Finally, tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION

Originally posted by The MISTER
When people believe something then they know that THEY are right. I am aware of the fact that the earth is round. So that's MY belief. Someone who "knows" that the earth is flat could tell me that my "beliefs" are foolish.

The people who have faith in a creation feel very strongly that they possess knowledge of many things that other people don't, so I don't see how you can seperate knowledge and awareness from the BELIEF that you're right about something that you know and are aware of. 😮‍💨

Belief is simply holding something to be true - it doesnt need justification or direct sense perception - and the particular type of belief that we call faith is neither knowledge (no empirical or rational backing) nor awareness (God can't be perceived with the senses, not in any palpable or verifiable way, that is).

People who believe in God don't know anything about it.

Originally posted by 753
No, unlike belief, knowledge (without going into axioms) must necessarily be justified by empirical backing or arrived at as a logical conclusion stemming from premises that correspond with reality. Awareness is a mental state in which you perceive something with your senses thus becoming conscious of its existence.

Belief is simply holding something to be true - it doesnt need justification or direct sense perception - and the particular type of belief that we call faith is neither knowledge (no empirical or rational backing) nor awareness (God can't be perceived with the senses, not in any palpable or verifiable way, that is).

People who believe in God don't know anything about it.

Do we have any evidence of something coming from nothing? Am I wrong if I say that I know that non-living things do not give birth to living things? Many people who believe in science only must admit that thier knowledge has limits as well. Saying that they don't know ANYTHING because of their limitations is just closed-minded and biased.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do we have any evidence of something coming from nothing? Am I wrong if I say that I know that non-living things do not give birth to living things? Many people who believe in science only must admit that thier knowledge has limits as well. Saying that they don't know ANYTHING because of their limitations is just closed-minded and biased.

First things first: Nothingness cannot exist, therefore something cannot come from nothing. However, something cannot be created from nothing, because that also violates the fact that nothingness cannot exist. The only conclusion I can make is that there was no point of creation. The big bang is just an event in a much larger multiverse.

Life on the other hand defies all logic. It has the unique ability to turn disorder into order. I believe our definition of life and non-life is incorrect. All things that can change disorder into order are, by my definition, alive. That means that crystals are alive, and we know that crystals can propagate out of a solution. I believe that life is a natural force of nature.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life on the other hand defies all logic.

not really...

it might be true that astrophysics doesn't have much to say about the origins of life or behaviour, but there is a logic to these things

Originally posted by inimalist
not really...

it might be true that astrophysics doesn't have much to say about the origins of life or behaviour, but there is a logic to these things

That was more for drama then anything else. If you take it out of context, the line falls apart.

Originally posted by inimalist
not really...

it might be true that astrophysics doesn't have much to say about the origins of life or behaviour, but there is a logic to these things

Originally posted by The MISTER
[B]Do we have any evidence of something coming from nothing?

Am I wrong if I say that I know that non-living things do not give birth to living things?

Many people who believe in science only must admit that thier knowledge has limits as well. Saying that they don't know ANYTHING because of their limitations is just closed-minded and biased.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life on the other hand defies all logic. It has the unique ability to turn disorder into order. I believe our definition of life and non-life is incorrect. All things that can change disorder into order are, by my definition, alive. That means that crystals are alive, and we know that crystals can propagate out of a solution. I believe that life is a natural force of nature.

I personally go with systems' theory derived definitions of life such as autopoiesis.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I agree that there is a logic to these things but that the logic is not in human scope. Many things defy logic. Survival of the fittest is logical. Humans purposely defy it.

I dont understand your point...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life on the other hand defies all logic. It has the unique ability to turn disorder into order. I believe our definition of life and non-life is incorrect. All things that can change disorder into order are, by my definition, alive. That means that crystals are alive, and we know that crystals can propagate out of a solution. I believe that life is a natural force of nature.

That's an awfully broad definition. It makes your refrigerator alive, in fact it makes ice-cubes alive.

Order to disorder isn't illogical anyway, it's just unintuitive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an awfully broad definition. It makes your refrigerator alive, in fact it makes ice-cubes alive.

Order to disorder isn't illogical anyway, it's just unintuitive.

I do believe that everything around me is alive. Now that is not usable in most cases, and most of the time I use the conventional definition. However, when asking the question, how did life come from nothing, my broader definition provides a satisfactory answer: Life is natural, and is everywhere.

It is kind of like saying that all atoms are magnetic, but only when the conditions are right, do we get a magnate. You never have to ask how can magnetism come from nothing.

I tend to think of life as that which deliberately makes more of itself.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do believe that everything around me is alive. Now that is not usable in most cases, and most of the time I use the conventional definition.

So you juggle three different definitions of life?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, when asking the question, how did life come from nothing, my broader definition provides a satisfactory answer: Life is natural, and is everywhere.

I don't see how you can be satisfied with an answer that explains nothing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is kind of like saying that all atoms are magnetic, but only when the conditions are right, do we get a magnate.

Umm . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you juggle three different definitions of life?

3?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see how you can be satisfied with an answer that explains nothing.

It harmonizes with my Buddhist beliefs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Umm . . .

😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
3?

Life is everything.
Life is things that create order.
Life is what biologists have settled on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Life is everything.
Life is things that create order.
Life is what biologists have settled on.

The first one should be: Life is everywhere, because space-time without matter wouldn't be alive under my way of thinking. Can you have space-time without matter?

The last one is just relenting on my part.

Originally posted by 753
We have hypothesis that explain the origin of the universe and time itself that are consistant with what we know of physics. We don't know much about it and there several competing theories in the field.

Yes, actualy you are. Non-living things do not give birth evidently, but we know the processes through which simple chemical compounds can originate more complex ones, that in turn can combine into autocatalytic sets that can gain furhter complexity, originating metabolic systems encircled by a lipid layer - living cells that can reproduce. We do not know the exact sequence of events that gave origin to life on earth, which molecules came first and how exactly the first living cells operated, but we know that all the processes I mentioned above and others in competing theories are possible and we can see this spontaneous self-organization processes in the lab.

Scienctific knowledge has many limitations, but it's knowledge just the same, while religious faith isn't. This doesn't refute the existence of God or mean that believers are wrong about it. just that they have no way to justify their beliefs, therefore they don't know about god's exitence, they have faith in it.

People believe that the fact that non-living things do not give birth is the proof that God exists...because he is a living thing and the living things that we know of come from other living things. The complexity of those living and non-living things also lead to the theory that the living creator was as aware of the order of his creation as a watchmaker is aware of what he is creating.

A simple analogy....If you find a jigsaw puzzle box and later on that day you find it opened and assembled then you will KNOW ,not believe, that someone put the puzzle together whether you saw them do it or not. You will not need hard evidence to support something that is extremely obvious to anyone except those in denial. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by The MISTER
You contradict yourself like a steadfast zealot. I'm wrong despite the fact that it's evident that non-living things do not give birth.

People believe that the fact that non-living things do not give birth is the proof that God exists...because he is a living thing and the living things that we know of come from other living things. The complexity of those living and non-living things also lead to the theory that the living creator was as aware of the order of his creation as a watchmaker is aware of what he is creating.

We also know how complexity can arise by itself in physical systems with no planning or outside interference. This is a known fact.

A simple analogy....If you find a jigsaw puzzle box and later on that day you find it opened and assembled then you will KNOW ,not believe, that someone put the puzzle together whether you saw them do it or not. You will not need hard evidence to support something that is extremely obvious to anyone except those in denial. 😮‍💨

Heh... learn some physics, chemistry and biology, then come back to me with what is obvious or isn't obvious about the way the world works. We know how complexity arises from simpler components and we know how biological evolution works. This is knowledge, not faith (that requires and has no proof, evidence or rational justification) being misrepresented as self-evident truth.

Originally posted by The MISTER
A simple analogy....If you find a jigsaw puzzle box and later on that day you find it opened and assembled then you will KNOW ,not believe, that someone put the puzzle together whether you saw them do it or not.

Originally posted by Mindship
Actually, since the Assembler was not witnessed, it would remain a belief, especially since there is nothing in quantum theory that says such an assembly could not happen on its own. I mean, assuming an Assembler over a quantum fluke would be understandable, but the Assembler's presence would still have been inferred, not directly observed.