Dawinists standing on the panic button.

[OrangeEmpire]

Much more believable that our earth was created from banded iron.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Maybe if they just threw out all the evidence and said there findings were based on faith, and supernatural phenomena it would be easier to buy into for you?

No, why?

:blink:

 

[rjd970]

Muhammed couldn't have ascended to heaven?

Oh, ok. I didn't follow what you were getting at.

Nevertheless, find me a chain of reasonable events that even approaches the believeability of this explanation that would explain how Muhammed could ascend to heaven and that point is worth discussion. One claim is based on evidence, the other faith - blind faith at that.

Huge difference.

 

[KB5252]

actually that is getting closer to being believable (kind of a misleading tile but interesting story)

Found: the origin of life - Science, News - The Independent

My point is that one is no more credible than the other. Science could be doing nothing more than showing us how God, Allah, whatever you want to call the higher power, created some forms of life long ago. In the end it proves nothing about religion being wrong, unless of course you take every word written religious texts literally.

 

[utvolpj]

My point is that one is no more credible than the other. Science could be doing nothing more than showing us how God, Allah, whatever you want to call the higher power, created some forms of life long ago. In the end it proves nothing about religion being wrong, unless of course you take every word written religious texts literally.

then for a certain group it won't ever matter. They are creating the basis of life out of "nothing" basically but I can see it now

Science: We found exactly what first formed life on our planet.
Religion: God put it there and made it happen.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Well, unlike the supernatural explanation crowd, certainties are rare in the scientific community.

This shows nothing more than all you need is sugar, ammonia, cynamide, phosphate, and sunlight....all of which were abundant in the early stages of earth...and you have the makings of a reasonable and likely process from which life can start.

it didn't say that. It was careful to say that the raw materials were made of other, even rawer, materials, but it did not say that they started with the building blocks you listed here.

 

[KB5252]

Oh, ok. I didn't follow what you were getting at.

Nevertheless, find me a chain of reasonable events that even approaches the believeability of this explanation that would explain how Muhammed could ascend to heaven and that point is worth discussion. One claim is based on evidence, the other faith - blind faith at that.

Huge difference.

Let me try again from a different angle. Man has produced through experimentation the "basic blocks" that make up RNA in a laboratory by using controlled conditions to replicate what may have been in a past time.

Man has a hand in causing this process to happen. Where was the hand that caused the original RNA to form and reproduce? That could be where God or a higher power comes into the equation.

Just by doing this experiment that have shown that a hand was needed to provide the conditions needed to spark this phenomenon. Could the world not be a laboratory?

 

[rjd970]

My point is that one is no more credible than the other. Science could be doing nothing more than showing us how God, Allah, whatever you want to call the higher power, created some forms of life long ago. In the end it proves nothing about religion being wrong, unless of course you take every word written religious texts literally.

All this article shows is that there are reasonable explanations for these "ultimate" type questions that do not need the divine finger of a supernatural creator. Religion aside.

As for your first sentence, I think evidence-based approaches are far more credible than philosophical claims of supernatural phenomena. But to each their own on what you find to be credible.

 

[rjd970]

it didn't say that. It was careful to say that the raw materials were made of other, even rawer, materials, but it did not say that they started with the building blocks you listed here.

You're right, I should have said from which the building blocks of life can arise.

 

[KB5252]

All this article shows is that there are reasonable explanations for these "ultimate" type questions that do not need the divine finger of a supernatural creator. Religion aside.

As for your first sentence, I think evidence-based approaches are far more credible than philosophical claims of supernatural phenomena. But to each their own on what you find to be credible.

And I understand what you are saying as well. It all boils down to this.....so life started from a few basic building blocks readily available throughout the universe. The basic elements where created by various processes, stars exploding, stars imploding etc. Trace it back as far as you can and you still start from nothing. 0+0 still equals zero. Something had to spark everything into existence, this something has to be God as far as I'm concerned.

 

[rjd970]

then for a certain group it won't ever matter. They are creating the basis of life out of "nothing" basically but I can see it now

Science: We found exactly what first formed life on our planet.
Religion: God put it there and made it happen.

This basically sums up the previous 37 pages of this thread.

...that, and god hates women.

 

[rjd970]

And I understand what you are saying as well. It all boils down to this.....so life started from a few basic building blocks readily available throughout the universe. The basic elements where created by various processes, stars exploding, stars imploding etc. Trace it back as far as you can and you still start from nothing. 0+0 still equals zero. Something had to spark everything into existence, this something has to be God as far as I'm concerned.

We don't understand much of the origins of the universe, but to me that is not de facto proof of "God", much less the miracle reaking, prayer-answering God of everyday conversation.

Mybe the universe isn't linear, and there is not a "beginning" or "end" to it. Maybe we don't know what time is or how it works...or it is just an illusion. Einstein wrote some fascinating stuff on this...how space and time are really the same thing and time as we know it is only an illusion.

 

[Chemvol]

Well, whata do ya know.....

Chemists see first building blocks to life on Earth

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[Chemvol]

We don't understand much of the origins of the universe, but to me that is not de facto proof of "God", much less the miracle reaking, prayer-answering God of everyday conversation.

Mybe the universe isn't linear, and there is not a "beginning" or "end" to it. Maybe we don't know what time is or how it works...or it is just an illusion. Einstein wrote some fascinating stuff on this...how space and time are really the same thing and time as we know it is only an illusion.

Some theories on the nature of time are really out there. The Science Channel had a show on last week called "What Time is It?" that went over some of them.

I think Chicago said it best with "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?"

 

[KB5252]

We don't understand much of the origins of the universe, but to me that is not de facto proof of "God", much less the miracle reaking, prayer-answering God of everyday conversation.

Mybe the universe isn't linear, and there is not a "beginning" or "end" to it. Maybe we don't know what time is or how it works...or it is just an illusion. Einstein wrote some fascinating stuff on this...how space and time are really the same thing and time as we know it is only an illusion.

I find the theories very interesting myself. Like I said I don't claim to have the answers, hell there are many things i can't even begin to wrap my mind around, God included.

I have done some reading on Einstein and find his theories very interesting. I even have one of my own about "space craft" that people claim to see. Some of the theories are way out there too but that makes this subject all the more interesting to me.

 

[rjd970]

I find the theories very interesting myself. Like I said I don't claim to have the answers, hell there are many things i can't even begin to wrap my mind around, God included.

I have done some reading on Einstein and find his theories very interesting. I even have one of my own about "space craft" that people claim to see. Some of the theories are way out there too but that makes this subject all the more interesting to me.

I read in a science magazine once that gave a really good analogy to Einstein's space and time theory.

It said we all think of time as a series of moments, passing from the future, to the present, to the past...and it continually changes. But that is wrong, change is only an illusion. Everything just is.

Think of it like this. You get in a plane and fly to Singapore. After traveling some distance, you look out the window and see Singapore below you. You didn't bring Singapore into existence, it was always there, you just got there by displacing yourself in space.

Same with time.

You don't bring future events into existence, they are always there. You just simply get there by displacing yourself in time, they are and always will remain there when they "move" into the past.

Essentially, everything just is, and never changes.