Sagan and anyone who care toreply (page 4)

jw

I was not refering to the intelligent reply just the ones that did not bother to address the question.

Here is another idea,

If life doesn't emanate from the god that, if you like, can pass it on like a flame from one match stick to another, then really there should be no spiritual mistery about it and it should be creatable, transferable and measurable just like every other energy type.

cyd0099

jw, I'm willing to wager you don't have a theory of your own that isn't a cut and paste list of scripture.

AuldSoul

Could it have been aliens? Maybe. Could it have been god? Maybe.

Um...I hate to state the obvious but in almost every culture God(s) is/are aliens. But if the origin is alien and abiogenesis doesn't consider seriously that possibility...and the theories and models do not explain what had to have happened...then ignoring some aspect of reality may be why we don't yet know how life originated.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

TheListener

Like everyone else I take in information and process it within my brain. The I spit out my opinions (from where? depends on the opinion).

I always believed the Genesis account 100%. I bought into the WTS explanation hook line and sinker. I thought the Creation book was the be all and end all of the discussion regarding evolution.

However, (this is where the spitting out of my opinion comes into play) I've come to feel that there may be a hybrid mixed answer. It would nicely into my belief system if God started the process and actually created animate "things" and then allowed evolution to run its course. Perhaps necessary tweaks and adjustments have been needed at times and those were provided. For me this would explain the Miller-Urey experiment and others failing to actually create a living cell while at the same time being able to account for the multitude of fossils, bones and such found throughout the world and the radio carbon dating of many of them.

The Genesis account may be a point of intervention, with some hyperbole thrown in, and the flood, localized or not may also be an intervention point.

Seriously, I believe in a Creator and God and I see the evidence of ancient animals and man from aeons past.

This is how I reconcile my belief with the facts as I know them.

Spectrum

"yet promptly exempt god from that requirement."
And I have explained why. It's a theory with logic to it. The logic is I'm not trying to compare apples and oranges, it serves no purpose, confuses the issue and creates blind spots which is what we are trying to avoid.

"God is purely an emotional, internal experience."

You could be right. But it gives the theory of evolution more of a chance if I consider that it is the method by which an intelligent entity created us. The question this begs is why did the intelligent being create us in the first place then disappear?

It could be that God seeded space or nothingness with the Universe with intrinsic Laws, the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of evolution. So the probability that a planet, star, galaxy will from given certain conditions is one and likewise for the formation of biological systems. Lets say the creator knew from his statistical calculations that this system will create from 10 power 80 atoms so many stars, planets etc with so many of them supporting life.

Midget-Sasquatch

What is your theory on how humans came into existence?

I'm swayed by the evidence showing a substantial link between Archaic Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus. There are several recovered fossils showing a number of features intermediate to both of those hominids. Take a look at a good picture of the skull of the young H. Erectus called the Turkana Boy and see just how similar it is to modern people...yet noticabley apish.

funkyderek

Spectrum:

It could be that God seeded space or nothingness with the Universe with intrinsic Laws, the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of evolution. So the probability that a planet, star, galaxy will from given certain conditions is one and likewise for the formation of biological systems. Lets say the creator knew from his statistical calculations that this system will create from 10 power 80 atoms so many stars, planets etc with so many of them supporting life.

Why does that hypothesis need a god in it at all? Try using Occam's Razor to pare it down a little. Why couldn't the laws have always existed instead of God? [One of the common stumbling blocks here is the use of the word "laws" which, creationists will remind us, usually require a lawmaker. Perhaps its better to think of them as "initial constraints" or "fundamental properties"]. The nature of our universe could be such that, given the initial conditions, life was inevitable or highly probable. There may be - or have been - other universes where this was not the case. If there were enough of these universes, it would be inevitable that one of them would have the right conditions, and clearly we are in one which does.

And before anyone pulls me up for multiplying entities unnecessarily, it is still more parsimonious to require the existence of other universes (only one of which is known to exist) than to require the existence of gods (none of which is known to exist).

I don't think jw will be back to this thread somehow.

AuldSoul

And before anyone pulls me up for multiplying entities unnecessarily, it is still more parsimonious to require the existence of other universes (only one of which is known to exist) than to require the existence of gods (none of which is known to exist).

I would accept your statement if phrased as "proven", however there are many kinds of knowledge and I respectfully submit that you can only speak for yourself about what is known. This is a frequently overstepped blurring of the lines between the boundaries of thought, and I am just trying to rein you back in before you carry it farther from reality.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

What-A-Coincidence

PLEASE SEE http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/113050/1.ashx

PRAISE ALLAH INFIDELS!

Sagan and anyone who care toreply

Share this