Our obligation to accept scientific knowledge as truth

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



whirlysplat
Our obligation to accept scientific knowledge as truth



Christian traditionalists believe the Bible is factually inerrant, therefore rejecting facts inferred through empirical means that contradict their (presumably literal) understanding of Scripture. However, it looks like the entire space of scientific knowledge they're rejecting concerns specific events in the past (i.e., Creation) or in the future (the end times). In other words, it appears that Christrian traditionalism is concerned with particular consequences more so than the structure of empirical models.

I'm not so sure I see a problem with this. A model where cryptic divine creation and apocolypse buffet an otherwise empirically understandable reality is certainly less parsimonious than a materialist view, but it doesn't obviously lack anything in the way of predictive or explanatory power.



Keep the faith rock

sonnet
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Our obligation to accept scientific knowledge as truth



Christian traditionalists believe the Bible is factually inerrant, therefore rejecting facts inferred through empirical means that contradict their (presumably literal) understanding of Scripture. However, it looks like the entire space of scientific knowledge they're rejecting concerns specific events in the past (i.e., Creation) or in the future (the end times). In other words, it appears that Christrian traditionalism is concerned with particular consequences more so than the structure of empirical models.

I'm not so sure I see a problem with this. A model where cryptic divine creation and apocolypse buffet an otherwise empirically understandable reality is certainly less parsimonious than a materialist view, but it doesn't obviously lack anything in the way of predictive or explanatory power.



Keep the faith rock

confused Please repeat it slowly.

whirlysplat
In essence the only science that the bible says is wrong is creation and doomsday, apart from the odd abberation in between the rest is fine with Christian fundamentalists.

smile

Tex
odd aberrations like giant floods, talking snakes, dragons, angels, talking bushes...

whirlysplat
Originally posted by Tex
odd aberrations like giant floods, talking snakes, dragons, angels, talking bushes...


big grin

Evil Dead
I <3 Tex...........

let us not forget men being eaten by giant fish and living inside...........men walking on water, turning water into wine........etc.

sonnet
Originally posted by whirlysplat
In essence the only science that the bible says is wrong is creation and doomsday, apart from the odd abberation in between the rest is fine with Christian fundamentalists.

smile

We believe that everything in the Bible is the truth because it is the word of God and inspired by God. So We do not need science to proof what we already know in our hearts.

debbiejo
Then why were only 4 gospels picked out of over 100 texts??? They all claimed to be the word of God.

whirlysplat
None of these things impinge on scientific knowledge big grin Its not against the bible you see big grin except in thee cases I menteioned big grin

sonnet
Originally posted by debbiejo
Then why were only 4 gospels picked out of over 100 texts??? They all claimed to be the word of God.

All the books in the Bible were chosen according to specefic criteria to make sure that they fit together and are true to the rest of the books. Many books that were left out was because the authers were not know, were not close to the apostles or disciples or did not know them, some books clearly shown that the authors did not live in that centuary so they could not be trustworthy. Some of the books contradicted Jesus' teachings and the 4 gospels. And as Matt, luke James and John were close to Jesus and with him all of the time they were chosen to be the most correct portrait of Jesus and his teachings. If you met a person only once or he knew a friend of yours, and this person then wrote a biography of your life would you trust that it would be a accurate portrait of you or would you entrust this to someone close to you?

debbiejo
There were other writings by James, Thomas, and Paul...Why weren't those included as well?

finti
to fit the idea for some, other gospel that were rejected were rejected cause they wrote about jesus as just a man. And that wouldnt work if one had to promote jesus teachings, if it didnt include divinity people would care about it at all so ..........

debbiejo
Yes, and the point about his divinity was debated a few hundred years later at the council of ???, I forget the name, but at that council is when it was decided BY A GROUP OF ROMAN CATHOLIC MEN, that Jesus was indeed God.

Study the the original documents of the church. This isn't a secret.

debbiejo
Why did the Roman church chose to wipe out the other beliefs? Why the Jewish 1st century CE: There were at least three distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical of the other two.
4th century CE: The Roman Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older religions." 2 The church used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Although they were officially given equal status, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among the equals. 3
6th century CE: Only Pauline Christianity had survived in the Mediterranean area, in the form of a deeply divided Catholic church. Gnostic Christianity had been suppressed; Jewish Christianity had died out. There were independent Christian groups in Egypt, India and elsewhere which were not part of Catholicism.
1054 CE: The great schism formally divided Christendom into two main groups: Roman Catholicism in western Europe, and the Eastern Orthodox churches in the east.
1517 CE: Martin Luther triggered the Protestant Reformation.
16th century to the present time: Protestantism fragmented into more than a dozen families of denominations, and thousands of individual faith groups -- over 1,000 in North America alone.


Why was the church willing to persecute the Jewish Christians and the Gnostic Christians??? Would God set up mere men to dictate His authority? Is this church practicing what Jesus taught? This church started with repression, persecution, and other evils...THIS CHURCH HAD AN AGENDA.

sonnet
Originally posted by debbiejo
There were other writings by James, Thomas, and Paul...Why weren't those included as well?

If I wrote a book about your life and I did not mention the theme of all your birthday parties you had as a child or certain things that happened at school does it mean that the book is false, or did I merely chose the most important material and tried not to have a duplication of events
that might have happened more than once. This is very much what happened here.

finti
strange thing is that the gospels which writes about jesus as just a man outnumber the jesus is a god gospels, why is that? and why was none of them chosen? Must be a reason why most gospels wrote about him as just a man

debbiejo
Originally posted by sonnet
If I wrote a book about your life and I did not mention the theme of all your birthday parties you had as a child or certain things that happened at school does it mean that the book is false, or did I merely chose the most important material and tried not to have a duplication of events
that might have happened more than once. This is very much what happened here.


Well, if it was my book, I'd say put it all in, and don't leave anything out...I have such an interesting life. big grin

There are ulterior reasons why certain books we left out...Why not just include them all...

DigiMark007
On a scientific note:
Genesis really doesn't contradict with the scientific understanding of creation. It is merely the literalist sects of Christianity that refuse to accept anything other than the Bible as strict fact who ardently believe that that creation took 7 days.

Current science (quantum physics and whatnot) is beginning to reaffirm the presence of, if not divine, then at least intelligent design by some higher being. We have been able to calculate the approximate mass of the entire universe, and in doing so realized how unlikely it would be for us to even exist. During the big bang, if the mass of the universe had been 'off' one direction or another by 0.000...6% (60 zeros before the 6) we would have either had too much mass, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself, or we wouldn't have had enough mass for the energy to slow down enough to form into planets and stars and such. A cosmic calculation that is so finely tuned for producing not just life, but matter at all, suggests some higher intervention...which doesn't necesarily endorse any one religion, but certainly isn't at odds with many religions.

Attempts have also been made to determine the probability of life forming as it exists on Earth. Any studies done in this field all suggest that the universe hasn't been around for long enough to reasonably assume that even simple single-celled organisms and strains of amino acids should have been able to form...let alone complex organisms and creatures as complicated as human beings. Such complexification of life over a relatively short amount of time (even though billions of years seems long to us) blatently suggests some sort of intelligent design.

If need be, I can produce more specific examples of where I am getting this data from. But that is mostly just to let you know that I'm not making these things up and have researched this before speaking on it.

DigiMark007
And of the non-included books of the Bible...I agree that it seems rather arbitrary and the decisions of a group of men back in the 4th century should not be entirely trusted, but that, in and of itself, does not discredit the existing books of the Bible. Perhaps it merely suggests that the information they wish to convey is in some way incomplete or flawed. To suggest that they have little or no value (which no one has yet done on this thread...so I'm not accusing) would also be discrediting many religions, as there are more themes, stories, and rules in common between many of the major religions than most people realize.

To use an example, one need not believe in the divinity of Jesus to accept the message of Jesus' life. It is an important distinction, and one that may still lend some credence to a religion such as Christianity that has such a spotty and controversial history...including, but not limited to, the inclusion of only certain books for use in the Bible.

debbiejo
Originally posted by DigiMark007
On a scientific note:
Current science (quantum physics and whatnot) is beginning to reaffirm the presence of, if not divine, then at least intelligent design by some higher being. We have been able to calculate the approximate mass of the entire universe, and in doing so realized how unlikely it would be for us to even exist. During the big bang, if the mass of the universe had been 'off' one direction or another by 0.000...6% (60 zeros before the 6) we would have either had too much mass, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself, or we wouldn't have had enough mass for the energy to slow down enough to form into planets and stars and such. A cosmic calculation that is so finely tuned for producing not just life, but matter at all, suggests some higher intervention...which doesn't necesarily endorse any one religion, but certainly isn't at odds with many religions.

Attempts have also been made to determine the probability of life forming as it exists on Earth. Any studies done in this field all suggest that the universe hasn't been around for long enough to reasonably assume that even simple single-celled organisms and strains of amino acids should have been able to form...let alone complex organisms and creatures as complicated as human beings. Such complexification of life over a relatively short amount of time (even though billions of years seems long to us) blatently suggests some sort of intelligent design.

If need be, I can produce more specific examples of where I am getting this data from. But that is mostly just to let you know that I'm not making these things up and have researched this before speaking on it.


Yes, yes yes....I totally agree....Any Atheists listening????

It would also be great if you gave some other examples too....Ya gotta help all those atheists ya know.

finti
any studies?, well what studies would that be that suggest what you are writing?

should have been included right away

DigiMark007
I'll have to dig it up, but I'll find the sources...it's all stuff I dug up quite a few years ago and have misplaced since, but glad to see there was some interest in what I wrote.

debbiejo
yes Yes dig it up......I've read some similar studies too.

DigiMark007

debbiejo
Information such as this along with similar studies I have read make it clear that life couldn't have been just some random act. It's impossible to say that it would be, just impossible. You'd have to be blind. One small calculation off and poof.. all lost.

finti
whoever said evolution was random? law of the nature is for the strongest to survive................we just let a bunch of species follow this trend ......to go instinct is natures law we just gave them 15 more minutes of lime light

debbiejo
Ok then we can say that evolution is not random and it can be directed by some intellegents of some kind.

finti
I consider nature to have an intellect

debbiejo
Nature seems to be connected in the way it acts within the whole of everyhing including the solar system, like a thinking type organism. Would you agree?

finti
dont know about the rest of the system nor organism...... I really dont know and aint afraid to say so, but i dont put my lack of knowledge in the hands of a dream though.........dreams are for you in a state of sleep

debbiejo
Ok...Then Nature here on earth......There are a multitude of examples of it's intelligence...That'll do.

And Einstein was a dreamer.....I'll put it in his hands.

Evil Dead
that's a dumb question. Surely you already know that human beings (who are intelligent) have been responsible for the extinction of a multitude of species, allowing others to flourish in their place. Our intelligence defied nature's law (survival of the fittest, natural selection). Surely you know that we humans have indeed forged evolutionary paths for other species. Have you never seen a dog show? We have created hundreds of breeds out of 3......by selecting suitable animals to mate with one another for generations. That's not natural selection, that's human selection.

DigiMark007
Also, I believe 'survival of the fittest' to be fundamentally flawed simply because we cannot live unto ourselves. We are in a biologically interdependant ecosystem, and if only the 'fittest' survived, they would eventually crumble because so-called lesser organisms would be wiped away and our chain of living would collapse. "Coexistence of the whole" should be a new mantra for us, rather than proclaiming to be the 'fittest' and using that to justify or turn a blind eye to the extinction of species.

-DM

...bit off topic, but it was mentioned.

Evil Dead
once humans began civilization........natural selection went out the window DigiMark. It can't be used as an excuse by anybody anymore. We do not live by nature's law. We live by society's law.

Naturally.....

- If we're hungry, we must hunt our own food. those of our species to weak to do so parish, ensuring the strongest of our species to survive to carry on the best genes possible. Society has thrown this natural law out the window, where as a few hunt/gather the food for the many.....ensuring that not only the weak survive but also the ill and diseased.

- We are to protect ourselves from predators. Those too weak to do so will parish.....yadda yadda yadda. Society has eliminated our natural predators........again ensuring that even the weak, ill and diseased of our species will survive to pass their genes along to the next generation of human beings.

natural selection in any part of the civilized world is dead. Humans have brought an end to our own evolution and that of many other species. Instead of allowing a species to grow and change according to natural law, we instead cast them in the roles we deem fit for them and keep them there........as we do our own species.

DigiMark007
I don't necesarily disagree with you. But right now, humans are probably the most dominant ecological force on the planet. We are able to change the planet faster than nature can change itself...and in more profound ways. I was simply stating that using the fallacy of survival of the fittest doesn't mean we shouldn't get food, protect ourselves etc. I also agree that natural selection is gone...at this point it's human selection. And if we simply ignore our power (which we have quite a bit of ecologically and scientifically speaking) that itself is a selection...one that will ultimately lead to the extinction of multiple 'lesser' species.

What I was trying to say was that if you take survival of the fittest to its natural conclusion, it involves stamping out other forms of life to preserve your own species. That would be suicide to our species, since we are dependant on the planet and its ecosystems. I was merely trying to endorse a more peaceful-sounding alternative to Survival o.t. Fittest since that philosophy alone can be disastrous.

-DM

debbiejo
Originally posted by Evil Dead

- If we're hungry, we must hunt our own food.



Actually, little birds bring me mine...

Evil Dead
I think you missed the whole point of this discussion.......it's one thing to be a smartass and be on point, it's completely different to be a smartass and not understand the conversation going on around you.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Evil Dead
I think you missed the whole point of this discussion.......it's one thing to be a smartass and be on point, it's completely different to be a smartass and not understand the conversation going on around you.


You need to read between the line...It says I don't care.

finti
Don't worry about a thing,
Cause every little thing gonna be all right.
Singin Don't worry about a thing,
Cause every little thing gonna be all right

Rise up this mornin
Smiled with the risin' sun,
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singin' sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true,
Sayin, This is my message to you-ou-ou - Bob Marley

debbiejo
Bob Marley....I....llike em.....I just love songs in the morning..

finti
yeah morning glory

Lazerlike42
The 1st law of thermodynamics pretty much proves that a god of some kind has to exist.

In fact, it's been said that when recruiting speakers at a college for an atheist speach, it is required to go to the philosophy department, because astrophysicists have a lot of trouble being atheists!

Lazerlike42
Also, evolutionary theorists run in to MAJOR problems when they try to explain how something like a cell evolved.

A human cell for example, as many of you probably know, is made up of (among other things) mitochondria, the nucleus, ribosomes, lysosomes, edoplasmic reticulum, the golgi apparatus, and so forth. If so much as ONE of these components does not function, or were not present, the entire cell would not function, would die, or have otherwise adverse effects. In fact, the cell would likely fall apart and would not be cohesive.

Assume human beings evolved from amino acids, to simple cells, to complex cells, and so on and so on, to apes, and finally to huamans. All throughout this evolution, it would be required that each and every part of the cell would have to evolve 100% perfectly so as to function on its own and also so as to function as a part of the overall celullar system. The cell must start out from random amino acids, and progress PERFECTLY all along the way. Each time one component changes, all the rest much change so as to work with the first changed one, but also they must keep working not only on their own but also with all of the other componenets that are now also required to change.

I wish I could more aptly express what I am trying to. In any case, evolutionary scientists stear clear of this topic because they don't want anything to do with it.

debbiejo
As far as I've read, Quantum, string, wave theory is in fact proving that there is a force, God, intelligence connecting us all together..Something that keeps the wheels turning...I find that quite exciting. It also has been proving that metaphysics is indeed natural and a gift from God and not a superstitious thing anymore. Science IS good for some things. reading

Lazerlike42
There is also the... I forget what it is called, but the theory which talks about how there are 30 some odd constants in the universe, numbers that are very specific and small, like the weight of a proton or the force of a gluon and so forth, that if even one of these numbers was any different by even the smallest, most indetectable amount, terrible things would happen, from life not being able to exist to the universe collapsing in on itself. The universe is perfectly designed for us.

Also, it is very interesting to note that the planet earth just so happens to be located in the most optimum place in the galaxy for observing the galaxy around us. If we were orbiting anywhere else, various cosmological phenomenon would intefere with our ability to study the stars, or it would just not be so easy or we could simply not see as much.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
There is also the... I forget what it is called, but the theory which talks about how there are 30 some odd constants in the universe, numbers that are very specific and small, like the weight of a proton or the force of a gluon and so forth, that if even one of these numbers was any different by even the smallest, most indetectable amount, terrible things would happen, from life not being able to exist to the universe collapsing in on itself. The universe is perfectly designed for us.


I read that also....

I do believe that we are not the only planet that has life...Couldn't be.
to many other stars, universes...Billions....

finti
how does it prove it?

and the naive explanation from a religious persons dont?

30 we think we know of at present time, who said we figured out stuff yet. We just think we have

no it is to big for us, the distances is beyond our comprehension so how can it be perfectly designed for us

observing it with our means

debbiejo
I know this is off topic, but there's a naked boy in here...

Lazerlike42
....The means our creator knew we would have. Also, we are able to use science to predict what is possible beyond our means, and this statement is based on that prediction, not just the technology we have.

as far as the 1st law of thermodynamics.... ok here goes.

Physicists now believe that quarks decay into antiquarks, pions and positive electrons, and electromagnetic radiation.2 This decay process occurs at a rate of only once per proton per 1032 years. Consequently, since this process is irreversible, all the atoms in the universe will eventually decay into irretrievable matter. Even though this process of decay will take an enormously long period of time, it is not infinite.

Because of proton decay, we know that the universe has not been around forever. That's not something we really have to prove, most people believe in that, and believe in the big bang or whatever, but it's there for the sake of completeness.

It does also prove, however, that the oscillating universe theory is not correct (it has been widely abandoned by most physicists. This theory said that the universe is a cycle. According to it, the big bang happens, the universe expands, the universe implodes, and it happens all over again. The proton decay proves that this could not be so because all matter itself would have broken down long ago.

Given that, the first law of thermodynamics, which we know to be true almost without any hope that we could be wrong, says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We also know to this same level of certainty that matter is just another form of matter (E=mc^2).

This leaves us with two conclusions that cannot both be true! Energy and matter can not be created, but the matter in the universe has not been around forever and came into existence at some point. eek!

debbiejo
Good..good...Also, I feel that energy can change from one form to another. It can become more dense as in matter, or less dense as in invisible like thoughts, emotions,etc..In fact the space between us is just as alive as we are...That's why metaphysics works...It has been confirmed by science.
http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

^ Confirms that the invisible such as thoughts do react with matter.

Also, it has been proven with studies on plants...Good Stuff.

DigiMark007
The whole "Life forming perfectly" coincides with much of what I said earlier about the probability of existence. Good stuff lazerlike.

-DM

finti
again how does the 1st law of thermodynamics prove some god to exist?
That matter in the universe havent been around forever doesnt prove a god

Lazerlike42
Originally posted by finti
again how does the 1st law of thermodynamics prove some god to exist?
That matter in the universe havent been around forever doesnt prove a god

To make it really simple, because the 1st law says that matter CANNOT be created out of nothing. However, since it has NOT been around forever, that means it had to have been created at one point.

So we have the scientific fact that at some point in history all matter came into being out of nowhere, and the scientific fact that matter can never come into being out of nowhere. They are both true, and they both contradict one another (and not on a Relativity/Quantum physics contradictory way, either... this is on a much more fundamental and deeper level).

(This has led some scientists to even use the word "supernatural" as being a necessity when it comes to the creation of the universe.)

finti
that is not the same as a god being the creative power, we really dont understand our universe and it is all theories. The only way to prove those thories is to reconstruct the events.

So to say 1st law prove a god is not correct and it is the easy way out

Lazerlike42
No, it's not. There are plenty of scientists who have stopped being atheists simply because of this specific and this type of knowledge.

It's not about not understanding. There is no doubt whatsoever that the 1st law of thermodynamics is true. There is zero possibility it is wrong in any way. It's not some theory, or generally accepted concept of science. The 1st law of thermodynamics is more definite than to say that 1+1=2.

Lazerlike42
And I would also ask this: why is it that when a religious person tells a science person that science can not explain something and it does not make sense, the scientist readily responds with, "We don't understand everything, all we can do is continue to learn," and that is supposed to be sufficient, but when a science person tells a religious person that religion cannot explain something or does not make sense and the religious person says, "We don't understand everything, we can only hope to try," it is not acceptable?

finti
as far as we know NOW

thas a bold statement, just as bold as those who said titanic couldnt sink, the world is flat

mainly because what you posted seldom are the respons of religious persons, if they answered the way you put it I would accept that answer just as well as the answer the scientist used.

Lazerlike42
You are right we could always bee wrong about it. Let's just say (and this is true) that out of every scientific law and principle we have in every field, the 1st LOTD is the one that we are most sure about stick out tongue

finti
or the first one to be proven false wink

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
This leaves us with two conclusions that cannot both be true! Energy and matter can not be created, but the matter in the universe has not been around forever and came into existence at some point. eek!

You are misrepresenting the Law of Conservation of Energy. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be transferred from on system to another in various forms but cannot be created or destroyed.

Therefore, it is quite possible for matter to have always existed; in another form, e.g energy, or in another system, e.g. a parallel dimension.

Lazerlike42
Completely irrelevant! Whatever form it existed of, energy or matter, and wherever it came from, it had to be created at some point.

If the matter was in the form of energy, the energy had to be created. If it was in a parallel dimension or something along those lines, it had to be created there too.

debbiejo
Oh...I like other dimensions Adam....

The energy could of came of it's source, God. God then created everything visible and invisible from Him/It's self. Everything then has parts of God in it, which is why I have to say that God wouldn't throw parts of Himself into hell.

Lazerlike42
so are you a panentheist?

debbiejo
Not sure what that is... blink

OK, just looked that up....And I do believe that we all have that energy that sustains us otherwise scripture wouldn't say, "And the soul returns to God which gave it."

Lazerlike42
Sorry added an "en" (though panentheism is a type of theism too).

Pantheism - For the pantheist there is no Creator beyonf the univderse; rather, Creator and creation are two different ways of viewing one reality. God is the universe (or the All) and the universe is God; there is, ultimately, only one reality. Pantheism is represented by certain forms of Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, Christian Science, and most New Age religions.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Also, evolutionary theorists run in to MAJOR problems when they try to explain how something like a cell evolved.

A human cell for example, as many of you probably know, is made up of (among other things) mitochondria, the nucleus, ribosomes, lysosomes, edoplasmic reticulum, the golgi apparatus, and so forth. If so much as ONE of these components does not function, or were not present, the entire cell would not function, would die, or have otherwise adverse effects. In fact, the cell would likely fall apart and would not be cohesive.

Assume human beings evolved from amino acids, to simple cells, to complex cells, and so on and so on, to apes, and finally to huamans. All throughout this evolution, it would be required that each and every part of the cell would have to evolve 100% perfectly so as to function on its own and also so as to function as a part of the overall celullar system. The cell must start out from random amino acids, and progress PERFECTLY all along the way. Each time one component changes, all the rest much change so as to work with the first changed one, but also they must keep working not only on their own but also with all of the other componenets that are now also required to change.

I wish I could more aptly express what I am trying to. In any case, evolutionary scientists stear clear of this topic because they don't want anything to do with it.

Those who believe abiogenesis to be improbable:

Are calculating the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events.

Assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

Are calculating the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

Misunderstand what is meant by a "probability calculation."

Seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Furthermore, irreducible complexity does not consider evolutionary mechanisms such as functional change and co-evolution, nor does specified complexity explain sub-optimal characteristics in organisms.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Completely irrelevant! Whatever form it existed of, energy or matter, and wherever it came from, it had to be created at some point.

If the matter was in the form of energy, the energy had to be created. If it was in a parallel dimension or something along those lines, it had to be created there too.

According to whom? There is no evidence that matter is subject to efficient causation. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics supports the principle that matter has always existed.

Lazerlike42
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to whom? There is no evidence that matter is subject to efficient causation. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics supports the principle that matter has always existed. Proton decay eliminates the possibility that it has. It's the reason astrophysicists dropped the popular theory of the oscillating universe.

Lazerlike42
Co-evolution insofar as it would relate to a cell's development is simply impossible. It's equivalent to saying that an infinite number of monkeys writing on an infinite number of typewriters for infinity would eventually lead to one monkey writing the complete works of Shakespere. The difference is that the universe has not existed infinitely.

debbiejo
laughing out loud Monkeys..that's a funny one...

Though, if you look at God is infinite and always existed and everything is make up of apart of him and by him, then it could be considered infinite.. reading

Lazerlike42
Yes, we would both agree God is outside of time.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Proton decay eliminates the possibility that it has. It's the reason astrophysicists dropped the popular theory of the oscillating universe.

According to the model of quantum physics, protons are not stable at all.



Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Co-evolution insofar as it would relate to a cell's development is simply impossible. It's equivalent to saying that an infinite number of monkeys writing on an infinite number of typewriters for infinity would eventually lead to one monkey writing the complete works of Shakespere. The difference is that the universe has not existed infinitely.

That is interesting because it occurs frequently in the development of RNA ribozyme-protein enzymes.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.