All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

[lo_res_man]

There is a tiny little law called the law of thermodynamics. Now things decay. that slab of meat in your freezer, ( or tofu for the vegetarians ) if you take it out of the freezer it will decay. yet it has all the ingredients for life. even if you COMPLETLY decontaminate it from all life ( bacteria) it will rot. Even if you zap it till it jumps like Frankenstein , it will never come alive. And that is my main objection to the evolutionary view. life does not come from non life. so lets say life starts to form, an amino acid here, a protein molecule there, and a RNA molecule for good measure. BUT while this happening driven by heat and other energy, that same energy is tearing it apart. Now when we think cells we think simple. But any look at even the most primitive cells shows a beautiful complexity. Even viruses, which CANNOT be the progenitors of life, simple though they are, because they need life to reproduce. What Pasteur proved was that life does not come from non life, that is spontaneous generation does not work. In that sense the modern view is a step BACKWORDS.

[CaptainBinky]

Well hang on. Life is absurdly complex, even the so-called simple lifeforms as you say. But, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that life is too complex to have spontaneously bloomed. Even simple life is too complex.

But this entirely depends on what constitutes "life". The simplest form of life would be a replicating machine, not a cell. Once you have a mechanism for replication, and given a large amount of time, you have a traceable pathway to complex lifeforms. Unfortunately I'm not a zoologist and I can't go into this theory nearly as well as I'd like (Dawkins talks about this a lot). And to go from floating molecules to replicating machine is unquestionably unlikely, however we can theorise on what the process would be. And while there's a tangable process, there's a chance, and while there's a chance and enough time, there's a pretty good argument for saying that's how it must have happened. This to me seems much more likely than the likelihood of some unseen, unknown, impossible to determine force out there in the heavens doing this for us.

"Life does not come from non-life" to me is up there with "what good is half an eye" as statements which don't really mean anything, since if you agree with evolution then the response to the first statement can only be "of course it does!", whereas if you believe in creationism the response is "yes, of course it doesn't". There cannot really be any views in-between. You can't really say "well sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't"!!!

[lemmy101]

In my opinion science and religion are both two distinct types of belief. On one hand science is a set of belief systems built up from observations about our world, and "provable", methodistic conclusions you draw from your observations.

Furthermore, for 99.99% of the population of this planet, science is even more profoundly a belief system, as to a large extent you are believing what is written by those who are a lot more intelligent than yourself, or at the very least those who have invested the time into finding out about the subject that you yourself would not...

But the other side of the fence is religion, which to my mind has formed due to human's natural inability to believe that they and the world around them has been created by some natural process. Who was it that said "Nature itself has imprinted on the minds of men the idea of God"?

The way I see it is that everything boils down to belief, when you get to the nub of it. Do I believe Stephen Hawking's theory that dark matter exists? Do I believe the Earth was made in seven days? Do I believe that we all used to be skuttling trilobytes?

What's important to me, I guess, is what is easier to believe, or what is the more likely thing in which to believe, i.e. what does the evidence available point toward?

In this case science usually wins out, because generally I believe in what a scientist has to say over what a priest does... this does not mean the scientist is right... I just feel the scientist has more founded reason to believe what he does, and takes a more objective approach to determine what his belief systems are.

Of course, we could all be part of the matrix, thus rendering all the scientist's observations completely invalid... in this case scientific method becomes just as unprovable as all the world religions, but whilst we have no reasons to mistrust our observations about the universe around us, it seems baffling to me why people would put more stock in a 2000 year old book than observational evidence around them here and now...

So to sum up, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I 100% believe in evolution, I consider that the theory is built up of a lot of circumstantial evidence such as fossil records.. we've not sat and watched, generation after generation, a species evolve into another species, (though the snail thing Binky mentioned, as well as the results of selective breeding of dogs are both very interesting piece of observation evidence for me personally), and all of what I know about evolution I've been effectively "told" by others (biologists, archeologists, Darwin himself)

But it is a damn convincing theory, everything we have discovered about it seems to point in that direction, and my money would definitely be on that over divine intervention any day.

This kind of brings me onto the alien thing. I've never seen an alien, but yet I'm more accepting of their possibility than I am of the foundations of the various world religions, due to my interpretation of the universe around us, largely based upon evolution and astrophysics, the size of the universe etc. These all give me a grounded argument as to why alien life existing is quite probable... albeit still one where I am taking a lot of things as truth that I personally have never proven.

I won't *believe* in aliens until I see one myself, however, and maybe not even then...

As in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, the planet of Krikket (sp?) having no visible stars in the sky... if I lived on Krikket, believing in aliens would be as blind a belief as I feel most religions to be.

Hopefully this makes some sense

[CaptainBinky]

Hmmm, not sure I would umbrella both science and relligion as systems of "belief".

As you yourself say, science is about hypothesising and theorising based on observation and experiment. The only point "belief" enters into this is if you are seriously suggesting that scientists may be lying to us. If a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, then I won't automatically accept it. If I read that same hypothesis and gleam some knowledge of their observations and reasoning then I may agree with it. There is no "blind faith" in science.

I don't agree with all theories on evolution. In fact, I disagree with very many of them. But this is judgement on what I find more likely based on things which I have read, and things which I have observed.

I mean, okay. I have never observed the Earth from space, and yet I do agree that it is a planet in the Milky way with a moon which orbits etc etc. However, there is such a ridiculous amount of evidence to support this, astronaughts, telescopic imagery etc, that I'm fairly confident taking these kinds of facts as a given. So it's not really a question of "believing" that the Earth is a planet orbitting the sun, etc etc.

[lemmy101]

Hmmm, not sure I would umbrella both science and relligion as systems of "belief".

As you yourself say, science is about hypothesising and theorising based on observation and experiment. The only point "belief" enters into this is if you are seriously suggesting that scientists may be lying to us. If a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, then I won't automatically accept it. If I read that same hypothesis and gleam some knowledge of their observations and reasoning then I may agree with it. There is no "blind belief" in science.

As I said, that is why I side on evolution over God creating the world, it's not "blind belief"... my point is simply this: Unless YOU yourself, have flown around the world, how can you possibly say "The world IS DEFINITELY 100% round and not flat" without it being a belief?

I'm not saying the Earth isn't round, of course it is, it's just to illustrate the point. It's still a belief, just it is a belief that's near infinitely more probably right than it is wrong. Whereas a lot of the beliefs Fundamentalist Christians have are (to my mind) almost infinitely more probably wrong than they are right.

[CaptainBinky]

my point is simply this: Unless YOU yourself, have flown around the world, how can you possibly say "The world IS DEFINITELY 100% round and not flat" without it being a belief?

Because I have seen photographs of the Earth from space. I have observed the arc of the horizon. I don't need to have been to Turkey to accept it's existence

[lemmy101]

my point is simply this: Unless YOU yourself, have flown around the world, how can you possibly say "The world IS DEFINITELY 100% round and not flat" without it being a belief?

Because I have seen photographs of the Earth from space. I have observed the arc of the horizon. I don't need to have been to Turkey to accept it's existence

And the cat in the box is an observer too.

[lo_res_man]

Maybe but I consider that Thermodynamics presents a rather damning evidence against the idea of "Life from non Life." like Scotty said (though he did it often enough Ã,  ) "ya can' break' ta laws of physics captain." Ã,  Ã, AS well the breeding of Dogs is a rather bad example. Yes they may act, look, even SMELL different. but they all can breed with other dogs. AS well dogs have a VERY Ã, large (larger then humans) genetic code, Allowing large variation within the their kind. I am not a religious person. I don't get up in church, wave my hands like an idiot. Heck I don't even go to church. Are you saying Just because my hypotheses does not fit the standard science model I am an Blind idiot? Dogma is always dogma, no matter what the subject is.

[CaptainBinky]

Are you saying Just because my hypotheses does not fit the standard science model I am an Blind idiot? Dogma is always dogma, no matter what the subject is.

No! I would never cast judgement on a person based on their beliefs or ideas. What I am saying is that while you have a good argument for the dismissal of life through cumulative change, there is an equal argument that such a mechanism could exist. And to me the crux of it all is defining what life actually is (and I don't know, by the way)

[lo_res_man]

You quite right Captain Binkey. What I dislike is the idea presented to the public as if  it ( cumulative change) was the ONLY possibility. Now I agree Intelligent Design is foolish because it only pushes back the problem, while still having to work with those pesky laws of thermodynamics. That is why I believe in a extrauniversal God. It doesn't answer were god came from, but it allows more possibilities, at the same time it  DOES answer were the universe came from. You believe your model of the universe, and I will believe mine, and we can go discover the secrets of the universe, while having different models to  interpret the phenomena

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

The only point "belief" enters into this is if you are seriously suggesting that scientists may be lying to us.

Not lying. Just mistaken due to bias.

[lo_res_man]

Like when they found those "fresh" T-rex bones.
Just goes say, the more we know the more we know, we know nothing. (Say that ten times fast )

[MrColossal]

The best thing about scientific thinking is that the moment proof of a divine being is established, the scientific community will adapt that into what they know now and discard what goes against it... The same can not be said for the other side of this debate.

The reason I mention this is because when people bring up moments when a scientist or a once common held belief among the scientific community was proven wrong, they think it leads to some sort of conclusion that the entire thing is a big crock.

[lo_res_man]

I can agree with that, in fact I am ashamed of some of the dogmatic "God did it cuz’ I said he did it." attitude of a large number of creationists. or worse "the bible says so" the bible while a fascinating quasi-historical-mythical-metaphorical piece of literature will get one nowhere in a debate. I am not saying science is crock, I just think evolutionary scientists could be a bit more open to other idea's. Maybe there is no god and we are just flouting in an end less void. So creationists need to modify there beliefs to new information? SO could many evolutionists, in my opinion. Scientists are human, and hold treasured beliefs quite firmly.

[MrColossal]

What other ideas do you want the evolutionary scientists to be open too? And is there no evolutionary scientist that is open to these ideas?

I didn't say creationists have to modify their beliefs, that's not really their thing with a very good reason. If the Bible don't say it, it didn't happen! [sorta]

So then do you agree that your previous discussion about thermodynamics and life not being created from non-life is something that could change at any moment? Forgive me if you've already stated that.

And speaking about scientists is really vague. Everyone has their own view of what scientists are, yes they are just humans but it's not like every scientist meets and says "Ok, here's what we believe!" There is a constant push and pull and a constant poking and prodding of what works and what doesn't work and why does it and why doesn't it.

Besides, how much of the scientific community is devoted to proving god or gods don't exist? Not much at all I wager. They're poking at science and observing and documenting and learning, not disproving god every chance they get. Even if for some reason there was a divine being that created everything, unless there was a direct line to that being for everyone to ask questions, people would still want to know how it all works. But anyway...

[lo_res_man]

What other ideas do you want the evolutionary scientists to be open too? And is there no evolutionary scientist that is open to these ideas?

I wouldn't say that, but the general public consensus seems to be "God CAN"T exist". what each individual scientist thinks is well, up to each individual.

I didn't say creationists have to modify their beliefs, that's not really their thing with a very good reason. If the Bible don't say it, it didn't happen! [sorta]

Then what does that make me? Not an evolutionist, not a intelligent designer proponent, and (according to your definition) not a creationist.

So then do you agree that your previous discussion about thermodynamics and life not being created from non-life is something that could change at any moment? Forgive me if you've already stated that.

That’s Ok if someone can show me how it could happen, all right then, but I am not holding my breath. I think it is (and until someone proves me wrong) quite a severe blow to evolution as it now stands.

Besides, how much of the scientific community is devoted to proving god or gods don't exist? Not much at all I wager.

True enough, they are not scheming on how to keep the idea of god out of the world like some stupid (as if it isn't enough) variation on one of those stupid "Jews rule the WORLD!" ideas.
BUT for scientist, evolution is the dominant theory to explain the how life came to be. And in any community it is difficult to think outside the accepted paradigm. To accept unpopular beliefs is a great way to send your career on a fast track to the slow lane. And no scientist wants that.
[edit]
   Thanx Becky, I appreciate the nit picking

[Becky]

BUT for scientist, evolution is the dominant theory to explain the universe.

Wrong.  Evolution is a purely biological theory, concerned with the development of life, NOT how the world was made, or where it came from.  The "Big Bang" theory and that of evolution are not the same thing.

[lo_res_man]

  erm, sorry about that. Your right Becky! As you can see I changed the post above, to fitr your standerds. Thanx

[Adamski]

Evolution has always seemed inductive to me, personally. The theory itself has changed so many times (i.e. prominent scientists no longer believe in the spotted moths or the fetal stage transformations), I place it on the same shelf as other religions.

Those pesky scientists always changing their minds, it was much easier when the only elements were Water, Fire, Air and Earth!

It made revising for tests so much simpler at least.

[MrColossal]

I remember when they sprung Ether on us... I was like "WHAT?! I'll never remember all of this!"