[_ Old Earth _] The beginning of life.

[B]

Okay, this will take a while, as there's a lot of science to cover. Can we agree that science can be defined as a hypothesis that can be tested and proved or disproved repeatedly? Either something is can be demonstrated (eg, gravity) and is accepted unanimously or it can't (eg, dogs can fly) and is rejected after much testing. (Those poor dogs)
Anyhoo. The human body is made up of molecules right? As is pretty much everything we can observe (with the excrption of light and lasers). Now, molecules are made up out atoms right? Atoms are made up out of protons, neutrons and a nucleus. Every atom. The only thing different is the number of protons and neutrons.
So, can we agree thus far?

 

[cubedbee]

Actually, atoms are made up of protons and neutrons, together which comprise the nucleus, and electrons which orbit the nucleus. The number of orbiting electrons can be different and affect the behavior of the atom.

But yes, I agree with everything else you say.

 

[Quath]

I guess that so far with current scienctific theory, each atom (of a certain number of protons, neutrons and electrons) are identical to each other. So one non-ionized oxygen-16 atom is identical to any other non-ionized oxygen-16 atom.

Quath

 

[cubedbee]

It's been a while since chemistry, but I also don't know if that's precisely true. Electrons inhabit orbitals around the nucleus, and by default inhabit the closest orbitals to the nucleus. However, when the atom absorbs photons, the electrons become excited and bump up to a higher orbital. This is what they do for lasers---bump a whole bunch of atoms up to an excited state and then allow them to all drop to ground state (by emitting photons). I know I'm just nitpicking, but technically two atoms with the same number of neutrons, protons, and electrons can behave differently.

 

[bibleberean]

Hello B,

When you get to the part where you disprove God exists. Please send me a PM.

Thanks,

 

[Quath]

I know I'm just nitpicking, but technically two atoms with the same number of neutrons, protons, and electrons can behave differently.

That's true. There are excited states and metastable states. So I guess a better statement would be comparing non-ionized oxygen 16 with the electron and nucleus in the groundstate. ;)

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

I know I'm just nitpicking, but technically two atoms with the same number of neutrons, protons, and electrons can behave differently.

That's true. There are excited states and metastable states. So I guess a better statement would be comparing non-ionized oxygen 16 with the electron and nucleus in the groundstate. ;)

Quath

I may have to read this thread just to get an education. :D

I am out of my league. :o

 

[evanman]

Well, on the physical side of things your "science" is correct. Sadly science cannot measure the Spirit!

 

[Quath]

Well, on the physical side of things your "science" is correct. Sadly science cannot measure the Spirit!

If the spirit influences the material, it can be measured. For example, if there really are ghosts (that have something to do with spirits) they could be measured. Likewise, if you copied a person's atoms and make an exact duplicate, did you copy the spirit? If so, we can make spirit stuff using material science.

The only way science could not deal with the spirit is if it has no interaction with the material at all or so rare it can not be measured.

Quath

 

[ThinkerMan]

(with the excrption of light and lasers).

Since we are refining here....a laser is light.

Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

Other examples of observation non matter is electromagnetism.

Also, as cubed bee said, given quantum mechanics, one couldn't say that any two non-ionized Oxygen-16 particles are PERFECTLY identical, because their subparticles would not share identical position and velocity.

However, I don't think that would affect their protons, neutrons and electrons as a whole being considered identical.

Interesting discussion...but is their an underlying claim B? (I think I know what it is)

 

[bibleberean]

All this is interesting and you guys are far more knowledgeable than I am.

But... How is this going to lead up to B's contention that he can demonstrate God does not exist?

That I want to see. :wink:

 

[thor]

no we cant agree on any science that tries to reject facts

No we cant agree to any science that rejects the true facts of Gods word.

Human Science has as much flip flops to it as humans do.
science is always having to change it's mind as it finds out knew things.

Gods word does not change It is and has been always correct .

 

[B]

Quote
''No we cant agree to any science that rejects the true facts of Gods word.

Human Science has as much flip flops to it as humans do.
science is always having to change it's mind as it finds out knew things.

Gods word does not change It is and has been always correct .''

I'm jumping ahead a bit but I have to comment on this. The trouble with a lot of religions is that they are completely deadset in their views. They couldn't possibility be wrong.

Ask yourself, if you were wrong, honestly wrong, would you want to know? And if the evidence was in your face would you want to know? Or would you reject it angrily?

 

[evanman]

Dear B,

Ask yourself, if you were wrong, honestly wrong, would you want to know? And if the evidence was in your face would you want to know? Or would you reject it angrily?

 

[B]

Of course. I was a christian when I was too young to ask questions that religion could not answer. ''Mum, where did god come from'' ''That's not for us to know, dear''.
It cannot be disputed that the bible is full of contradictions. Just like a book written by men. Most of whom, it appears, did not bother to read the rest of it before adding their bit.
You have to abandon logic to accept it as fact.

And you didn't actually answer the question.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Ayayay... where would I even begin to respond...

1) Science done correclty is never in conflict with the truth.
2) God's Word understood correctly is always truth.
3) Science by definition is a human inquiry... there's no other science besides human science.
4) The Bible is not filled with contradictions - I would be more than glad to talk about some proposed contradictions, but not discuss a blanket statement.
5) Science never goes against God, though some scientists may and do.

And finally:

Life began when God created it. Since then it is only transferred.

BL

 

[bibleberean]

Ayayay... where would I even begin to respond...

1) Science done correclty is never in conflict with the truth.
2) God's Word understood correctly is always truth.
3) Science by definition is a human inquiry... there's no other science besides human science.
4) The Bible is not filled with contradictions - I would be more than glad to talk about some proposed contradictions, but not discuss a blanket statement.
5) Science never goes against God, though some scientists may and do.

And finally:

Life began when God created it. Since then it is only transferred.

BL

I have to say, Amen!

Good post.

B is supposed to logically disprove God exists.

How can intelligence exist without a higher source?

Can life spring into existence by chance?

Is that possibe?

The observable evidence does cannot support such a belief.

Life begets life. It takes intelligence to design and create.

"Can information arise from non-information?

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.’15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16"

See source:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Whoa... somebody who knows their stuff! Alright!

BTW, let me go ahead and beat the rest of them to the punch:

Q: Yes, but if intelligent systems are created by God, Who is an Intelligent Being, then God would also have to be created, correct?

A: No. That would assume that God is part of the time continuum that we exist in which cannot be the case. If God is the originator of all things, then time must be one of those.

And now let's take this one step further:

If there were no God, then that would mean that this universe is eternal. But how can that be seeing that our understanding of science dictates that every action must have a cause? An eternal universe is just not possible. And neither is a self-generated universe either as matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Oh boy, this might actually be fun.

BL

 

[Wertbag]

How can intelligence exist without a higher source?

The mind is able to reason and learn, our intelligence is learnt from our schooling and eldars but also from understanding of our environment and events around us. There doesn't have to be a higher source, there has to be someone to reason passed current knowledge. The first wheel, harnessing fire, making tools, all the basics didn't exist before and humans gained the knowledge though using our brains.

Can life spring into existence by chance?
Is that possibe?

Apparently given the right conditions, yes.

Life begets life. It takes intelligence to design and create.

It takes intelligence to design but not necassarily to create. A tree has no thought processes yet can reproduce and create new life where there was none before. A tree does not show design, as no two are the same they should chaos in their appearance. These random plants quite happily spread and grow without a single thought on their behalf.

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science...

Probably just a misquote, but it should be said nothing is ever known absolutely, there is always the possibility of new knowledge or exceptions to the rules.

It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.

Except we know matter does create its own codes, dna being the obvious example. Two parents with different dna codes combine their information to create a new life with a new unique code. A physical process that requires no design, no active thought on the parents part to create the life, and we can then follow the matter combining, dividing and growing into the new lifeform. Matter generating new codes is part of every life.

If there were no God, then that would mean that this universe is eternal. But how can that be seeing that our understanding of science dictates that every action must have a cause?

There are a couple of things I could think of that might answer that. Either the universe is not an action so does not fit the law, the universe is everything so actions happen within it not to it, or the big bang is the cause and it is impossible to know prior to that.
Science will often say "I don't know", this doesn't mean "we will never know" just that our current technology and knowledge doesn't allow us to understand certain things. I don't like the idea of saying "because we don't know it must be a god", too many times god has been inserted to fill a gap in our knowledge (child birth, why the sun rises, why there is sickness and disease etc) only to find at a later date that there is a logical answer we simply weren't aware of it at the time.

 

[bibleberean]

Wertbag,

Your thinking is totally illogical.

It doesn't take intelligence to create?

Creativity demands intelligence!

Meriam Webster on line Dictionary

Main Entry: 1cre·ate
Pronunciation: krE-'At, 'krE-"
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow -- more at CRESCENT
transitive senses

1 : to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth -- Gen 1:1 (Authorized Version)>

2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant> b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>

3 : CAUSE, OCCASION <famine creates high food prices>

4 a : to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b : DESIGN <creates dresses>

intransitive senses : to make or bring into existence something new

Inanimate objects are not creative.

Main Entry: in·an·i·mate

Pronunciation: (")i-'na-n&-m&t
Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin inanimatus, from Latin in- + animatus, past participle of animare to animate

1 : not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit b : lacking consciousness or power of motion

2 : not animated or lively : DULL
- in·an·i·mate·ly adverb
- in·an·i·mate·ness noun

A tree has been created to reproduce.

A tree does what it has been programed to do.

It is impossible for something to be designed by chance.




There is a reason God repeated this statement twice.

Psalms 14:1 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalms 53:1 <<To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

And again:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

One more time:

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.’15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16"

See source:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html