Sdajii
Sdaji
- Joined
- 13 October 2009
- Posts
- 2,117
- Reactions
- 2,237
I'm apparently one of the scurriers going back to the Bible then- not necessarily to gain insight into Superstring Theory, or evolutionary processes mind you! With every advance in science, more questions crop up, and that's great- we should never give up the pursuit. I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved- almost as a starting point. Meanwhile we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you. And who knows, there might actually be 10 dimensions. But, beyond the notion of God, whose abilities extend way beyond ours, creating the universe, I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter, which "randomly" came together with other neccessary intracellular matter to form a cell, which then suddenly became a living, replicating entity. For as far as we can break down the components that comprise sub-atomic matter, we're still left with the huge question of why they come together so precisely if they've been blown apart after a big bang.
Nucleosynthesis
QUOTE]
Read the article yourself ffs spooly :nono:
Nucleosynthesis has nothing to do with abiogenesis - you can't tell me that amino acids came together into proteins and hence oh my goodness, it's alive simply because the subatomic particles had an affinity for each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
This doesn't sound particularly confident to me, especially since they quote the Miller-Urey experiment which has been soundly debunked.
....
Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin!
......The God of the current main religions is absolute pure myth. It's indisputable. Bible bashers should just stop and give up......
Riiiiiight. So, you can't swallow the idea that very simple forms of life could come from self replicating molecules which were created randomly from simple chemicals, but, you can happily accept that something a zillion times more complex and incredible, with literally magical powers, could somehow pop up in the same way, and then create the simple thing (normal life without magical powers). Yeah... your idea is a lot more convincing! Good idea, take something you consider to be too extreme to believe, and instead believe something a zillion times more extreme. Nice one! Religion strikes again! :
I have to laugh at this one
What does this say -- CHRIST MAS
No religion in that one
Well, this is a new one - even for me.
What Bible or any other reference can you post to support your statement "Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! "
I also disagree with your unconditional generalisation - "The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!"
Spooly put up the nucleosynthesis link as response to Hedders claim that subatomic particles would not be able to form atoms without God's help. There was no intention to link it to abiogenesis.Read the article yourself ffs spooly :nono:
Nucleosynthesis has nothing to do with abiogenesis - you can't tell me that amino acids came together into proteins and hence oh my goodness, it's alive simply because the subatomic particles had an affinity for each other.
Hi Sdajii - that is an interesting opinion you have in #1408
You still haven't answered the qusetion I posed to you yesterday, that I have seen anyway, and so giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see it, here it is again.
Your statements come from post #1329
None of these hypotheses insist that a greater intelligence/God/creator cannot be involved. It's just that they do not require one to be involved.
Most of these hypotheses are theoretical and are a result of mathematical deduction from existing equations and hypotheses. People take the maths to new places and the results predict the behaviour of space and time and it's constituents. When the predictions of the equations and models fit with empirical observations these hypotheses begin to become theories that are continually modified and they in turn better explain the universe or they begin to break down. For people like you and me who cannot understand the equations and derivations there is a degree of faith involved. But for the physicists who do the work there is no need of faith, there may be assumptions, but no faith.
The formation of atoms (fusion) is not by choice, atomic nuclei do not want to come together. They need to be made to come together and that requires intense heat and pressure, like is found in the interior of suns. Our Sun currently is fusing hydrogen nuclei together to form helium nuclei. The energy within the Sun overcomes the force of electrostatic repulsion and once forced close enough together the very powerful but incredibly short range Strong Nuclear Force locks the protons and neutrons together.
As for the creation of organic molecules (carbon based/linked molecules) certain atoms have affinities for each other and easily create bonds. There are a multitude of naturally occurring organic molecules that have been identified within the solar system and within interstellar dust clouds. A sea rich in elements under a free-oxygen-less atmosphere with added heat will readily form simple and complex organic molecules. Once you start adding periods of 100's of millions to billions of years to the equation the probability of forming very complex molecules becomes very high and likely.
For you, you cannot see how matter can organise itself without the intervention of a creator. For me it is simply that one is not required.
As I stated before sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules come together due to affinities and in some cases requiring the addition of significant energy. The four main forces that are stable currently in the universe are gravity, the electro-magnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. These all act at different distances with different strengths in different ways and hold the matter in the multitude of stable forms we see it in today.
Nothing was blown apart in the big bang, the energy that resulted from the big bang began to form particles that we today are familiar with as matter only after the universe had cooled sufficiently for protons and neutrons to remain intact. Following this cooling the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen (75%) and Helium (25%) - all the heavier elements have had to have been created since then within the cores of suns and as a result of supernovae.
Evolution (by means of natural selection) does not claim to be an answer in itself. It merely provides the mechanism for simpler life to become more complex and diversified.
Why do they need to be preserved? Are you saying that you believe that there is a higher purpose for life? Or that life requires a higher purpose to have meaning? That all sounds like a very anthropogenic construct.
Life does not need to be preserved. It perseveres. Those organisms that can persevere, do. There does not need to be any more to it than that.
The addition of a creator/god along with imposed meanings and purposes just unnecessarily complicates a process that with current scientific knowledge simply does not require one. The science doesn't preclude a God, he just isn't necessary.
...... (it is years since I have opened a bible and can't give you a reference, sorry. I'd look it up, but it's just not that important to me).
That's ok Sdajii- I couldn't find any references to support your statements.
That's ok Sdajii- I couldn't find any references to support your statements.
Try Jeremiah 10:1-5
I will do a bit of research and see what others I can find in the next day or two. Have not had my bible out for about 30 years. It is a keepsake as my Dad was sincere and he brought it for the family, his signature is on the invoice at the front. Lost him 40 years ago, beat up by WW2.
Sdajii - I simply disagree with your opinion that celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin and I asked for references that prove that it is.
You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine and I am entitled to ask what evidence you have to support your beliefs just as others have asked me what evidence I have to support mine.
Thanks explod - Well, at least one positive outcome has arisen from the discussion over the last few days- at least one person has brushed off the dust from their Bible and opened it up
I fail to see how that passage proves celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin.
What is your interpretation of that passage?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?