a reply to: andy06shake
OK then science or should that be some Scientists, the majority which is not actually the same thing as Science by the way.
So you believe whole heartedly in a system that goes against scientific principles such as the conservation of energy because evolution, especially
the idea of a protoplasmic soup starting to self replicate complex molecular form's and macro molecular form's and then deciding one day it's need's
to put on a cellular membrane so that it can hop out of the pool and go for a stroll - and of course learn to self replicate not only itself (nucleus)
but also all those friends it brought along with it the cytoblasts including the mitochondria, it goes against that principle of conservation so
entirely that it is like water flowing up a waterfall.
Now while that may not convince you that some element of design is probably at work there are a great many physicists whom have changed there opinion
on the whole is the universe the product of intelligence perspective.
Now I am not saying that religion is correct, I have my own religion and that is a personal believe in Christ but there are many religions right so
not all can be correct just as there are many theory's about the nature of the universe and not all of those can be correct.
But quantum science and theory - theory - does suggest a formative link between reality and consciousness, think about it like this your reality is a
product of your consciousness, without you your reality no longer exists.
We see the universe through an extremely limited set of senses, we can not see what we can not see, not hear what we can not hear and not feel or
touch what we can not feel or touch and yet ALL of us are so certain that we know our reality that we will argue different perspectives from our
limited set of data and claim those must be right when in fact for all you and I really know we could be simply sim characters in some super
intelligent aliens equivalent of a game boy that he is just playing absent minded on his way to school.
So my argument is not that I know better, I have my belief and for me that is a fundamental part of my reality and my reality is not superior nor
inferior to your reality in this respect but it is one reason why I have more respect for agnostics because to be frank they are the only really
scientific one's out there, they may try to understand but regard there lack of data as not proof against but lack of proof for either position so
take the admittedly flawed middle of the road approach but while flawed with such a limited set of data if taken from an empirical approach then there
view is actually the most scientific of the views.
As for evolution, it does happen but as for how it all got started there is the point to figure out that evolution does not have an answer for.
For all we know life could have been here from the very start of the universe itself, perhaps though I can not figure out a way to fit this into my
own theorem's about the big bang, pocket continuum and the nature of our time space and gravity but just perhaps life is older than the universe we
know and began in a former time space continuum though how it could have managed to transit from that to here is another argument that is frankly
beyond the scope of my own conjecture though I do believe that life exists in other and higher dimensions of reality, it may be all around us in
form's we simply do no recognize.
But I still can not see a way or agree with the argument that life began randomly from some primordial soup on an electrically charged early earth,
if it could do that then why did it not begin before that when the universe was young, warm and the thick with primordial gas that such life could
have swam in between the early stars feeding on the nutrient's created by the early super novae, space whales.
That is not my belief by the way space whales is just to make a point.
That said I personally do believe in the spirit or soul or both.
edit on 6-12-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)