if Science creates life...
satansbed
Posts: 2,139
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/scien ... r=1&ref=us
I just read this article and it got me thinking, if science creates life, will this destroy alot of religous arguments against evolution, i have heard people say to me that you can't create life from something thats not alive, but if it happens, doesn't that mean life could spontaneously create itself under the right conditions here on earth, without the need for a creator.
if this happens, for me its just one more nail in the coffin of the possibility god exists.
your thoughts?
I just read this article and it got me thinking, if science creates life, will this destroy alot of religous arguments against evolution, i have heard people say to me that you can't create life from something thats not alive, but if it happens, doesn't that mean life could spontaneously create itself under the right conditions here on earth, without the need for a creator.
if this happens, for me its just one more nail in the coffin of the possibility god exists.
your thoughts?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cool article nonetheless :thumbup:
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
but boy wouldnt it be cool if one did.
spontaneous is an interesting word. much like with our planet and the rest of our universe, where the conditions had to be 'perfect' for it all to come into being, conditions in a petri dish would have to be so too. what are those 'perfect' conditions... and how do we go about constructing them so any form of life has a chance of coming into existence??? and of course... what is life? ive seen stuff grow on the lid of my sons fish tank seemingly from nothing. :think:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If the Creator already created the world in which scientists are trying to create life in- then it seems the Creator has beat them to the punch.
in the image of our maker ... a combination of man and woman.
Gay people further along in the evolution process.
Religion doesn't figure into my thoughts,
perhaps they are unconventional thoughts.
Woah, that's go me thinking!
Seahorse and peacock have a long way to go!
Interesting thought Pandora..
Who created the creator? or has he/she been around forever? I can't conceive forever...this thread is making my brain work to hard on a friday morning after a long night last night..
At one point, SCIENCE thought the world was flat.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Seahorse and peacock my two favorites and most amazing creatures....
I hope they never change, they could not be improved
you should listen when I'm high...
blow ya away
"With our thoughts we make the world"
satansbed, it amazes me that we even need to think about destroying arguments against evolution. I am always confounded by the fact that there a many people who don't understand the simple fact that evolution is real. What are they afraid of?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
God created evolution or was created from it,
it is not God against evolution.
It is because religion is less about God and more about controlling people,
man controlling man through God.... through man made religion.
God doesn't want to control us .... He just wants to Love us.
i've always thought that men have nipples because microbial life began as asexual
i believe that people born without wisdom teeth are evidentual of higher evolution and given enough time we would eventually be born without an appendix or tonsils
and eventually we could very well come full circle and become asexual again
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
I find circles intriguing and a real clue in my stack of clues :thumbup:
I wish a few people I knew were asexual... so they could go fuck themselves!
This is Intresting, not sure i agree, but it's a point of veiw i never considered before, gona bounce this once off my wife and freinds this weekend.
There's a problem w that though: Homosexuality in counter-reproductive; It flies in the face of the evolution theory. In nature and in human life, if homosexuality was a normal process of evolution , then eventually we would stop reproducing, and life would die out. Granted, a million years from now, but... I'm just sayin.
Wrong
Homosexuality may be "counterproductive" for evolution but Homosexuals are just a small portion of the total population just as people who needs glasses are a small portion too, the process of evolution allows a few things out of the norm without making the whole population collapse. Also homosexuality can be seen in other species too.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Your right, but then does that make homosexuality a mistake?, a genetic anamoly?, or perhaps a step towards something....else, new? i sure don't have any answers.
Not as recently as a lot of people believe though... people knew the world was curved as far back in history as Ancient Greece (so I've always gotten a kick out of the people who believe Columbus was taking a huge risk by sailing to India because he didn't know if he'd fall off the planet or not).
I at least admire science's ability to admit when it's wrong and move on. And for me, personally, I'm much more inclined to believe in something that can be measured empirically and reproduced in an experiment than something that's believed simply because someone said "You have to believe what's in this book if you want to be happy after you die."
Very well put
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
But it is the natural evolution to selflessness. No longer in need of self gratification we live to love others purely for love... unconditional love.
And life always finds a way as does love.
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
the whole point of science is that there is no faith required, science is infact the opposite of faith
faith is belief that is not based on proof
while science is: A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.
Religion is so, so, so much more than being happy after you die that those who think that way are missing the point entirely.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That is a myth. Science only tests its hypotheses against what it already knows to be true. Any true scientist would admit that new information can be learned tomorrow that will make today's hypotheses false. Hence, the faith involved.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This is so wrong in so many levels, is not even worthy to discuss it :roll:
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
I have my own thoughts on why science requires a certain amount of faith, and maybe this is what know1 is referring to: Simply put, how much scientific study and experimentation has the average person actually done or have been directly exposed to? How many of us have had access to tens of millions of dollars of instrumentation, and can understand complex mathematics formulas used to design these instruments that are so intense, that they really are communicable between a few dozen handfuls of people? For the most part, our answers to those questions are, "those people are really really smart, dedicated, well-intentioned, and I believe them." That to me, is a huge leap of faith, especially considering how much modern science seems to contradict old science, and even tends to disprove other areas of modern science. I know I've never looked through an electron microscope before, and even if I have, how would I know to trust it if I couldn't understand how it actually works? Yet, I do believe that atomic theory is the best available explanation of what everything is made of-- and it has overwritten older science which had the same goals of discovering the makeup of our world. At some point, you do have to wonder does "science" actually approach a level of absolute bullshit and babble since the only people who understand what they are doing are unable to explain what they are doing? For instance, that "super collider" in Scandanavia supposedly has the potential to create black holes, new universes, and even potentially cause this world to suck itself into some sort of inescapable vortex. Really? If this was possible, why risk it? It just sounds unbelievable to me, especially considering the thing broke down the second it started, and needed a few months worth of repairs, and to the best of my knowledge I haven't heard too much other news about it since. Maybe it was just a huge waste of money, and these guys are attempting to save face or simply financially benefit from the whole experiment. After all, scientists are people too. Just like priests and other "holy" figures, sometimes scientists might be given too much of our faith and belief.
I'll bite. Science tests hypotheses on what may be true. Look up the word "hypothesis".
"With our thoughts we make the world"