Yes indeed. BUT maybe the soul is a special creation. But then maybe we are the Universe becoming aware of itself. Things to ponder.
BTS
Theists who have no issues with biological evolution - lame or not?
by nicolaou 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Mr. Majestic
You can’t prove that life came from inanimate matter
I think we will someday. We haven't completely figured out the process by which the simplest organisms resulted from the self-assembly of molecules--but I think that is what happened.
BTS
I admire your faith Burn but is this ‘proof’ going to be as good as all the other so called proof that science comes up with…?? If it is then you can just put it in the bullshit category subject to change when the theoretical dogma is proved untrue, and even then science will not concede defeat just like its religious counterparts.But really they have not 'proved' very much at all...
Don’t fall into the trap that something is proved just because someone else says that it is. Like I said, science has as much bullshit in it as religion does. Be careful not to be duped a second time my friend…
-
BurnTheShips
I admire your faith Burn but is this ‘proof’ going to be as good as all the other so called proof that science comes up with…??
I don't know. Look up my latest topic (which was spurred by your comments). If the process can be duplicated in a lab environment, and it is a plausible environment that could have existed somewhere, then it would explain how it would have happened. Besides, what is "proof" to you? I wasn't walking around 3 billion years ago seeing what was happening. Duplicating a likely scenario is the closest we will ever get to proof on this one I think.
Like I said, science has as much bullshit in it as religion does. Be careful not to be duped a second time my friend…
I think this is because of the human factor with its attendant flaws. But yeah, it takes a lot (or should) for me to "buy in".
BTS
-
drwtsn32
Every theory (pure guesses mostly, subject to huge change over the history of science) is ultimately flawed and fails when you follow the trail of logic to the obvious conclusion.
Wow... every theory? You can't be serious. Theories range in the level of certainty. I'll start with gravity since you mentioned it as "failing in the universal structure." Einstein's general theory of relativity perfectly explains how gravity works, except at the quantum level. Since we don't have a single proven theory (yet) that explains gravity at every level of the known universe, it's useless? That's absurd.
Now some theories are purely speculative and have no way to be tested. String theory is one such theory. It's actually a shame they call it a "theory"... technically it isn't since it does not yet make testable predictions. My point is that some theories are completely solid; others are not so much. You can't accurately make a broad generalization and say they are all bullshit.
You seem to think that the fact that scientific theories change is a weakness. It isn't. The only facts in science are observed data. Theories are never facts, and are always subject to change if new evidences are discovered. Newton had gravity pretty well figured out in his day. In fact his formulas are still quite valid for most "real world" situations we deal with. The only time his theory on gravity breaks down is when you start looking at super massive objects (like stars, planets). Also of course at the quantum level, which he knew nothing about. His theory was replaced by Einstein's more accurate theory, and Einstein's will be replaced if a single theory of gravity is ever established.
Was Newton full of shit? No. Were his theories on gravity useless? Hardly.
-
drwtsn32
But really they have not 'proved' very much at all.
Theories are never proven absolutely. They are always subject to change if new information is discovered. Remember that the purpose of a theory is to explain how a system works, and it takes into account all observed facts (data). Since it would never be possible to completely know the entire universe, there is always the possibility that some new, weird data is gathered that will require the theory to be modified.
Solid theories are backed by many different sources of data, and make predictions that can be confirmed by tests. These solid theories are very, very unlikely to be completely replaced with some radical new theory. If they are replaced by a new theory, the new theory will most likely be an extension of the older one.
The only theories I can think of that have been or are likely to be dismissed were highly speculative in the first place and had little to no evidence to back them up. Evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity...these theories are not weak.
-
Mr. Majestic
If the process can be duplicated in a lab environment, and it is a plausible environment that could have existed somewhere, then it would explain how it would have happened. Besides, what is "proof" to you? I wasn't walking around 3 billion years ago seeing what was happening. Duplicating a likely scenario is the closest we will ever get to proof on this one I think.
The obvious counter argument against anything that is created in a lab is that it was in fact ‘created’. There was no ‘chance’ involved in the equation but was fabricated by man, proving that life has to be created by something. I am not going to argue that point (because I really don’t buy into any creation belief that I have heard of either) because of the fact that there must be a chance somewhere in the vastness of space and time that could have brought about the circumstances that could have initiated the perfect conditions to bring about the first process of evolution, although I will say that I do have great problems with the theory of gradualism. So I would be very excited to hear of an experiment in which science could achieve the recreation of the first accident.
But overlooking all of the work that would go into such an experiment to make the first causation of life, the only true way to prove without doubt that it truly was the ‘first cause’ would then be to leave it on its own, without further assistance, and see if it would survive and evolve, and even then there would be questions to answer. It would obviously take millions of year to prove it without a doubt, but if this process started and died then the whole experiment would be called into question and the theory would be ultimately flawed.
So I really do hope that science can actually achieve the first part of the process of the abiogenesis hypothesis because then it would go a long way to prove if life happened by chance and subsequently brought about the process of evolution.
Thanks for the reference to you thread Burn. I will be sure to check that out….
Can someone explain to me how we now do a quote box please..
-
drwtsn32
The obvious counter argument against anything that is created in a lab is that it was in fact ‘created’.
I see why you might think that, but it's not hard to design an experiment that doesn't have any "intelligence" in the process. For example, it doesn't prove evolution when a scientist specifically moves or adds genes. But when a scientist develops a test where tens of thousands of generations of bacteria are observed, and those bacteria develop a new trait all on their own, well that is pretty damn good proof of evolution.
That being said, I don't think we will ever know exactly how everything came to be. Unless we develop a time machine of course.
BTW to do a quote box, highlight the text and click the "Styles" dropdown and select "quote".
-
BurnTheShips
The obvious counter argument against anything that is created in a lab is that it was in fact ‘created’.
I don't think this is a very good objection. In a lab I take water and put it in contact with salt: I get salt water. I look at the ocean and see salt water. It is reasonable to surmise that the salt water came into being when fresh water contacted salt deposits in the earth.
I believe everything was created by God, I just don't believe in special creation. Or at least I don't believe it for the vast majority of natural things.
BTS
-
Mr. Majestic
I don't think this is a very good objection.
I don’t see that it is a bad objection Burn. The conditions of the lab would have to be perfect to initiate this experiment in the first place. To find those factors in the universe with all of the elements for life to begin would be quite a task. In fact, even if you put a single cell experiment into the earths environment now, it would die, and you can’t get anymore of a perfect environment for life to thrive than the earth as it is.
The work involved to bring about the perfect conditions would be quite an undertaking, and the fact that they have not yet worked out how to recreate that first accident shows the odds of probability. If they were to recreate life, with all of the work that would be needed and the perfect environment that they would have to ‘create’, and then they turn around and claim that it ‘just happened by chance’ I think that a lot of people would see the flaw in that claim…??
This was the point I was making..
-
Mr. Majestic
Thanks for the tip drwtsn32. This is a much better system.
Would love to answer some of your points about gravity, but it would be totally off topic if I posted it here. But I would love to debate with you more over that subject.
But just to say that I brought up the topic of Gravity because most people think that gravitational theory is a proven, which you will know that there is no theory of gravity that works universally (not even close), therefore the current theory cannot claim to be ‘truth’, and my problem is that people think that it is a ‘proven’ theory and hold science in high esteem as they used to believe the bible really was the word of god….. People have way too much faith in these things…. The question is in 2000 years will any of the now ‘proven theories’ of science exist at all…??