Steven Hawking says it's possible for life to come from nothing
Options
Comments
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
Some of our organs are not very efficient. Other animals do better then us in many areas of ? capabilities and durability without external aid. We have creatures living in depths and heights unassisted which would annihilate us naturally. They don't do anything special though but live. Evolution has answered the question of how those mechanisms developed. The underlining mechanisms of basic chemistry and energy is what the ultimate question. I don't think the question mans origins has been the issue, it's the question of mans intelligence (how ever defined) that developed from those origins. Evolution is a different science then the theory of everything which does not require mans input or existence to be.
Humans have qualities far beyond what is necessary for mere survival. In fact, we care for sick people and help those who are less fortunate. Why would we do that if evolution—with its ‘survival of the fittest’ motto—were true?
When you realize that it’s taken the most intelligent human minds hundreds of years to understand even the smallest fraction of the universe, then thinking that it took no intelligence to bring that universe into existence seems completely unreasonable!
Animals also care for the sick and not all humans have those same attributes. Regardless, you are the one that bought up organs. Survival of fittest means that you are fit enough to care for your clan and they survive over those who weren't capable no matter their efforts because other factors prevented such preservation procedures. It may not have taken intelligence, but it did take time. Insane is believing that the universe is so dependent on your definitions even after you say it took so long to understand everything. You assume that you through your book have the understanding. Humans have progressed quite rapidly since they decided to investigate origins without the hindrance of people burning them at the stake or killing them for being infidels. You seem to think that others have it figured out and they don't. If you wish to postulate that an intelligence created everything, go for it. Just present evidence before you decide to know what this intelligence wants and what this intelligence has communicated other then the human imagination.
Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.
To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?
If you were walking through the forest and discovered a beautiful log cabin, would you think: ‘How fascinating! The trees must have fallen in just the right way to make this house.’ Of course not! It’s just not reasonable. So why should we believe that everything in the universe just happened to come about?
If i see a log cabin, i would assume that I've seen one before before i call it a log cabin. Scientist don't agree of certain principles of how evolution works, but they don't question its existence. that's just the thing, scientist don't settle on their laurels and accept things as facts even when everyone says it is. It's way we have discoveries by one lone scientist that bucked the trend. That scientist still has to prove their efforts to be factual.
" In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;
All his thoughts are: “There is no ? .” - Psalms 10:4
Belief in creation does not require “blind faith.” Rather, it rests on sound reasoning. Consider this:
Everything you experience in life teaches you that where there is design, there is a designer. When you see a camera, a plane, or a house, you rightly conclude that someone designed it. Why should you abandon that logic when you consider the human eye, a bird in the sky, or our planet Earth?
To think about: Engineers often copy traits that they observe in nature so that they can improve their own inventions, and they rightly want others to acknowledge their work. Is it logical to recognize the human inventor and his work and yet fail to acknowledge the Creator and His far superior designs? So is it reasonable to think that an airplane was designed but a bird was not? -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen
Historical facts have been proven accurate, the prevailing claims of the books have not been proven. That just proves that people interpreted events in the most grandiose fashion. Which is the existence of your ? as your book defines it through its actions. Abiogonesis is a separate theory as to what sparked life which in turn led to evolution. You can come up with your own and even include ? as a starting mechanism of a independent growth mechanic in the theory if you can offer facts that there were specific external factors that haven't been observed.
you don't understand I said the book is proven true in your life. and has nothing to do with interpretation. abiogenesis is part of the same thing, you cannot split the two because evolution cannot stand alone
You need to speak in less code. The book exist so ? exist? what a reach. Abiognesis is a process that initiates another process. More evidence points to that, but doesn't have to be necessarily that. It's like choosing to take a car or a plane to your destination. You're going to get there, but there may have been other options unknown. It is not an ultimately settled question unlike the process of evolution. Maybe the more correct Vehicle was your ? with its magic wand. Once again. Not the same.
I said the word of ? is true because what it says will happen will happen in your life.
science has come up with nothing better than abiogenesis to explain how evolution was sparked. therefore they are dependent on each other.
Anybody could have come up with the indicators of what will happen in your life based on what has happened in the lives of others. Be more specific about what these things are that the bible was so correct about that couldn't be figured out through common sense? The discussion of Evolution is not dependent on the theory of abiogenesis in a sense that you could say something else was the initiator if you so choose to come up with your own conclusion. It does not dismiss the process of evolution. how many ways do you want me to put it? No one even thought of abiogenesis when they were first investigating the evolutionary process. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but the process can be discussed separately and it is but one theory of what sparked the process of observable facts. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion.
Every time someone says ? told them to do something, or ? was responsible for an event, that Gives your ? definition. It defines its capabilities and its intent. You say you do not no the plan of ? but the bible seems to have many descriptors of what ? was planning such as creating man in its image. How ? operates is exactly the definition at question. So your are giving your ? definition through its purpose. It doesn't have to be visual. Actions have been fulfilled and its name used as an excuse. Where is the evidence that this is actual and where is the evidence that those worded in that book beyond historical place makers and metaphors are accurate? How can Quantum Physics is getting closer to the answer if there are no defining factors? Those operating factors are exactly what's at question. Can such a been operate in such a fashion within the parameters that were laid out in your holy book?
people can say what they want. and often blame ? for things he did not do. ? calls himself a spirit man was madein the image of a spirit, who man is and what we really are is not our bodies. ? has said he cannot be defined. we look at his reactions to us but judging those actions provide no definition.
are you asking me if ? operates by quantum physics
Your religious text is making claims that you follow. Are you saying that those are false claims and misplaced attribution? I'm asking if Quantum Physics can prove something that you claim does not choose to be defined since you said that it was getting closer? You would also have to prove that we have a spirit. It seems our brain is doing all the work for or thought process and through evidence of brain damage and those being born without a functional brain yet only maintaining life through machine support. We can live without other organs including the heart (it must be replaced or supplemented by other mechanisms), but we can not live or be without a brain.
the claims are true but not everything man attributes to ? is his work. quantum physics cannot prove ? or the spirit to begin with which quantum theory?? the only thing that we can really prove its that we think we exist.ultimately it comes down to quantum physics which creates millions of problems for the antigod side.
Is this statement indicating that Quantum physics has shown that it can prove there is a ? ?
no I was saying that the question always ends up at quantum physics at which point the problem is quantum physics cannot answer it. cause to begin with quantum physics is a mess. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
Some of our organs are not very efficient. Other animals do better then us in many areas of ? capabilities and durability without external aid. We have creatures living in depths and heights unassisted which would annihilate us naturally. They don't do anything special though but live. Evolution has answered the question of how those mechanisms developed. The underlining mechanisms of basic chemistry and energy is what the ultimate question. I don't think the question mans origins has been the issue, it's the question of mans intelligence (how ever defined) that developed from those origins. Evolution is a different science then the theory of everything which does not require mans input or existence to be.
Humans have qualities far beyond what is necessary for mere survival. In fact, we care for sick people and help those who are less fortunate. Why would we do that if evolution—with its ‘survival of the fittest’ motto—were true?
When you realize that it’s taken the most intelligent human minds hundreds of years to understand even the smallest fraction of the universe, then thinking that it took no intelligence to bring that universe into existence seems completely unreasonable!
Animals also care for the sick and not all humans have those same attributes. Regardless, you are the one that bought up organs. Survival of fittest means that you are fit enough to care for your clan and they survive over those who weren't capable no matter their efforts because other factors prevented such preservation procedures. It may not have taken intelligence, but it did take time. Insane is believing that the universe is so dependent on your definitions even after you say it took so long to understand everything. You assume that you through your book have the understanding. Humans have progressed quite rapidly since they decided to investigate origins without the hindrance of people burning them at the stake or killing them for being infidels. You seem to think that others have it figured out and they don't. If you wish to postulate that an intelligence created everything, go for it. Just present evidence before you decide to know what this intelligence wants and what this intelligence has communicated other then the human imagination.
Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.
To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?
If you were walking through the forest and discovered a beautiful log cabin, would you think: ‘How fascinating! The trees must have fallen in just the right way to make this house.’ Of course not! It’s just not reasonable. So why should we believe that everything in the universe just happened to come about?
If i see a log cabin, i would assume that I've seen one before before i call it a log cabin. Scientist don't agree of certain principles of how evolution works, but they don't question its existence. that's just the thing, scientist don't settle on their laurels and accept things as facts even when everyone says it is. It's way we have discoveries by one lone scientist that bucked the trend. That scientist still has to prove their efforts to be factual.
" In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;
All his thoughts are: “There is no ? .” - Psalms 10:4
Belief in creation does not require “blind faith.” Rather, it rests on sound reasoning. Consider this:
Everything you experience in life teaches you that where there is design, there is a designer. When you see a camera, a plane, or a house, you rightly conclude that someone designed it. Why should you abandon that logic when you consider the human eye, a bird in the sky, or our planet Earth?
To think about: Engineers often copy traits that they observe in nature so that they can improve their own inventions, and they rightly want others to acknowledge their work. Is it logical to recognize the human inventor and his work and yet fail to acknowledge the Creator and His far superior designs? So is it reasonable to think that an airplane was designed but a bird was not?
You are speaking about things that humans created. There is so much more in the world that we have no impact on that indicates that things adapted to their environment and their design and based on that rather then other earthly input. All of our human designs are all based on optimizing what already exist in nature. Many organisms go about their daily lives with no concern for acknowledgement. Many humans do things with no concern for acknowledgement also. They are just being altruistic for the sake of mankind. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion.
Every time someone says ? told them to do something, or ? was responsible for an event, that Gives your ? definition. It defines its capabilities and its intent. You say you do not no the plan of ? but the bible seems to have many descriptors of what ? was planning such as creating man in its image. How ? operates is exactly the definition at question. So your are giving your ? definition through its purpose. It doesn't have to be visual. Actions have been fulfilled and its name used as an excuse. Where is the evidence that this is actual and where is the evidence that those worded in that book beyond historical place makers and metaphors are accurate? How can Quantum Physics is getting closer to the answer if there are no defining factors? Those operating factors are exactly what's at question. Can such a been operate in such a fashion within the parameters that were laid out in your holy book?
people can say what they want. and often blame ? for things he did not do. ? calls himself a spirit man was madein the image of a spirit, who man is and what we really are is not our bodies. ? has said he cannot be defined. we look at his reactions to us but judging those actions provide no definition.
are you asking me if ? operates by quantum physics
Your religious text is making claims that you follow. Are you saying that those are false claims and misplaced attribution? I'm asking if Quantum Physics can prove something that you claim does not choose to be defined since you said that it was getting closer? You would also have to prove that we have a spirit. It seems our brain is doing all the work for or thought process and through evidence of brain damage and those being born without a functional brain yet only maintaining life through machine support. We can live without other organs including the heart (it must be replaced or supplemented by other mechanisms), but we can not live or be without a brain.
the claims are true but not everything man attributes to ? is his work. quantum physics cannot prove ? or the spirit to begin with which quantum theory?? the only thing that we can really prove its that we think we exist.ultimately it comes down to quantum physics which creates millions of problems for the antigod side.
Is this statement indicating that Quantum physics has shown that it can prove there is a ? ?
no I was saying that the question always ends up at quantum physics at which point the problem is quantum physics cannot answer it. cause to begin with quantum physics is a mess.
It's a mess because it's failed with the same hopeful sudo science as religion. Does this mean that scientist should never investigate the origin of things? Maybe they will never find and answer, but you're bible hasn't provided on either. Nobody is stopping or changing their lives because Quantum Physics hasn't solved the ultimate theory. At least not those who are sane. You seem to think that humans can make up what they want, but the people who wrote the bible are above reproach. Quantum Physics isn't exclusively focused on finding the theory of everything either. Much of it is to do with manipulating sub atomic particles and space time for human benefit. What you are speaking of is String Theory which most scientist question vigorously. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen
Historical facts have been proven accurate, the prevailing claims of the books have not been proven. That just proves that people interpreted events in the most grandiose fashion. Which is the existence of your ? as your book defines it through its actions. Abiogonesis is a separate theory as to what sparked life which in turn led to evolution. You can come up with your own and even include ? as a starting mechanism of a independent growth mechanic in the theory if you can offer facts that there were specific external factors that haven't been observed.
you don't understand I said the book is proven true in your life. and has nothing to do with interpretation. abiogenesis is part of the same thing, you cannot split the two because evolution cannot stand alone
You need to speak in less code. The book exist so ? exist? what a reach. Abiognesis is a process that initiates another process. More evidence points to that, but doesn't have to be necessarily that. It's like choosing to take a car or a plane to your destination. You're going to get there, but there may have been other options unknown. It is not an ultimately settled question unlike the process of evolution. Maybe the more correct Vehicle was your ? with its magic wand. Once again. Not the same.
I said the word of ? is true because what it says will happen will happen in your life.
science has come up with nothing better than abiogenesis to explain how evolution was sparked. therefore they are dependent on each other.
Anybody could have come up with the indicators of what will happen in your life based on what has happened in the lives of others. Be more specific about what these things are that the bible was so correct about that couldn't be figured out through common sense? The discussion of Evolution is not dependent on the theory of abiogenesis in a sense that you could say something else was the initiator if you so choose to come up with your own conclusion. It does not dismiss the process of evolution. how many ways do you want me to put it? No one even thought of abiogenesis when they were first investigating the evolutionary process. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but the process can be discussed separately and it is but one theory of what sparked the process of observable facts.
the discussion of evolution can exist without abiogenesis but the fact cannot.and if abiogenesis is real only a creator could have done it because the odds otherwise are far to improbable.
I can't quote from the bible right now I am on a phone but I will say this no man can predict what will happen in your life based on indicators the bible looks at because they exist on the inside of a man. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen
Historical facts have been proven accurate, the prevailing claims of the books have not been proven. That just proves that people interpreted events in the most grandiose fashion. Which is the existence of your ? as your book defines it through its actions. Abiogonesis is a separate theory as to what sparked life which in turn led to evolution. You can come up with your own and even include ? as a starting mechanism of a independent growth mechanic in the theory if you can offer facts that there were specific external factors that haven't been observed.
you don't understand I said the book is proven true in your life. and has nothing to do with interpretation. abiogenesis is part of the same thing, you cannot split the two because evolution cannot stand alone
You need to speak in less code. The book exist so ? exist? what a reach. Abiognesis is a process that initiates another process. More evidence points to that, but doesn't have to be necessarily that. It's like choosing to take a car or a plane to your destination. You're going to get there, but there may have been other options unknown. It is not an ultimately settled question unlike the process of evolution. Maybe the more correct Vehicle was your ? with its magic wand. Once again. Not the same.
I said the word of ? is true because what it says will happen will happen in your life.
science has come up with nothing better than abiogenesis to explain how evolution was sparked. therefore they are dependent on each other.
Anybody could have come up with the indicators of what will happen in your life based on what has happened in the lives of others. Be more specific about what these things are that the bible was so correct about that couldn't be figured out through common sense? The discussion of Evolution is not dependent on the theory of abiogenesis in a sense that you could say something else was the initiator if you so choose to come up with your own conclusion. It does not dismiss the process of evolution. how many ways do you want me to put it? No one even thought of abiogenesis when they were first investigating the evolutionary process. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but the process can be discussed separately and it is but one theory of what sparked the process of observable facts.
the discussion of evolution can exist without abiogenesis but the fact cannot.and if abiogenesis is real only a creator could have done it because the odds otherwise are far to improbable.
I can't quote from the bible right now I am on a phone but I will say this no man can predict what will happen in your life based on indicators the bible looks at because they exist on the inside of a man.Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.
This means that, just because Abiogenesis occurred, that does not conclude that evolution is guaranteed. We could have remained basic single cell organisms. The claims of your ? is power enough to bypass Abiogenesis and breath the process of evolution to life from dust as it is claimed in your book.
A psychologist and philosopher also looks at what's in man. Basic you're saying the Bible is one of many philosophies. This doesn't make the words in the book accurate. It just makes the metaphors insightful to describing mans process. People have been doing that well before the bible. It does not validate the bibles hypothesis for its claims of Gods existence. -
the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
Some of our organs are not very efficient. Other animals do better then us in many areas of ? capabilities and durability without external aid. We have creatures living in depths and heights unassisted which would annihilate us naturally. They don't do anything special though but live. Evolution has answered the question of how those mechanisms developed. The underlining mechanisms of basic chemistry and energy is what the ultimate question. I don't think the question mans origins has been the issue, it's the question of mans intelligence (how ever defined) that developed from those origins. Evolution is a different science then the theory of everything which does not require mans input or existence to be.
Humans have qualities far beyond what is necessary for mere survival. In fact, we care for sick people and help those who are less fortunate. Why would we do that if evolution—with its ‘survival of the fittest’ motto—were true?
When you realize that it’s taken the most intelligent human minds hundreds of years to understand even the smallest fraction of the universe, then thinking that it took no intelligence to bring that universe into existence seems completely unreasonable!
Animals also care for the sick and not all humans have those same attributes. Regardless, you are the one that bought up organs. Survival of fittest means that you are fit enough to care for your clan and they survive over those who weren't capable no matter their efforts because other factors prevented such preservation procedures. It may not have taken intelligence, but it did take time. Insane is believing that the universe is so dependent on your definitions even after you say it took so long to understand everything. You assume that you through your book have the understanding. Humans have progressed quite rapidly since they decided to investigate origins without the hindrance of people burning them at the stake or killing them for being infidels. You seem to think that others have it figured out and they don't. If you wish to postulate that an intelligence created everything, go for it. Just present evidence before you decide to know what this intelligence wants and what this intelligence has communicated other then the human imagination.
Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.
To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?
If you were walking through the forest and discovered a beautiful log cabin, would you think: ‘How fascinating! The trees must have fallen in just the right way to make this house.’ Of course not! It’s just not reasonable. So why should we believe that everything in the universe just happened to come about?
If i see a log cabin, i would assume that I've seen one before before i call it a log cabin. Scientist don't agree of certain principles of how evolution works, but they don't question its existence. that's just the thing, scientist don't settle on their laurels and accept things as facts even when everyone says it is. It's way we have discoveries by one lone scientist that bucked the trend. That scientist still has to prove their efforts to be factual.
" In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;
All his thoughts are: “There is no ? .” - Psalms 10:4
Belief in creation does not require “blind faith.” Rather, it rests on sound reasoning. Consider this:
Everything you experience in life teaches you that where there is design, there is a designer. When you see a camera, a plane, or a house, you rightly conclude that someone designed it. Why should you abandon that logic when you consider the human eye, a bird in the sky, or our planet Earth?
To think about: Engineers often copy traits that they observe in nature so that they can improve their own inventions, and they rightly want others to acknowledge their work. Is it logical to recognize the human inventor and his work and yet fail to acknowledge the Creator and His far superior designs? So is it reasonable to think that an airplane was designed but a bird was not?
Interesting points, it does seem there is some kind of designer or that there was one for the natural world, but who or what MADE ? if this is the case?
If you're going to say ? was "always there", doesn't that prove Stephen Hawkings' point that life CAN come from nothing? Considering we cannot see ? or the gods at all, will you concede that it's possible the designers of the universe could be dead or maybe were not as powerful as your holy book teaches? -
the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like.
"The word of ? " to you is the Bible, but much of it has been proven completely false. There are many statements in the Bible that from a scientific perspective, make little sense or no sense. The world wasn't made in 7 days, was it? Not sure why you would use the Bible as a test to see its accuracies compared to what science has discovered, Christianity held back huge progress from science for almost a thousand years (the Dark Ages as they call it).
Imagine how far science would go if it wasn't for hard core Christians in America being paranoid about stem cell research. You remember what Galileo went through because of Christians who took the Bible literally?? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like.
"The word of ? " to you is the Bible, but much of it has been proven completely false. There are many statements in the Bible that from a scientific perspective, make little sense or no sense. The world wasn't made in 7 days, was it? Not sure why you would use the Bible as a test to see its accuracies compared to what science has discovered, Christianity held back huge progress from science for almost a thousand years (the Dark Ages as they call it).
Imagine how far science would go if it wasn't for hard core Christians in America being paranoid about stem cell research. You remember what Galileo went through because of Christians who took the Bible literally??
didn't I already tell you that the Eden story is metaphysical. unrestricted scientific progress
also lead to eugenics and human experimentation. and if not for religion Europe never would have got out of the dark ages. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like.
"The word of ? " to you is the Bible, but much of it has been proven completely false. There are many statements in the Bible that from a scientific perspective, make little sense or no sense. The world wasn't made in 7 days, was it? Not sure why you would use the Bible as a test to see its accuracies compared to what science has discovered, Christianity held back huge progress from science for almost a thousand years (the Dark Ages as they call it).
Imagine how far science would go if it wasn't for hard core Christians in America being paranoid about stem cell research. You remember what Galileo went through because of Christians who took the Bible literally??
didn't I already tell you that the Eden story is metaphysical. unrestricted scientific progress
also lead to eugenics and human experimentation. and if not for religion Europe never would have got out of the dark ages.
You cannot be serious, devotion to religion KEPT Europe in the dark ages for a long time. Only when people began questioning religion and being heretic did people challenge Christian dogma and find things out for themselves. When the Bubonic Plague came along, priests and other religious figures thought it was a simple punishment from ? . Thanks to the Enlightenment Period, people ran away from such foolish thoughts and pursued explanations of life AWAY from religion. Then came the cures and treatments to diseases that we all take advantage of to this day.
Unchecked science can cause problems, I agree but that's what laws are for. -
I will concede though that the Catholic Church in Europe during the Dark Ages did fund several science projects, but they held back a lot of investigation for fears of blasphemy and challenging Biblical beliefs too much
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like.
"The word of ? " to you is the Bible, but much of it has been proven completely false. There are many statements in the Bible that from a scientific perspective, make little sense or no sense. The world wasn't made in 7 days, was it? Not sure why you would use the Bible as a test to see its accuracies compared to what science has discovered, Christianity held back huge progress from science for almost a thousand years (the Dark Ages as they call it).
Imagine how far science would go if it wasn't for hard core Christians in America being paranoid about stem cell research. You remember what Galileo went through because of Christians who took the Bible literally??
didn't I already tell you that the Eden story is metaphysical. unrestricted scientific progress
also lead to eugenics and human experimentation. and if not for religion Europe never would have got out of the dark ages.
You cannot be serious, devotion to religion KEPT Europe in the dark ages for a long time. Only when people began questioning religion and being heretic did people challenge Christian dogma and find things out for themselves. When the Bubonic Plague came along, priests and other religious figures thought it was a simple punishment from ? . Thanks to the Enlightenment Period, people ran away from such foolish thoughts and pursued explanations of life AWAY from religion. Then came the cures and treatments to diseases that we all take advantage of to this day.
Unchecked science can cause problems, I agree but that's what laws are for.
did you fail history class?? Europe fell in a dark age due to disunity church provided the only unity and civilization. also they didn't go from dark ages to enlightenment. -
also it was the church that motivated the crusades that lead to European getting back on tract by copying things from the east
-
the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like.
There are differing theories of what causes evolution with Abiogenesis being the strongest but it hasn't been proven (yet). I'm saying that you are postulating that ? created everything, so why couldn't your ? initiate Evolution without any other process? He couldn't just blink a organism into existence instead of it coming from nothing and kick started evolution? Why are you trying to separate your ? from the potential to do such a thing? Is it because you have no evidence of this? It's not even life coming from nothing as the OG poster indicated. It's the universe starting from nothing which predates even Abiogensis unless you consider any matter life.
Dust is something. Steven Hawking is saying the Universe can come from nothing. Regardless, you haven't offered proving facts that the bible has the truth about what started life and created the universe. Any self help book can provide guidelines to live that can be tested. You can get a workout book ant test your endurance. Or get a good cookbook and test your culinary skills. That does not make them the authority of the perfect workout and he best ever meal. The bible is taking that leap to say that it is the only solution to every manner of living. Other holy books have offered other solutions that people use to guide their life too. Some don't include deities. -
are you allergic to bee stings?kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm actually not afraid of anything except bees, I don't know why.....
if not, i would attempt to relax
-
Interesting discussion, but I'm leaning to the possibility of a creator, but not a being we have talked to or discuss and we give it far too many human characteristics. The bibilical writers could have been egotistical by saying if we create than I'm made in the image of the creator/elohim. Too many questions and very few answers it's great discussion but at the end of the day we have made some great leaps, but not enough answers to give a definite answer which I congratulate true objective scientists.
I also understand Zombie's approach and why he thinks the way he does and I think it's more of the unity that religion and parameters of moral conduct than that christianity is actually 100% true. Just my observation I could be very off.
Overall, I think its good that us humans keep investigating but what I do not like is that when we take a stance we must hit everyone on the head for not taking this stance, but we have to be open more and realize we do not have all the answers and everything written by humans does not have all the answers. -
are you allergic to bee stings?kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm actually not afraid of anything except bees, I don't know why.....
if not, i would attempt to relax
I don't know but I don't want to find out!
I saw a program on bees and how dangerous they can be and I've been paranoid around them ever since -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like.
"The word of ? " to you is the Bible, but much of it has been proven completely false. There are many statements in the Bible that from a scientific perspective, make little sense or no sense. The world wasn't made in 7 days, was it? Not sure why you would use the Bible as a test to see its accuracies compared to what science has discovered, Christianity held back huge progress from science for almost a thousand years (the Dark Ages as they call it).
Imagine how far science would go if it wasn't for hard core Christians in America being paranoid about stem cell research. You remember what Galileo went through because of Christians who took the Bible literally??
didn't I already tell you that the Eden story is metaphysical. unrestricted scientific progress
also lead to eugenics and human experimentation. and if not for religion Europe never would have got out of the dark ages.
You cannot be serious, devotion to religion KEPT Europe in the dark ages for a long time. Only when people began questioning religion and being heretic did people challenge Christian dogma and find things out for themselves. When the Bubonic Plague came along, priests and other religious figures thought it was a simple punishment from ? . Thanks to the Enlightenment Period, people ran away from such foolish thoughts and pursued explanations of life AWAY from religion. Then came the cures and treatments to diseases that we all take advantage of to this day.
Unchecked science can cause problems, I agree but that's what laws are for.
did you fail history class?? Europe fell in a dark age due to disunity church provided the only unity and civilization. also they didn't go from dark ages to enlightenment.
Europe went through the Dark Ages because of disunity I agree with that, the Roman Empire fell and security for cities all across Europe and some parts of Asia went out the window. But my point is that many parts of Europe during that 1000 year period did not challenge the strong Christian dogma that became popular after a Roman emperor became Christian, I forgot his name (Constantine I believe). And to criticize religious beliefs during that period of massive poverty and disease became almost something of a crime in many places, and that did hold back science for a long time, although YES Christians during that period to their credit did discover quite a bit of impressive things. People like Issac Newton.
But even some of these Christians like Galileo had a hard time fighting the church, especially when he tried to prove many science discoveries he made but the ? Jesuits and other leaders of the church held him under house arrest for the rest of his life, preventing ? knows how many discoveries. By the way, I got a scholarship in college, didn't pay a ? dime (except for some books) and I have zero college debts. Trust me, I did very well in history class....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]; 15 February 1564[3] – 8 January 1642), often known mononymously as Galileo, was an Italian physicist, mathematician, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the scientific revolution. His achievements include improvements to the telescope and consequent astronomical observations and support for Copernicanism. Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy",[4] the "father of modern physics",[5][6] the "father of science",[6][7] and "the father of modern science".[8]
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, a time when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[9] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII, thus alienating not only the Pope but also the Jesuits, both of whom had supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[13][14]
---I can name other legendary scientists who were held back due to ? religious clerics at the time. Ever since society has become less religious, science has EXPLODED without ? religious people getting in the way of progress. I do give Christians credit for their discoveries of the time, but in the end, people who rely on their holy books too much get in the way of genuine, further discovery. -
Isaac Newton did not live in the dark ages and the Catholic church to their credit did more for Europe than any other institution.
did they hold back some innovation yes but government/bureaucracy does not -
but what government does not
-
Isaac Newton did not live in the dark ages and the Catholic church to their credit did more for Europe than any other institution.
did they hold back some innovation yes but government/bureaucracy does not
Good point, my main point though is that people who take their religious books too literally hold back progress.....if we leave religion out the way, more science can be discovered but of course, Christians and Muslims have done a lot for science too -
FuriousOne wrote: »the word of ? is proven true by it's principle being proven. to work but ? cannot be proven only his word. man made philosophy can have truths.but with the bible you can test it and see the actual results because it calls on you to actually do something.
abiogenesis does not guarantee evolution but according to science the process of evolution cannot start without it.
life from dust what does that sound like.
he could have i just don't believe he didThere are differing theories of what causes evolution with Abiogenesis being the strongest but it hasn't been proven (yet). I'm saying that you are postulating that ? created everything, so why couldn't your ? initiate Evolution without any other process?
@ the bolded i am not doing that i just don't believe that's how he did itHe couldn't just blink a organism into existence instead of it coming from nothing and kick started evolution? Why are you trying to separate your ? from the potential to do such a thing?Is it because you have no evidence of this? It's not even life coming from nothing as the OG poster indicated. It's the universe starting from nothing which predates even Abiogensis unless you consider any matter life.
i believe ? made the universe from his pure will power and intent.Dust is something. Steven Hawking is saying the Universe can come from nothing.
That is actually not what he is saying because literally nothing cannot exist, saying the universe came from nothing is a real oversimplication of what the man is saying because any force that can be defined or potentially measured is a "thing" even quantum fluctuations
i never attempted to do that i kept saying that the bible can be proven true in your life and that unlike self help books you can test it's word against ? in your life because ? changes how your mind perceives the book as you read it.Regardless, you haven't offered proving facts that the bible has the truth about what started life and created the universe.
Any self help book can provide guidelines to live that can be tested. You can get a workout book ant test your endurance. Or get a good cookbook and test your culinary skills. That does not make them the authority of the perfect workout and he best ever meal. The bible is taking that leap to say that it is the only solution to every manner of living. Other holy books have offered other solutions that people use to guide their life too. Some don't include deities.
There are other religions so there are other holy books there is not denying that and they present other solutions there may be other solutions to problems but some solutions are better than others. There is no real self help in the bible all help comes from ? ,but the bible advises us to work.
