More proof that life was not designed by a ?
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »This is understood. As I said before, belief in ? is a matter of faith not logic. I never said that logic dictates that ? exists, so there is no fallacy. All I've said is that nothing has proven that ? doesn't exist and based on my experiences, I believe he does. I will say that all belief in a higher being is not the same. There is a difference between analyzing the complexity of the universe and asserting that there appears to be a design at play and seeing lighting and believing there must be a man in the clouds throwing it.
That's not true. Children often rebel against what is force on them. Just because you're raised in the church doesn't mean you'll continue with it in life. Actually, most people who are raised in the church leave it for a peiod and then come back meaning that it is more that draws them to it than just having it forced on them at a young age.
How can you disagree with it? It's a logical fact. Just because you can't prove something exists, doesn't mean that they don't. The presence of atoms were predicted way back in Ancient Greece, but it was a long time before it could be proven to any degree of certainty. At that time, people could have and did make the same argument against atoms that you do against ? . "If they do exist, show me proof." None was given at that time, but as we now know, atoms do exist.
Well that's one way to think. However, you have to acknowledge that you are a being of limited knowledge and intelligence. We all are. There are likely a lot fo things that wouldn't make sense to you. That doesn't mean those things don't exist.
The nature of the laws are very seldom updated. The scope that the Laws cover are. Newton's Laws haven't changed since their initial formulation. However, we now know that they fall apart when talking about things that are very small, very large, or moving at very high speeds. Therefore the laws are limited to Newtonian Physics. Even in this regard though, they haven't really been disregarded in the cases where they don't apply. The Correspondance Principle shows that when the proper boundary conditions are applied all those other laws such as those for Relativity condense back into Newton's Laws.
Evolution as a theory hasn't been proven true. Aspects of the Theory have been proven true. As I said before, Theories often incorporate Laws into them. In Biology, it's different because Laws aren't used quite as much as in Physics since most laws are built on mathematical formulation and biology as a subject makes far less use of math than physics.
Again, this is not simple nomenclature. There is a difference betwee theories and laws. It's not as simple as saying people assumed that Newton's Laws should hold in all circumstances. It was a known fact that Newton's Laws held in all circumstances that could be measured at the given time. Modern physics produced new circumstances that weren't predicted under the grounds of Newtonian physics. In other words, Newton's Laws couldn't have been assumed to apply to quantum conditions because quantum conditions weren't known during the formulation of Newton's Laws. Again Newton's Laws have not changed, the scope under which they apply has just been better defined. As laws they stand as strong as they always have.
No that's not what I have done. Again, I'm not saying that "I see lightning and I don't know what it is, so I say a man in the clouds is doing it." What I'm saying is that Universe operates like a well oiled machine. In the same way a car is designed to work in the way that it does, to me, the Universe appears to work in just such a manner. As if it was designed to do so. I'm not asserting that it has to be that way. I'm asserting that it is possible and seems very likely to me. I believe what I do, but I don't close my mind to other possibilities and I'm not some religious zealot that closes his mind to anything that clashes with my beliefs. If I was, I definitely wouldn't have gone into physics.
I already acknowledged. Still, there are a huge amount of variables at play, when you start cutting things down, you'll see that a planet like Earth is pretty rare. Yeah there are sextillions of stars, but some of those variables that you cut away, such as actually having planets orbit in a range that could support life as we know it cuts that number by a high percentage. Then having said planets have an atmosphere that can support life as we know it cuts it by another high percentage. It's not as easy as rolling dice because not every star has an equal chance of supporting a planet that can sustain life. There may be 70 sextillion stars out there but if it's shown that 99% aren't even viable candidates than the size of that number is meaningless. I'm not saying that's the case, just making a point. That said, I don't believe that life is even unique to Earth. I'm just saying that life turning out the way it did is a miracle whether you believe it to be a divine one or a scientific one.
People on this board and others. Hell, when the findings were presented someone created a topic that was basically titled "Scientists create life, religion is finished."
wow. it is interesting to see a formally trained science brother build on spiritually. this brings new dimensions to the discussion. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »I don't want to influence your thinking. I'm not here to do that.
I just speak truth, and hope that you can appreciate it.
So on that note, I will list different sources for you to ponder and consider which ever suits your thought processes. Such as, at the link here:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=does+bible+tell+difference+between+hades+and+hell%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=Cm-gzriUkTIO9N6PuzATv7fXRCgAAAKoEBU_QHScn&fp=d2eda4910a7445ea
You should find quite a few legitimate breakdowns there, that may explain it in a way you can possibly appreciate better than you appreciate what I bring here.
From one of the sources you just listed:
So the essential difference between hades and hell is that hades is generally associated with death and the grave while hell is generally associated with burning and punishment. For all practical purposes in our lives here on Earth there is possibly no real major distinction between the two. They are both characterized as places we don't want to go.
I can't say you're wrong with your assertion, but the matter is certainly one that's up for debate and doesn't have a clear cut answer. -
How does evolution disproves a ‘? ’? I thought evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life.
-
its over: 2012! wrote: »come on now, tri, I'm sure you can agree...it's not normal, to heckle/mock a member's login name, then straight-faced ask them about posting links to help you get correctly informed.
Plus since its obvious that I wound up posting one up, any way...is this looking even more peculiar, that I'm still asked about that?
the IC is Funny like that.........i still believe that was a genuiine Question though -
kids in america_ wrote: »How does evolution disproves a ‘? ’? I thought evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life.
it doesnt, but People try to make it sound like it does......... -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »damn, you're hoping we suffer an extremely horrible fate?
what kind of religious man you supposed to be? the ? kind? suck a BAG OF ? .
Fixed ... when did they put in a message minimun?
