do with the origin of -species-. Evolution only comes into play after the first living thing was on Earth. It's apparent that we all descend from one species. That's where evolution begins, where that one species came from is purely a matter of speculation. If you are asserting that intelligent design played a part in the process of evolution, and not simply the origin of life, though, then you are wrong, and there is ample evidence to show that you are wrong in the link I provided.

I never portrayed my belief that life originated from inorganic reactions between carbon and water (and probably a number of other factors) was scientific fact. It's not, there's not enough evidence. There's =some= evidence to suggest that it is true, but not nearly enough, so you can believe whatever you want to believe about that. But again, I was responding to your general creationist accusations about the theory of evolution, not the origin of life. The origin of life? Matter of belief for now. The origin of species? Matter of science.

Peter at 12:05AM on Jun 18th 2007

100. SCIENCE,LIKE "GOD" IS WONDERFUL GREAT AND TERRIFYING,ABLE TO EXPLAIN MANY THINGS AND PROCESSES UNDER THE SUN,THEY OBSERVE CLASSIFY EXPERIMENT JUGGLE THEORISE AND PROVE MANY OF THE MYSTERIES OF THE WORLD AND BEYOND. THEY PEEL BACK THE LAYERS OF THE FABRIC OF EXISTANCE OF THE MACRO AND MICRO WORLD AND PRESENT NEAT MOSTLY WORKABLE "PROVEABLE"(repeatable results) SOLUTIONS TO MANY OF THE GREATEST QUESTIONS CONFRONTING MAN,THERE IS NO ARGUEMENT THAT THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SCIENCE'S EXPLANATION OF THE WORLD ARE MOSTLY CORRECT AND IMPRESSIVE,WE ARE SURROUNDED BY THE EVIDENCES OF IT'S TRUTH,HOWEVER THE VERY BASIC FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS FAR FROM ANSWERED,SCIENCE STILL DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VARIOUS THEORIES PUT FORTH ABOUT THE ORIGEN OF THE "UNIVERSE"(A MIS-NOMER IN ITSELF)BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT THERE IS ONE OR MANY UNIVERSES(NOT GALAXIES)THE VERY TERM IS MISLEADING AS IT BOUNDS ALL EXISTANCE(CREATED/EXISTANT MATTER/ENERGY)THEY CANNOT AGREE ON EVEN THE NUMBER OF OR POSSIBLE TYPES OF DIMENSIONS,THEY DO EXPOUND COMPLEX MATHMATICAL FORMULAE TO DESCRIBE REALITY THAT ON THE SURFACE SOUND VERY CONVINCING,BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE SEEMINGLY CONSTANTLY SURPRISED BY THE STRUCTURE AND AMAZING COMPLEXITY OF EVEN AS SIMPLE THING LIKE A DROP OF WATER. WHAT DO THEY HOPE TO GAIN? MORE MARVELOUS MACHINERY,MEDICINES,WEAPONS, THESE THINGS DO NOT FEED THE HUMAN HEART OR SOUL(I FORGOT ,NO GOD ,NO SOUL)SO IN THE FINAL COLD SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS THINGS JUST ARE AS THEY ARE, THE PRODUCT OF BILLIONS OF YEARS OF ACCIDENTS(GIVEN ENOUGH TIME,EVERYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN,WILL HAPPEN),SO SCIENCE WILL FIND AN EXPLANATION FOR IT ALL THEN THE SCIENTISTS CAN CLAIM THE MANTLE OF "GOD",(THEY CAN KNOW AND EXPLAIN EVERYTHING),THEY WILL"CREAT LIFE"THEY CAN DESTROY LIFE,ARE THESE NOT THE ATTRIBUTES OF A "GOD"(A FICTIONAL ENTITY)DO THEY SEEK TO INFORM US OR TO CONTROL AND AWE US WITH THEIR SCIENTIFIC "KNOWLEDGE"? THIS SANCTIMONIOUS "PETER THE SCIENTIST" SEEMS MORE INTERESTED IN DISPLAYING HIS "KNOWLEDGE" TO WE POOR UNDEREDUCATED PEOPLE,OH GEE HE SAYS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GOD,I SAY THE EVIDENCE IS ALL AROUND HIM,HE JUST CAN'T SEE IT,NO INSTEAD MATTER JUST ACCREATS,(APPEARS OUT OF "NO-WHERE")ONE PARTICLE AT A TIME,THE "BIG-BANG,STRING-THEORIES,THERE IS NO MORE SOLID PROOF OF THESE ELABORATE THEORIES THAN FOR THE EXISTANCE OF "GOD",WHAT? BACKGROUND NOISE AND RADIATION 15 BILLION YEARS OLD? SO WHAT,IT PROVES NOTHING,ONLY THAT THINGS ARE VERY VERY OLD,THIS DOES GIVE TIME FOR ALL SORTS OF COMBINATIONS TO OCCUR MAYBE EVEN THE EMERGENCE OF LIFE,BUT THESE ARE STILL ONLY"EDUCATED GUESSES" NOT FACTS,YOU DIS-ASSEMBLE THINGS INTO COMPONENT PARTS LABLE THEM AND THEN MIX AND MATCH PROCESSES AND COME UP WITH TRULY AMAZING WONDERS BUT IT'S STILL ALL DONE WITH MATTER AND ENERGY THAT IS ALREADY IN EXISTANCE,THEY STILL CANNOT SAY WHERE ANY OF IT TRULY CAME FROM SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT DESCRIPTION BOUNDARIES IN TIME AND SPACE ACTIONS ETC.,THERE MAY BE AN AREA THAT SCIENCE SIMPLY CANNOT DESCRIBE, THE REALM OF "GOD",THEY SAY THE LAWS OF SCIENCE BREAK DOWN PAST THE EVENT HORIZON IN A BLACK HOLE,MIGHT IT NOT BE SIMILAR WHEN THE "LAWS of SCIENCE" ATTEMPT TO PROBE THE IMMATERIAL UNFATHOMABLE CONCEPTION CALLED "GOD",IS IT NOT AN ARROGANCE TO SAY IF SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE IT EXISTS THEN IT DOES NOT EXIST? SEEMS A LITTLE SELF-PRESERVING TO ME. PERSONALLY I WOULD FEEL BETTER WITH A LOVING GOD TO PRESERVE ME THAN A SCIENTIST IN A LAB-COAT,AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HIS VACCINES ETC.,I MEAN AS A SOURCE OF HUMANITY AND MORALITY.

PHILLIP R. MIER at 10:22AM on Jun 18th 2007

101. Wes & eM. You probably both need to get a life if you can spend that much time on the internet. However, Lisa, I was extremely impressed with your comments under item #92. You were logical, clear, and to the point.

My own personal opinion is that religion is an ancient attempt to influence people to do what was considered socially proper at the time. They had no clue in regards to the origins of the earth. So, as was common at the time, they told stories to make a point. Every religion did so. Each religion has different stories to tell.

Individuals tended to believe what they were told because virtually every one around them (atleast those close to them) believed the same, so it must have been true. If you had grown up in pre-war Japan, you would likely have believed the emperor was a living god because every one else did. (Note that 50% of Japanese now consider themselves athiests)

You know, at best, there can be only one true religion, since there are so many differences between the religions of the world. Even between different Christian sects or between Muslims sects, there are significant religious differences. Alternatively, they could all be wrong.

As suggested, all major religions came into being prior to the concept of scientific principle. Yet many people continue to hold on to ancient superstitions. For example, there are those who still deny a concept as simple as the theory of evolution. I personally consider any such person to be intellectually handicapped. Calling it "The Theory of Evolution" is misleading. It sugests that the concept of evolution itself is just a theory. Evolution is a scientific fact. Given the evidence, any six year old would come to that conclusion. The "Theory" is an explanation of how and why evolution took place, not whether it took place. Science can split an atom and put a man on the moon, yet many people do not believe that it can prove the concept of evolution when fossils and carbon dating make an extremely obvious case.

Religion does have its positive points. It often provides spiritual comfort to those who believe. It attempts to give ethical guidance and persuade people to do acts of good deeds. As far as I am concerned, people can believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don't try to force those beliefs on others.

Having made these points, it is now time for me to get a life.

Mark at 2:04AM on Jun 18th 2007

102.
That is actually not what I said Phillip. If you'll read back, I have already stated that I believe something that could be considered "God" created the Universe. However I don't think it can be argued that it is a moral God by our standards. Good and evil are human concepts, and to attribute them to God's will is claiming you can even begin to comprehend God and it's "agenda". By claiming you somehow have the authority to understand God you morph any real purpose of life into your own will. You've created your own God (which you all accuse atheists of doing) who suits your moral views of human society. Science only attempts to understand natural processes, and you cannot refute those natural processes if they are shown to exist. God may be metaphysical, but what is observed through science is entirely in the physical realm and is therefore absolute truth. Unfortunately for creationists, evolution can be, and has been, both observed and replicated in the physical realm, so it is truth.

I don't think you're stupid either, I just don't think you can believe in things which have been disproven. Religion came to your before science, and that makes something like evolution really hard to take when everything you've been taught up to this point says the contrary. But evolution is pretty well proven now, so continuing this debate is quite silly and Creationists tend to be quite dishonest when they claim they are trying to honestly debate the subject. This is the only thing that really gets on my nerves, because deep down I think these people know they aren't scientists and they're just making this stuff up, but put it out there anyway. Like when Creationists claimed that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed: That was actually a complete lie, his own daughter was there, and she says he did not. If Creationists had meritous arguments to disprove evolution, they would have made them already, but unfortunately for them, any criticism of the theory has been utterly refuted by the scientific community.

Peter at 1:53AM on Jun 18th 2007

103. My first time at this site and find it interesting, although I am too sleepy to read all of these very long posts! (smile) I was attracted to the subject since the question I posed in my first philosophy course, as a freshman in 1958, was "Who created God?" Since then, I've come to realize what a silly question that was.

We toss about words like "eternal" without thinking about what they really mean. If there is an eternal God, then God always was and always will be, and exists outside of Time as we know it.

"Time is an illusion with purpose," said Cayce.

This is a difficult concept for us to wrap our puny minds around, for we occupy a Reality in which Time seems to be as solid and dependable as gravity or as the rising and setting of the sun.

But then,the chair upon which I am sitting appears to be solid, also, when it is only a collection of atoms spinning around each other. My mind seems able to reason, able to interpret the sensory input it receives, but it is filtered through an organic brain and the input it receives is incomplete. There are things in my world too tiny for my eyes to see, sounds too deep or too high for my ears to detect, scents that I can't even imagine. Were it not for scientific advancements, I would not know that any of these things exist.

Experiments in quantum mechanics show that subatomic particles move according to the expectation of the observer. Mind over matter?
What energy is at work here? And what if the energy exerted by our human minds, cramped and distorted as it must be by our organic brains, is only a pale reflection of a far more powerful Energy which we sometimes call God? What if Creation is not a fait accompli, but an on-going, never-ending process in which we -- eternal spirits incarnated into human bodies -- play a tiny role, much as our fingers help our hands to work better? And what if there are many other Universes, many other Realities, each with its own set of operating rules, many "heavens" and many "hells"? (And can't it be argued that our present existence has elements of both heaven AND hell? Are we in a sort of Halfway House?) And what if consciousness expands at death, instead of disappearing with the dying brain, and we abruptly find "ourselves" occupying another Reality altogether?

Since some esoteric teachings include the saying, "Like attracts like," then perhaps all atheists will find themselves together in one Reality,agnostics in another, believers of various faiths in others, criminals in others, etc.

Nah. That would be too boring.

Joy at 4:53AM on Jun 18th 2007

104. I would like to clarify the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states that the total entropy of a SYSTEM AND ITS SURROUNDINGS always increases in a spontaneous process. It is the entropy (disorder or randomness if you like) of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE that must increase not of a given system.

It is very plausible for organized life to have emerged as Peter pointed out in post number 93, "order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc." You do not have to make the presumption that the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist at any point in time as indicated in eM's post #95: "You also chose to make certain presumptions, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist for a very long period of time."

There was plenty of energy available to drive the assembly of complex molecules. As long as the enthalpy term exceeds the entropy term, the free energy for the process could be favorable. Gibbs free energy should be used to predict the spontaneity of a process not just the entropy term. If entropy of a system alone dictated whether a process could occur, then life would not be possible, my cells would not replicate, and the synthesis of protein and nucleic acids would not be possible, but energy in the form of food for animals and sunlight for plants can drive non-spontaneous reactions. These are not the only sources of energy, there are very primitive life forms that live along deep sea vents that use the energy from the core of the earth and chemosynthesis (chemical energy based synthesis)to live. They "eat" rocks, and are very much alive in the darkest depths of the ocean where sunlight never reaches.

eM, I would suggest you brush up on your freshman chemistry.

The organisms I just mentioned and many others live in extremely hostile environments and could be a link to some of the earliest first species to inhabit the Earth. There have been experiments that have produced complex organic molecules from very simple compounds believed to be present on the early earth. Nucleic acids and amino acids can form under primordial conditions. Yes, there is a gap in our knowledge of how to get from this "soup" of compounds, to life as we know it, but progress is being made and the gaps are getting smaller.

As I said before, give scientists time. Some seemingly simple experiments can take years to get to work well, and this problem is one of the most complex facing scientists. Finding a cure for cancer is a much simpler problem, and we still have a long way to go on that front and it is getting a lot more funding!

Lisa at 3:34PM on Jun 18th 2007

105. OK, I can't write a long post because I have a bit of a headache from the all-caps posting. Not that I disagree with you, Phillip... but all-caps is a tad much, and also punctuation can be our friend. :)

What I am trying to assert, and have been trying to assert all along since Wes originally called out my post, is that belief is required for both atheism and religion. In a sense, atheism is its own religion.... likewise, science could be its own religion.... Anyhow, the argument turned to the origin of the universe.... evolution/creation/ evidence of an intelligent being. I am not trying to completely disprove evolution... I think in an earlier post I indicated that I don't disagree that that it existed... but the defense of evolution as the sole explanation for our existence has limits. To think that evolution is all there ever has been, and was the cause of the creation of life, much less our intelligent reasoning, takes belief. I am personally am not of the belief that intelligent design was completely absent from the injection of life into basic elements on a planet. But I'm not trying to slam those who do have that belief -- just trying to defend the plausibility of my theory. Furthermore, I don't think that either evolution or the concept of planetary formation "disproves" the theory of God (we got on that topic somewhere). We really don't know, and can't know, the extent to which an intelligent being may or may not have been involved in such a process.... Has the entirety of the history of life on earth been a series of accidents (for lack of a better word) from start to finish, or could any of it have occurred with some form of divine intervention? Through the learning about some of the principles discussed in planetory formation, it makes one wonder if some of it was set into place on purpose or whether it all was a cosmic accident -- either way, science can't tell us. I don't claim to "know" or not know that....Just either way, you have to believe something. The theory of God is not "disproved"... either way, you have to believe God (or an intelligent being, whatever) existed, or you have to believe it did not or does not exist. (Clay's post and others I think made this point better than I have -- I just kept saying "science is the human way of exploring the universe" to try to make that point.)

Also -- I have a *very* busy life, thank you Mark... but I don't think I have much of a life on the internet. I would rather spend my time stimulating my intellect by talking with intelligent people than surfing entertainment news or playing games or something. If that is having no life, then I am guilty as charged.

Anyway, this is longer than I thought it'd be... one last thing: I have to laugh at a couple of assumptions people have made about me over the last few days. A) that I am heterosexual and B) that I am male. I don't see how these assumptions were arrived at -- except you must envision me as an old white guy pounding a pulpit! LOL

eM at 6:35PM on Jun 18th 2007