Excel Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 If you believe in something badly enough no scientific or logical explanation will ever be enough to change that belief. Just like the people that try to find a godly explanation for dinosaurs...they died in the flood...the Devil planted the bones to corrupt people and so on and so on. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 That's actually pretty easily explained by the chemical reactions in the brain that we describe as love. Propagation of the species, the brazillion secondary things which make the genes comprising you recognize and shelter the genes comprising your offspring, which would be a Darwinian necessity if the gene sequence that created you was to survive. That kind of thing makes perfect sense to me. Well it also makes perfect sense if you attribute the reason for it to a higher being. God caused us to be able to love and there is some evidence of the chemical reaction that helps explain how. The missing component once again is why. I will bail out of this discussion and simply follow along silently (as I can resist). I realize this discussion has merit and it doesn't need me constantly interjecting how I feel God could be ultimately responsible for all the points that may be made. Just one favor to ask- If y'all come across something that you don't feel can be attributed to an all powerful supernatural being, let me know. I don't mean that in a mocking fashion. I probably have many/most of the same doubts you did before switching teams. It is relatively easy to have doubts about religion but the big thing keeping me on the other team is my steadfast belief in a creator. Try to shoot holes in that all you want. Your quandary isn't whether there is a god, then. It's choosing the right one. Simply put, EVERYTHING can be attributed to a supreme being. Deciding there's a supreme being controlling everything isn't much of a trick. You just decide that the tide goes in and the tide goes out, and you can't explain that... god. No, the difficult thing with theism is being certain that the god you choose is THE god. And it's not enough to say that there are reliable witnesses, or a sacred text, or that you somehow know it in your heart that the god you choose is the one, because there are billions of people on this planet who worship a different god who can provide the same evidence. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Why do you have to choose a God if you believe in a higher power? Link to comment
Junior Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Knapp, I think one of the key things to remember (as I type a less than complete thought on my phone), is that these "enzymatic" RNA structures were forming before there were cells. Then the chemistry of the reaction is energetically favorable when it becomes confined in a small space afforded by the earliest membrane like structures. The first "cells" were little bags of chemical reactions. Every step along the way was improving slightly on the step prior. At first, cells were just adding a rivozyme to the cells that improved the cells in some way. Every improvement makes the cell more fit to compete in their environment. Sorry for the disjointed thoughts, tomorrow I might be able to write a little better when I have some more time. I find it difficult to write more than a few words in a post on my phone. Link to comment
Excel Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Your quandary isn't whether there is a god, then. It's choosing the right one. That's not difficult because Gods are largely regional. They each have their own areas in which they exercise influence though they occasionally venture to other areas but only to punish/wreak havoc. So it's not really a choice, it's just where you live. 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 That's actually pretty easily explained by the chemical reactions in the brain that we describe as love. Propagation of the species, the brazillion secondary things which make the genes comprising you recognize and shelter the genes comprising your offspring, which would be a Darwinian necessity if the gene sequence that created you was to survive. That kind of thing makes perfect sense to me. Well it also makes perfect sense if you attribute the reason for it to a higher being. God caused us to be able to love and there is some evidence of the chemical reaction that helps explain how. The missing component once again is why. I will bail out of this discussion and simply follow along silently (as I can resist). I realize this discussion has merit and it doesn't need me constantly interjecting how I feel God could be ultimately responsible for all the points that may be made. Just one favor to ask- If y'all come across something that you don't feel can be attributed to an all powerful supernatural being, let me know. I don't mean that in a mocking fashion. I probably have many/most of the same doubts you did before switching teams. It is relatively easy to have doubts about religion but the big thing keeping me on the other team is my steadfast belief in a creator. Try to shoot holes in that all you want. Your quandary isn't whether there is a god, then. It's choosing the right one. Simply put, EVERYTHING can be attributed to a supreme being. Deciding there's a supreme being controlling everything isn't much of a trick. You just decide that the tide goes in and the tide goes out, and you can't explain that... god. No, the difficult thing with theism is being certain that the god you choose is THE god. And it's not enough to say that there are reliable witnesses, or a sacred text, or that you somehow know it in your heart that the god you choose is the one, because there are billions of people on this planet who worship a different god who can provide the same evidence. I pretty much agree with this. However I also don't have much of a quandary if I have chosen the correct one. I have some rather strange beliefs that don't require one to be absolutely correct and others to be wrong. And that is not what this discussion is about. In simplest terms, either a creator caused this or it just happened. If a person determines or even thinks a creator had a hand in it, then I think it behooves them to not deny that realm even if there are things about relgious belief that may be problematic. If there is a creator, we definitely have more to be concerned about thanthe scientific explanation for dna or any other science specific topic. Link to comment
tschu Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 The earliest life forms would have been far, far simpler than the simplest archaea. Are we going to talk about theories of Abiogenesis and its/their validity? Please tell me we're going down that road. Most abiogenesis theories involve several different parts, which are roughly this: The basic components of life formed in the early earth environment under conditions of great heat and electrical activity typical of the early earth. Amino acids and peptide chains formed quite readily - this isn't really in question based on several experiments The basic lipids needed to form a cell membrane were also found in this environment. Due to having a hydrophobic and hydrophilic end, they actually naturally WANT to form congregations resembling cell membranes in an aquatic environment. Another easy step. But in my opinion, the most likely scenario is that life originated as strands of RNA that did stuff, to put it bluntly. http://en.wikipedia....orld_hypothesis RNA can act as enzymes - self-replicate and copy other strands, act as a protein-building enzyme, as well as storing information as genetic code. The fact that cells today still use a protein-bound strand of RNA to form proteins using information sent in the form of RNA might be a big clue that this is what the precursor to modern life was. In fact, the more you think about it, it's almost slapping us in the face! In my opinion, at least. Once you have RNA that does stuff, combined with the amino acids needed to build proteins and cell membranes that spontaneously form, you have all the ingredients available for life to start to form and move towards the structure that we see currently. Any self-replicating strands or proto-cells will be subject to natural selection, which will favor the more successful ones, and away we go. Really for me the biggest evidence that life formed naturally is the fact that DNA evidence says that all modern life came from one common ancestor. It overwhelmingly says this, to the point where it is one of the most conclusive "facts" that science has. So what this means is that A) life formed essentially once in an early earth environment and then nature continued to take its course or B) A creator just decided to throw one cell that he made down to earth and let that cell evolve into, well, whatever I guess! Hopefully it forms intelligent life "in my image!" ...yeah. 2 Link to comment
tschu Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Why do you have to choose a God if you believe in a higher power? Yeah, I agree. If you think there is a creator it doesn't much matter what you think that creator's name or purpose is in the context of this particular argument. Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 Your quandary isn't whether there is a god, then. It's choosing the right one. That's not difficult because Gods are largely regional. They each have their own areas in which they exercise influence though they occasionally venture to other areas but only to punish/wreak havoc. So it's not really a choice, it's just where you live. God: I am God. Man: No way! God: Yahweh. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Why do you have to choose a God if you believe in a higher power? Yeah, I agree. If you think there is a creator it doesn't much matter what you think that creator's name or purpose is in the context of this particular argument. Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. My point is, the question if there is a creator or not is really separate from religion. Religions are man made traditions to worship a creator/higher power. Whatever name is given to that higher power originally came from humans. The simple idea of a higher power really has no bearing on what actual name you give that power and vice versa. Also, my "God" just well might be the exact same "higher power" that every other religion worships around the world. They simply have developed different human traditions (and name) around that higher power. Link to comment
tschu Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Why do you have to choose a God if you believe in a higher power? Yeah, I agree. If you think there is a creator it doesn't much matter what you think that creator's name or purpose is in the context of this particular argument. Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. My point is, the question if there is a creator or not is really separate from religion. Religions are man made traditions to worship a creator/higher power. Whatever name is given to that higher power originally came from humans. The simple idea of a higher power really has no bearing on what actual name you give that power and vice versa. Also, my "God" just well might be the exact same "higher power" that every other religion worships around the world. They simply have developed different human traditions (and name) around that higher power. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was agreeing with you. Link to comment
Junior Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 The earliest life forms would have been far, far simpler than the simplest archaea. Are we going to talk about theories of Abiogenesis and its/their validity? Please tell me we're going down that road. Most abiogenesis theories involve several different parts, which are roughly this: The basic components of life formed in the early earth environment under conditions of great heat and electrical activity typical of the early earth. Amino acids and peptide chains formed quite readily - this isn't really in question based on several experiments The basic lipids needed to form a cell membrane were also found in this environment. Due to having a hydrophobic and hydrophilic end, they actually naturally WANT to form congregations resembling cell membranes in an aquatic environment. Another easy step. But in my opinion, the most likely scenario is that life originated as strands of RNA that did stuff, to put it bluntly. http://en.wikipedia....orld_hypothesis RNA can act as enzymes - self-replicate and copy other strands, act as a protein-building enzyme, as well as storing information as genetic code. The fact that cells today still use a protein-bound strand of RNA to form proteins using information sent in the form of RNA might be a big clue that this is what the precursor to modern life was. In fact, the more you think about it, it's almost slapping us in the face! In my opinion, at least. Once you have RNA that does stuff, combined with the amino acids needed to build proteins and cell membranes that spontaneously form, you have all the ingredients available for life to start to form and move towards the structure that we see currently. Any self-replicating strands or proto-cells will be subject to natural selection, which will favor the more successful ones, and away we go. Really for me the biggest evidence that life formed naturally is the fact that DNA evidence says that all modern life came from one common ancestor. It overwhelmingly says this, to the point where it is one of the most conclusive "facts" that science has. So what this means is that A) life formed essentially once in an early earth environment and then nature continued to take its course or B) A creator just decided to throw one cell that he made down to earth and let that cell evolve into, well, whatever I guess! Hopefully it forms intelligent life "in my image!" ...yeah. Looks like I don't need to write a fully thought out response anymore. Well done. Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 Still really hoping to hear a response to my original post and the perceived paradox of unguided, unintelligent evolutionary progress with rational thought and perception of true and false. Link to comment
tschu Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Regarding the OP, I want to form a response because I think there's a lot of interesting stuff there, but I'm not quite sure that I'm understanding your question. Help? Link to comment
tschu Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Calling evolution a "belief" by the way is misguided. See the relationship between belief and knowledge...a belief that is truth and has justification for being true is no longer a belief, it is knowledge. Link to comment
Recommended Posts