Message boards :
Science (non-SETI) :
One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Lynn Send message Joined: 20 Nov 00 Posts: 14162 Credit: 79,603,650 RAC: 123 |
these are the lyrics to Boston's hard rockers Extreme's song "There is no God". In the song the lead singer isn't saying there is no god, just playing the role of devils advocate. The singer is actually religious and believes in God but the song is basically pointing the finger at the people out there that would only believe in God if there is proof, the doubting Thomas types of people. I think it's an excellent song, here are the lyrics: from 1995's Waiting For The Punchline, A&M records Extreme - There is No God BETTENCOURT, NUNO / CHERONE, GARY F. / BADGER, PATRICK So you're a self proclaimed messiah Or maybe a blasphemes liar A clever hypnotic hoax A hallowed heretic coax Who tells these stories so old No, never the same twice told Speaking in distorted thruths I see that thomas wants some proof Did you come to heal the sick With one more magician's trick Ye generation seeks a sign While blind keeps leading the blind So you say there is no god Just a clever man's charade A once upon a fairy tales fraud Has god made man or man made god There is no god Confused thy talk in parables Accused thou walk in parallels A simple game of simon says This month's flavor sciences Today's fact, tomorrow's fiction Leave the rest to superstition If knowledge comes from learning books Wisdom comes from discerning looks A fool that says there is no god Don't feel for that sorry sod Who needs proof then he'll believe I wonder if he's been deceived There is no god _____________________________________________ Finding proof will always be difficult and we may never find any proof until we die, one of life's little mysteries, is God. |
Eric Becherer Send message Joined: 27 Mar 09 Posts: 9 Credit: 414,288 RAC: 0 |
What interpretation of Which god are we talking about here? |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Whether or not the earth is or was perfect for the formation of life was not my point. Especially since our presence here makes that statement obvious. For me, the fact that we have neither created any form of life no found a suitable formula for how that first one celled ameba came to be is sufficient to allow for the possibility of God. If and when man or other intelligent being demonstrates that capability then the need for God is dimenished to nothing. Not only would that cell need to be created by man, but it would need to be created with atoms not of this universe. You people just don't seem to get it. I have told you over and over again and you still don't seem to get it. WE MIMIC what we see, we create nothing. Man will never create from nothing, life, as was done the first time around. We would first need to create atoms. Then monocles, from them atoms. And the design blueprints that are not a duplicate of something that is already here for that cell. As I have said--there is no such thing as a simple cell. Luck with diminishing God. LOL! |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19060 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Show me where nature created and uses a wheel. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Show me where nature created and uses a wheel. A galaxy. The universe. The singularity. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Quite apparent Lynn doesn't understand his/her own logic. (smile) Define reason for this post. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19060 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
I would have thought that was blindingly (banded adjective of your choice) obvious. |
Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 3387 Credit: 4,182,900 RAC: 10 |
Whether or not the earth is or was perfect for the formation of life was not my point. Especially since our presence here makes that statement obvious. For me, the fact that we have neither created any form of life no found a suitable formula for how that first one celled ameba came to be is sufficient to allow for the possibility of God. If and when man or other intelligent being demonstrates that capability then the need for God is dimenished to nothing. I do not agree that all the ingredients would have to be created too. Science has a perfectly good explanation for how nature has created every element from helium to uranium. And I don't think rearranging DNA and inserting it into an already living creature qualifies as creating life. Although they have been trying for quite a long time as far as I know nobody has suceeded in taking the necessary ingredients and induced the spark of life. Bob DeWoody My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
It's not rearranging DNA and inserting it into an already living creature qualifies as creating life. It's making it from nothing. Even if we could convert energy into matter we would be converting energy that is already here. That does not qualify as creation. |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
1. It's not unanswered. "Maybe we're over-optimistic, but I think this is a paradigm shift," says chemist Jeffrey Bada, whose team performed the experiment at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. Amino acids have been created in abiotic conditions, in the lab. Whether or not this is exactly how the first amino acids came to exist on Earth doesn't matter. We have already proven that they could come to be, without any "supernatural" intervention. We know that there is at least one way that the building blocks could have come to be. Once the building blocks were there, all that was needed was time for some to combine into a self-replicating structure, all by themselves, only via the operation of chance over billions of years. 2. We know that gods were created by humans, partly to explain what primitive humans could not understand or explain. If one or more of the questions first asked by a cave man is hypothetically still not answered, that in no way validates the answers made up unscientifically in the Bronze Age or the Iron Age. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
The assumption has been made that a huge number of random polymers are synthesized. And that these random polymers can only bond in one way, or in many ways that can only come up as making life, all be it in many forms. This is called RNA. This is not Design? This is not on purpose? This is called random? And if so, why call it random? Who made who? Who made the monomers? These are small parts of DNA and RNA called, nucleic acids. Who made the Universal laws that govern the bonding? Them laws that govern the bonding needed ribozymes. And needed them in just the right order and in just the right time, and spot. With the sun and earth in just the right place. And people cannot see Design in this? Ligation Reaction is indeed used in breeding. Stumbled upon by our First Farmers, more then 6,000 years ago. A Natural tool used by man. This is not Design? The experiment, done by David Bartel and Jack Szostak, did indeed make a few catalytic RNA molecules called ribozymes that happened to catalyze a ligation reaction. After ten runs. The math follows, it is from this we get billions of years. But like I said the odds of the earth sun moon relationship, the odds of a Universe with just the right Natural laws that govern as we have it, the odds that we are 2/3rd's the way out of our own galaxy on a spiral arm that is not bombarded with deadly radiation, that we just have a favorable place for life to form are in the trillions of years to one, longer then the life of the universe itself. So, if it's not Design how can it be by blind luck? Chance does not factor into this. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
Who made the Universal laws that govern the bonding? It's called organic chemistry. Who made the laws that bond's the convenient fiction called the "electron" to the nucleus ?? without crashing in to it. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Whether or not the earth is or was perfect for the formation of life was not my point. Especially since our presence here makes that statement obvious. For me, the fact that we have neither created any form of life no found a suitable formula for how that first one celled ameba came to be is sufficient to allow for the possibility of God. If and when man or other intelligent being demonstrates that capability then the need for God is dimenished to nothing. Monocles from atoms: |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
Man will never create from nothing, life, as was done the first time around. We would first need to create atoms. Then monocles, from them atoms. And the design blueprints that are not a duplicate of something that is already here for that cell. It will all be done soon enough in the lab. What will you say then ?? That Man is God ?? |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Who made the Universal laws that govern the bonding? Chance does not make anything. Chance does not define anything. Everything we see is Designed. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Man will never create from nothing, life, as was done the first time around. We would first need to create atoms. Then monocles, from them atoms. And the design blueprints that are not a duplicate of something that is already here for that cell. Luck--or shall I say---Chance with that. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Man will never create from nothing, life, as was done the first time around. We would first need to create atoms. Then monocles, from them atoms. And the design blueprints that are not a duplicate of something that is already here for that cell. It's not rearranging DNA and inserting it into an already living creature qualifies as creating life. It's making it from nothing. Even if we could convert energy into matter we would be converting energy that is already here. That does not qualify as creation. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
It should be pointed out that chance follows very precise (in the long run) mathematical laws. Don't believe me ?? then try this : Ask two friends to tell you a four digit number. Add them together and then add that total to the previous number. Then add that total to the previous total and so on until you have done this ten times. Then take the ratio of the 10th sum to the 9th sum. It will be 1.618 or perhaps one digit off in the 3rd decimal place. Numbers describe what random chance produces in our world. Einstein said "God does not play dice" well he was wrong. We have quantum mechanics and we have chance governing every aspect of creation. Then take that number and divide it into 1 you will get .618. These numbers relate to the "Golden Ratio" which is woven throughout Nature. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
It should be pointed out that chance follows very precise (in the long run) mathematical laws. LOL, even math is a story teller. We do not create. We mimic. We do not govern. I do not deny quantum mechanics. I deny it runs Order. I was very clear on that. |
Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 3387 Credit: 4,182,900 RAC: 10 |
It should be pointed out that chance follows very precise (in the long run) mathematical laws. In you opinion Bob DeWoody My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.