nic
We reason God's existence by the impossibility of the contrary.
A Dummies Discussion on God, the Universe and Everything.
by nicolaou 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
stillajwexelder
OK I swear on my childrens lives I will tell you where God came from if you tell me where the singularity that lead to the big bang that lead to the start of the universe came from . At some point in time we all come upon an imponderable
-
Cellist
There are HUGE gaps in that evolutionary model you speak of. I have yet to see solid evidence that PROVES that all life came from a single cell. I agree that things evolve, but have seen no proof that they evolve from one species to another. And, there is even less evidence to PROVE that they evolve from one phylum to another. (i.e. reptile to bird). And, I don't care how esteemed the authority is, speaking dogmatically and assertively is NOT evidence. If you know of a book or publication that contains positive proof of what you claim, please point me in the right direction. I've been looking for it all my life. And, by the way, I was not raised religiously. Evolution and creation had an equal opportunity in my brain.
And, I still say, "Your guess is as good as mine."
Cellist -
Sunnygal41
hi, sweetie............well, i don't know that my comment is within the bounds of your "rules", but, i know, with all that i hold sacred, that there is something that holds the balance, whether that be our own energies..........but, since i left the jw's, i have dealt with situations where i have had to step back and let something greater that i had faith in take care of my needs..........i have developed deep faith in that "something/someone". that is all i can say from a personal perspective.
love,
Terri
-
nicolaou
We reason God's existence by the impossibility of the contrary.
Why is the contrary explanation impossible? You've said nothing here DD other than that God is a tub of polyfilla you use to fill in the gaps.
At some point in time we all come upon an imponderable
True enough stilla' but your imponderable is greater than the universe itself, mine is less complex than yours and so more likely.
Cellist, you can say "your guess is as good as mine" as much as you like, it doesn't make it true. You capitalised the word 'prove' twice in your last post but if you re-read my opening comments I am discussing probabilities - not proof. Definitave proof is lacking on both sides but the probabilities are definayely stacked against god. Where is he?
Sunnygal, I would never denigrate personal experience and I'm glad that yours has been a source of strength for you. I hope you understand that I mean no offence when I say that personal experience is so subjective as to be worthless in a debate like this.
I'm off for a meal out, guess I'll catch the flak later.
-
Deputy Dog
nic
Why is the contrary explanation impossible?
So you can explain life from nonlife? Please! Tell us all, how it is possible. I think many scientists would like to know the answer.
-
Cellist
Well now, if you're talking about probabilities .... I would say that the complexity we see in life coming from chance mutations is the most improbable explanation. When you consider that the mutation has to occur in the reproductive genes and that the vast majority of mutations will be harmful rather than beneficial, I just can't see it happening. Not even with a great amount of time. How can a partial feather help a reptile? How would it give a lizard a reproductive advantage? With the god angle, all you have to come up with is, "Where did God come from?" With evolution, not only do you have to come up with the answer to "Where did the first living cell come from?" But you also have to answer that same question every step of the way with each new life form. According to all the archaelogical and biology books I've ever read, the various life forms "appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record". Of course, they gloss that bit over with lots of speculation.
Cellist -
stillajwexelder
True enough stilla' but your imponderable is greater than the universe itself, mine is less complex than yours and so more likely.
AGREED
-
kid-A
Cellist : "Well now, if you're talking about probabilities .... I would say that the complexity we see in life coming from chance mutations is the most improbable explanation."
> Nobody has ever stated (besides the Watchtower) that life came from "chance mutations". Stanley Miller elegantly demonstrated in 1953 that amino acids could be spontaneously generated in primordial elements simply by applying pulses of light, thus mimicking the earliest state of the planet. Amino acids are the building blocks of all life. The probability of life spontaneously arising in such a primordial enviroment is, in fact, very HIGH. Your argument regarding "complexity" reveals a basic misunderstanding of molecular biology: complexity is an ILLUSION. All single and multi-cellular life forms exist as COMPOSITES of extremely simple biochemical and bioelectrical reactions. Complexity only arises when very simple "components" are layered and multiplied via very simple, reproducible molecular chain reactions.
Cellist: "When you consider that the mutation has to occur in the reproductive genes and that the vast majority of mutations will be harmful rather than beneficial, I just can't see it happening."
> Again, this is completely wrong. The vast majority of genetic mutations occurring randomly in a given population are NEUTRAL, i.e. neither beneficial NOR harmful. The only people still believing that most mutations are "harmful" is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and their "science" dept.
A neutralmutation is one that does not give an advantage or a disadvantage to the individual possessing the mutation. It doesn't change his or her probability of leaving descendants. Most mutations fall in this category.
Neutral drift is the concept that a neutral mutation can spread throughout a population, so that eventually everyone inherits it. There is nothing specific to cause this, but then again, nothing specific prevents it either. The chance of it happening is low if the population is large. but the chance is high if the population has very few individuals
Cellist: "How can a partial feather help a reptile? How would it give a lizard a reproductive advantage?"
Why should it? The point is irrelevant and the theory of evolution would never make any such claim. Reproductive "advantages" are merely one small component to evolutionary theory. Genetic mutations in the context of evolutionary theory only provide advantages to individuals within a population that have this mutation when the ENVIRONMENTAL demands change. To provide a simple example: Whales and dolphins once were land dwelling mammals. Once environmental pressures and conditions changed for a specific subpopulation within their ancestors, a select few of them possessing the genetic potential to adapt to an aquatic environment took to the water. The rest is history:
Cellist: "With the god angle, all you have to come up with is, "Where did God come from?"
LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!! Um, no, you have to come up with a hell of a lot more than that! To name a few extant issues with the "god angle":
1) Why would a supremely intelligent god create such miserably and POORLY "designed" creatures? Did he "design" CANCER, HUNTINGTONS, PARKINSONS, SCHIZOPHRENIA, MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, CYSTIC FIBROSIS, ARTHRITIS, PNEUMONIA, VIRUSES, MENINGITIS, LUPUS, etc etc? If your god really did "design" this menagerie of incompetence, then he is only worthy of mockery and scorn, because he is an idiot!
2) Why would a supremely intelligent "god" have the need to "design" an earth full of carbon-based lifeforms to begin with? Was he bored? Tired of picking his nose in the heavens? Wanted to have some fun? THINK ABOUT IT. Does the entire PREMISE of some sky-god deciding to create this mess, make even one IOTA of common sense?
3) Your question is hardly "all you have to come up with". Its far more serious than that. Where did god come from? It always existed? What does that mean? You claim that the complexity of life DEMANDS a creator, well unfortunately you shoot yourself in the foot with this very same argument: If feeble little humans NEED a "designer", surely your "GOD" who is infinitely MORE complex, should of course, by logical extension, ITSELF require an even MORE complex designer? You cant have your cake and eat it too. If biological life is so complex that it requires some hypothetical designer, than ALL complexity within the universe requires a designer, including GOD. Now, where, prey tell, is gods designer?
Cellist: "With evolution, not only do you have to come up with the answer to "Where did the first living cell come from?" But you also have to answer that same question every step of the way with each new life form."
> Dead Wrong. Evolutionary theory makes no such claim. ALL carbon-based life on this planet SHARE THE SAME BASIC building blocks for life. We all use the same, identical biochemical reactions. Examining the phylogenetic tree reveals that there is gradual and OBVIOUS changes between forms over millions of years. The fossil record for homo sapiens is very nearly complete, with most of the transitional species having been identified. Not only do we have the ANATOMICAL and anthropological evidence for the evolution of the hominid form, we have reams of evidence for the CULTURAL evolution of humanity. To name a few, the Olduwai tools of Homo Erectus, the Mousterian traditions of the Neanderthals, the primitive stone tools created by Homo Habilis; all evidence pointing the gradual evolution of the human body and brain over millions of years. This does not even begin to describe our remarkable similarities, both in terms of genetics, behaviour and anatomy to our closest PRIMATE cousins, that still share the planet with us.
Cellist: "According to all the archaelogical and biology books I've ever read, the various life forms "appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record". Of course, they gloss that bit over with lots of speculation."
Very interesting. Please provide the citations and page numbers you refer to. What exactly is the "glossing over" and what exactly is the "speculation", can you provide us with your references and citations? The only explanation for such accounts would be 1) the book you are referring to was written by the Watchtower Society, or b) the book(s) you are referring to were written 40-50 years ago before the overwhelming appearance of new fossil evidence for TRANSITIONAL life forms. To name but a few, we now have a transitional life form between fish and land dwelling amphibious animals:
The transition from fish to amphibian illustrated by body form and skeletons, with details of skulls and vertebrae. (A) Osteolepiform fish Eusthenopteron; (B) panderichthyid fish Panderichthys; and (C) labyrinthodont amphibian Ichthyostega. (From Ahlberg & Milner [1994], reprinted with permission from Nature, copyright © 1994 Macmillan Magazines Limited, and from Per Ahlberg.)
And from reptiles to birds, SEE the following references for a small sampling of the evidence:
- Chen, P., Z. Dong and S. Zhen, 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391: 147-152.
- Chiappe, L. M., 2002. Osteology of the flightless Patagopteryx deferrariisi from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina). In Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 281-316.
- Chiappe, L. M. and L. M. Witmer (eds.), Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
- Chiappe, L. M., M. A. Norell and J. M. Clark, 2001. A new skull of Gobipteryx minuta (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert. American Museum Novitates 3346: 1-15. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-346-01-0001.pdf
-
uninformed
According to Richard Adams--"A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe,"
the ANSWER TO GOD, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IS SIMPLE--------------------------------42
Uninformed
