The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by OregonJim Yes, but evolutionists stop there, conveniently avoiding the conclusion that there must be a causal agent.

It's been a while since high school where I last learned about evolution, but I'm pretty sure "causal agents" such as radiation (which can cause DNA changes) are presented as part of evolution (not using the exact term "causal agent", but that's unimportant).

Originally Posted by ntubski It's been a while since high school where I last learned about evolution, but I'm pretty sure "causal agents" such as radiation (which can cause DNA changes) are presented as part of evolution (not using the exact term "causal agent", but that's unimportant).

I'm talking about the cause of the first life form - the START of "evolution".

No start to time...

Originally Posted by jamison20000e No start to time...

If there were no "start" to time, then we would have an infinite regression of past events - thus we would be infinitely "evolved" and perfect. Illogical, irrational, and in conflict with science as well.

Re: Life beginning by chance -

Chance is not causal, it is opportunity. One example of chance/probability is the old "Infinte Monkeys hammering on Infinite Typewriters for Infinite Time" postulate. It is concluded that we can't rule out the possibility that The Works of Shakespeare would at some point(s) result. If this seems far fetched then it is likely because Infinity is so difficult, and maybe impossible, for humans to grasp. however we do grasp the implication even if it is as simple that any place that Achilles can stand, he can cast his spear further yet. Also the updated paradox of constantly halving the distance to a destination implies one will never fully arrive since there will be an infintesimally small half always remaining. But our lack of ability to abstract Infinity does not rule out Probability.

Specific to Life, it is posited and verified in experiment and yet to be falsified

from Plausible Origin

Originally Posted by sciencemag.org Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules — nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids — needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science. “This is a very important paper,” says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. “It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting.”

On a lesser scale Mankind has questioned how it can be that if all that existed as matter at one time was the very simplest atom - Hydrogen, one proton, one electron (on one energy level) and one neutron - how did more complex elements like the Calcium in our bones - 20 protons, 20 electrons (on 4 energy levels) and 20 neutrons - ever evolve? The causal agent, if you must call it that, is simply the nature of things.

We know that all things exhibit electrostatic attraction because of the nature of charge in particles. So when in proximity, and absent an opposing force, they clump together. Once enough of them clump, gravity begins to be an important force and clumping accelerates and soon, stars are born from just Hydrogen and these forces. Once gravity exceeds a threshold, fusion takes place and Hydrogen begets Helium plus thermonuclear amounts of energy. As gravity and the resulting mass increases nucleosynthesis continues up in complexity and each new element up to Iron is "born". Once the mass exceeds another threshold, novae and supernovae become inevitable and all the higher elements will be "born" from this extreme level of energy and matter density.. a truly cataclysmic forge.

Now anyone is welcome to say "This is how God must have done it" but nobody can responsibly say "This never happened" because it is going on right this minute and the conditions that create such opportunity were literally astronomically greater when the Universe was hotter and vastly more dense.

The point is that Evolution is built in to the fabric of the Universe. It means, given the opportunity to react, this is how these things react under these conditions just as dropping Sodium in water will result in an explosion at STP. It is in their Nature.

As for Life, although in itself not necessarily how it did in fact occur, we do know that the fundamental organic compounds are essentially everywhere, even in comets. We also know that when certain kinds get in close proximity under certain conditions, they combine in specific and consistent ways. If that environment changes, some will combine in slightly different ways.

We can even extend this to answer "Why is it that the Earth seems so perfectly attuned to or designed for humans?" The answer is humbly simple - it is because we sprung from it and not the other way around. If it did not fit, we would not be.

Again it is still possible to say "God did this" but many choose Occam's Razor and disregard need for The Prime Mover beyond The Cosmic Egg aka Big Bang.

Originally Posted by enorbet Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions

And how is the presupposition stated above supported beyond mere faith?

We are not time (time is not the solar system, neither are we) or infinitely regressing (unlike fairy tales, concepts or wars can seem to do in the blink of an eye (—if you can get that deep (and you will if experiencing death)***)* or a lifetime*...) also, no end to space...

most of these "big questions" will never have answers(.) s are for manipulation, entertainment(\passing-time), placebos to ease death, trying to help and so on...

else, why so many fairy tales to pick from and why evolve them?

Originally Posted by OregonJim And how is the presupposition stated above supported beyond mere faith?

Aye ... aye ... aye ...

In the science of thermodynamics, there are pesky principles such as "entropy" which basically assert that "things can only go down from here." Basically, things devolve into "chaos." They don't, of their own accord, go the other way.

Even though, yes, "chemists observe" that certain chemical reactions can ... and do ... happen, "by spontaneous chance (Chaos ...)," it would certainly seem that "(Real) Life, as we know it," contains a very-great many defenses against Chaos! There are, shall we say, "error-correcting mechanisms(!)" nearly everywhere. We can see their influences, but we certainly do not yet "understand" them.

And, incidentally, "evolution" is certainly n-o-t a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card here! As Mr. Darwin, himself, was most(!) careful to observe in his actual book ... (you should read it, sometime): although the natural process of evolution can readily be observed in Nature, poorly-understood constraints can just-as-readily be seen in-action. By and large, species reproduce "after their own kind, at the apparent exclusion(!) of all other possibilities." Although 'evolution' can be postulated to be "The Origin Of Species," it indeed appears to go no further!

And, so far, the only thing we can say about it is: "indeed, something out there seems to actively prevent it!"

Mr. Darwin, in his actual(!) book, observed this, and did not profess to understand why this was so. (And, to this day, "neither do we.")

(Will Mysteries™ never cease ...) Selah...

- - -
"May I cautiously advance this suggestion?" Maybe, the actual boundaries between 'science' and 'religion' are much more h-u-m-a-n ... not to mention "uncertain" ... than the Zealots "on either side of the argument" would readily care to suggest, or to accept. (In other words, "when the bottle on the Communal Water Cooler is empty and needs changing, either of you should volunteer to lift the new bottle into place ..." And, both should be quick to shake-hands with the other.)

Given all of the violence motivated by religion (pick any one) today, I'll keep my faith, and science, and throw religion in the toxic waste dump where it belongs.

Like waves repeating, eroding and growing to TRUTH?!. Run!
http://www.lmgt.com/?q=like+waves+re...ng+to+TRUTH%3F!.

@ sundialsvcs - Your premise that Entropy is always flowing in a chaos direction is, I'm afraid, incorrect since that is not what it states. Don't forget that we are talking about Deep SpaceTime and specific localities. for starters there is a difference between Thermodynamic entropy and any wider realm. More importantly even the thermodynamic variety states that "things may go uphill" in one location for a time, but elsewhere and/or over time the overall direction is "downhill". One simply cannot use an Entropy Argument to deny that things can become more complex any specific where at any specific time, only over many trillions of years of an ever-expanding Universe - a scale and a situation that does not exist locally as in On Earth in a mere ~4 billion years.

BTW I heartily agree with the suggestion to read Origin of Species. It is a surprisingly good read considering how dry it could have been in the hands of a less contemplative man.

Once again, Science doesn't pretend to be a "proof". It is only a best evidence scenario but make no mistake, the rigors of what is considered acceptable evidence is by no means trivial or "creative" like Faith. It is well understood what chemical changes have occurred in the Earth's history to arrive at what it is today just as it is well known what is it's ultimate fate will very likely be in roughly 5 billion years when the Sun goes Red Giant.

I realize you work hard to be a well-read and reasonable man, but I mean no offense when I say that your understanding of modern science is lacking. Not everyone needs to know such Big Kahuna explorations but if you have interest here's two decent books that could improve your understanding of what has been accomplished and how, most recently. I think you may find them even more fascinating than Darwin. They are rigorously knowledgeable and very well written.

Standard Model - Particle Physics

Theory of Almost Everything

"Be that as it may, Enorbet ..."

... ... ...

Quite frankly, to me(!), this particular brand of "science" ... (IMHO™ ...) ...consists almost-entirely of ... faith.

"Faith™ ..." in this case, "... in 'science™' ."

May I therefore quite-cautiously advance into this present argument this probably-very-controversial(!) conjecture:

"theory" == faith" (!!)

After all ... is it really(?!) any different ... that you have a "theory of ... ... 'e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g(!)(!!)(!!!)(!!!!)™'"' ... ("Wow...") ... versus somebody-else simply says that s/he has "faith" about the self-same things?-

"Quite frankly, I am un-convinced."

I judge that neither(!) party "has a leg to stand on." But, one party says as much, while the other one doesn't.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Quite frankly, to me(!), this particular brand of "science" ... (IMHO™ ...) ...consists almost-entirely of ... faith.

...which was my exact assertion from the beginning...

@ sundialsvcs - Ok I retract the "reasonable" as well as the book recommendations and for these reasons.

1) You don't understand the term "theory" and/or apparently don't want to, and likely haven't a clue what 5 Sigma means when a man of science says "rigorous".

(but just in case .... Definition: Scientific Theory

2) I linked a book entitled "The Theory of Almost Everything" which I consider to be a bit tongue in cheek since we now realize we can only yet experience slightly more than 5% of what makes up the Universe. This does not imply in any way that I have a theory of everything. I do not. So you have jumped (a leap of faith?) to an unwarranted conclusion and then insist, not only that Sciemce im general thinks it knows everything, but that I personify that claim. Tsk Tsk. I'll let the record speak for itself.

3) Since I am one who maintains Science by it's very definition does indeed "have a leg to stand on" I can only conclude that you believe The Faithful are the more reasonable or honest ones who admit they don't have a leg to stand on. Given a few posters in this thread, especially the spin-doctoring, equivocating, definition twisting, phony authorities, and outright willful deception of OregonJim, I find that sheer nonsense and that while you come off as more conciliatory, are just as insular and dogmatic.

I'd like to ask of those Evolution Denyers who think Life began on Earth ~10,000 years ago how they explain Marsupials and other species found only in Australia? Did Noah travel that far and drop off a load? Or was it the unnamed sailor from Gilgamesh's time, ~3000 years prior? What about the fossil record of lifeforms dead and fossilized for hundreds of millions of years before even dinosaurs evolved? Additionally, since the fossil record shows that what we see as Whales today left the water and changed into land mammals and back again, not once but twice, what sort of Whale swallowed a living Jonah? If it was a modern whale then did all those adaptions take place in only 6000 years (60-70 generations)?