It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution disproves God? Not at all.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
"A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Francis Bacon

Many times I've heard the argument that evolution disproves the existence of God; or conversely that a belief in God as the creator of the universe negates the possibility of evolution. In my opinion, these arguments are irrational. As you can probably tell from the quote above, I believe that God exists, but I also believe in evolution. If you believe something else that's fine, but I want to attempt to show that God and evolution are not diametrically opposed ideas.

Imagine the universe as a big clock. The hands of the clock are the everyday phenomena that we observe. For a long time the movement of the hands was explained by saying, "God makes them move." Eventually people discovered the gears of the clock and realized that these were causing the hands to move. This led many people to say, "We've discovered the direct cause of the hands' movement and it's not God, so therefore God doesn't exist."

This reasoning assumes that the discovery of a clock's construction and workings disproves the existence of a watchmaker. It is simply not sufficient to disprove the existence of God. In fact, there must be a force behind the gears (battery, winding the clock, solar power) which causes them to move which in turn causes the hands to move. (This is my little plug for the existence of God).

Personally, I see nature itself as proof of God. Without a driving force, why would anything exist, why would evolution take place, where did the physical laws governing the universe come from? I'm sorry, it's hard for me to relate this concept in words, but if you spend some time pondering reality and existence maybe you'll get what I'm rambling about.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents for the existence of God. The thing is though, science does not prove or disprove the existence of God because it deals primarily with the question of "how?". For example, how was the earth made, how do bats navigate, how are hurricanes formed? Science is a useful tool to explain how the universe works, but science as we know it does not explain "why" things happen. We attempt to answer the question of "why" with philosophy and religion. This idea was stated more clearly in Will Durant's The Story Of Philosophy:


Science is analytical description, philosophy is synthetic interpretation. Science wishes to resolve the whole into parts, the organism into organs, the obscure into the known. It does not inquire into final values and ideal possibilities of things, nor into their total and final significance; it is content to show their present actuality and operation, it narrows its gaze resolutely to the nature and process of things as they are.


Because of this, I contend that God cannot be rationally proven or disproven by scientific methods. What say you?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Rock Lobster]




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
Because of this, I contend that God cannot be rationally proven or disproven by scientific methods. What say you?

I think that most would tend to agree with you on this issue specifically. I believe that consensus opinion probably pretty much believes that God can't be proven scientifically. It seems like I spend most of my time in this forum pointing out that God is outside the realm of science and ID.

However, none of this stops people from using science to try to undermine belief in God.
Dawkins, Wes Ellsberry, and PZ Myers though would like fall into the class of fundamentalist atheists that are guilty of this. That is they feel that science has, and will continue to supplant God in peoples lives. To a certain extent, I feel this type of sentiment breeds exactly the opposite of what these guys are going for: fundamentalist relgious perspective. These types of attitudes pit science and religion against one another. With Richard Dawkins and Kent Hovind around, this issue is not likely to die down in the near future.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I myself have spent much time pondering such ideas. I am a Christian, but I have many questions concerning my faith and gaps in my understanding of theology which I have been searching to fill. I have met many athiests and this is how they would respond to you:

First they would say that God is an unnecessary force to apply to evolution citing Ockham's Razor. If evolution can work soley using the process of natural selection by means of sligh genetic change, then why is it necessary to add God into the equation.

Secondly they would attribute our existence to random chance. Saying that our universe seems perfect for our life only because we are here to observe it. If the universe had turned out differently, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

Now I think the latter arguement to be a bit weak because they blame the universe's order and ability to produce life on a stroke of luck by unknown means. But the first arguement still gives me a head ache. If it ever could be proven that life could originate without the need for an intelligent creator, then this arguement would discredit very badly the idea of a personal creator who created humanity "in His own image." Rather it would point more towards a distant, deistic God if there were to be a God at all.

My approach which I have used in the past is that the evidence of a God need not be found having philosophical debates of the very distant past, but by looking at the evidence at hand in the modern and historical world. For instance, if there really exist or existed prophets who could speak with God or perform miracles, than that is sufficient to point toward the existence of God. If the Near Death Experience phenomena is an actual reality and not just the actions of a dying brain, than that is proof that an afterlife exists. If ghosts are real and not just figments of imagination, than this indeed prove the existence of a soul.

What do you think?



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I'm with you on this one, Rock. I feel like I'm between two side in a war, with shells whirring overhead. I suffer the fallout, when politicians grabbed for votes by catering to a religious voting block.

Matt, I like the term "fundamentalist atheists" for scientists who don't have a belief in God.

Evolution goes against a literal interpretation of the Bible, hence it's dislike among those who take the Bible literally. Not taking the Bible literally is tantamount to not believing in God. This not believing in the Word of God means all Hell will break loose.

Neither side in this holy war, religious fundamentalist nor scientific atheist fundamentalist, can ever convince the other.
A scientific atheist would laugh at me for enjoying both science and spirit. A religious fundamentalist would pray for me for not taking the Bible literally.

So what do I do? I stick to my beliefs and enjoy the wonders of both God and this Universe in which I live.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by desert]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
...I have met many athiests and this is how they would respond to you:

...If evolution can work soley using the process of natural selection by means of sligh genetic change, then why is it necessary to add God into the equation.

Secondly they would attribute our existence to random chance. Saying that our universe seems perfect for our life only because we are here to observe it. If the universe had turned out differently, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

Now I think the latter arguement to be a bit weak because they blame the universe's order and ability to produce life on a stroke of luck by unknown means. But the first arguement still gives me a head ache. If it ever could be proven that life could originate without the need for an intelligent creator, then this arguement would discredit very badly the idea of a personal creator who created humanity "in His own image." Rather it would point more towards a distant, deistic God if there were to be a God at all.


Captain,

I think both arguments are very strong, but that they don't necessarily lead to a conclusion about the existence of a Creator.

The idea that life could arise on it's own, given the right conditions, is on the absolute verge of being proven, IMO. Amino acids were "created" in the laboratory in the sixties, after all, and self replicating molecules and classes of self-assembling collections of molecules are already well known. The only real problem delaying the scientific creation of life itself, as I see it anyway, is that we don't really know what conditions are "necessary." Meaning that we are unaware of exactly what conditions under which life on Earth first arose. Additionally, and as a corollary, we don't know how long it took. I mean, a few millenia of self-replication and self-assembly might be an absolute requirement. Who will run an experiment for that long?

The second argument is absolutely valid, and to my mind is more evidence for a Creator than against one. The initial conditions of the newborn universe at the very instant of the Big Bang have among them certain quantities for which we can find no basic rationale. These handful of quantities could as easily have been far differently "set" than we today measure them. If there is a Creator, then the possibility of intentional adjustment of these quantities must come into the argument. In my opinion, the argument can be made that life, and thus Man, was actually created at the instant of the Big Bang - owing to the inexorable procession of cause and effect from that point forward.
The same argument ties in nicely with the idea of a universe teeming with life, though not necessarily intelligent life.


Originally posted by CaptainKirkMy approach which I have used in the past is that the evidence of a God need not be found having philosophical debates of the very distant past, but by looking at the evidence at hand in the modern and historical world. For instance, if there really exist or existed prophets who could speak with God or perform miracles, than that is sufficient to point toward the existence of God. If the Near Death Experience phenomena is an actual reality and not just the actions of a dying brain, than that is proof that an afterlife exists. If ghosts are real and not just figments of imagination, than this indeed prove the existence of a soul.

It is my opinion that there will never, ever be found or deduced any evidence for the existence of any Creator. There are, to my mind, two excellent reasons for this. The first is the trivial reason, and that is that no Creator exists. We cannot exclude the possibility, after all.

The second reason assumes the existence if a Ctreator. Motivation for the creation must be considered in this scenario. If we take what we are told about our Creator and his reasons for creating as at least somewhat correct, and remember, weare assuming we were created for a reason here, and that as you say there have been real prophets, miracles, etc., then I think that the Creator, as we have been told, wants us to love him. But where there is no free will, there can be no love. If the Creator wants us to truly love him, then we must be free to choose not to love him. Now, if we were to actually prove the existence of the Creator, what impact would this realization have on our freedom to so choose? If proof of God is in your face, how would you choose not to love him? Sure, some probably still would so choose, but what of the vast numbers of people that, if no evidence for God were discovered, would have chosen not to believe? Have they not been influenced by the evidence for the Creator that we are supposing here? And would not this influencing of their feelings not be tantamount to undercutting their freedom to choose for themselves whether to love the Creator or to turn away?

Evidence for God's existence cannot be found, in other words, without utterly undermining Man's free will to choose to love or not to love God. If the Creator actually wants Man's love, then the sort of love for God that such evidence would result in would not be sufficient. For if it were, then why maintain the physical plane at all? The Creator could just create a bunch of eternal souls to sit around Him, forever basking in His glory, and not have to go to the trouble of letting us decide for ourselves.

Harte



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I don't doubt that there is evolution. I just don't think that human's came from monkeys because scientists have never found the missing fossil that connects us to monkeys. Maybe someone or something put us here on earth? If humans live on earth for thousands of years shouldn't there be a abundant of fossils that link us to monkeys? Why is there an abundant of fossils that link mokeys to apes? What about monkeys to human? Not a single fossil found. Maybe ETs put us here for an experiment or maybe God created us. Who knows. It really makes me wonder.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tayzer
I don't doubt that there is evolution. I just don't think that human's came from monkeys because scientists have never found the missing fossil that connects us to monkeys. Maybe someone or something put us here on earth? If humans live on earth for thousands of years shouldn't there be a abundant of fossils that link us to monkeys? Why is there an abundant of fossils that link mokeys to apes? What about monkeys to human? Not a single fossil found. Maybe ETs put us here for an experiment or maybe God created us. Who knows. It really makes me wonder.


There are an abundance of fossils linking us to monkeys. All you need is a little research.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tayzer
I don't doubt that there is evolution. I just don't think that human's came from monkeys because scientists have never found the missing fossil that connects us to monkeys. Maybe someone or something put us here on earth? If humans live on earth for thousands of years shouldn't there be a abundant of fossils that link us to monkeys? Why is there an abundant of fossils that link mokeys to apes? What about monkeys to human? Not a single fossil found. Maybe ETs put us here for an experiment or maybe God created us. Who knows. It really makes me wonder.


You're correct, as far as it goes. There is one problem with your reasoning, however, and it is that scientists do not contend that "humans came from monkeys."

The contention is that, if you go far enough back, humans and monkeys have a common ancestor.

There is no "abundance of fossils" connnecting monkeys to apes. The idea is well accepted because humans aren't involved in it. By that I mean that there is no "interest group" (Primate Creationists) out there trying to claim that apes and monkeys are not related, so the argument is not made. Presumably this is because neither apes nor monkeys hold the belief that they were created in God's image, so they have no complaint about what their human cousins might say about their origins.

Fossilized remains of intelligent animals are hard to come by. Typical "abundant" fossils consist of species that either traveled in huge packs or species which existed for a long time period (humans have been here only about 250,000 years, Homo only a few million) and maintained a fairly large population (never the case for any species of Homo.) Neither is true of hominids, apparently. No doubt the number of extinct species that remain undiscovered (and I mean species of any kind) far outnumber the number of extinct species that have been discovered through fossil finds.

The entirety of the fossil evidence of Man's lineage, it has been said, could fit into the back of a pickup truck. But remember, this is also (mostly) the fossil evidence for the lineage of the apes, monkeys, etc.

Harte



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Wow, interesting posts from everyone!

Harte - I really liked your point about absolute evidence of God cancelling out free will. That didn't enter my mind when I made the initial post, but it makes a lot of sense.

desert - It's always nice to hear from someone with similar views. Nice post.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by Rock Lobster]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
Wow, interesting posts from everyone!

Harte - I really liked your point about absolute evidence of God cancelling out free will. That didn't enter my mind when I made the initial post, but it makes a lot of sense.


Thank you Rock, but I can't take full credit. It comes from cogitating on thoughts I first found expressed decades ago in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson.

Donaldson's most excellent fantasy concerning the otherworldly adventures of possibly the best antihero in modern literature describe an "Arch of Time" that would be "broken" if the Creator of the other world (in which Covenant finds himself) were to involve himself in the affairs of his creation.

The Creator has no choice but to arrange for Covenant to be called to this other universe from our own in order to use him as his tool, which is a very questionable end run around the Arch of Time, and one which still leaves the Creator practically helpless to influence even the actions of Covenant there (but not here.) Makes the Creator extremely careful to choose correctly his tool!

Never let anyone tell you that some work of literature is "just an escapist fantasy." Sometimes it is, but certainly not in Donaldson's trilogy (which was followed by a second trilogy and soon to be followed by a third.)

Harte



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
i always find it odd that people put rules and characteristics on the God concept after claiming its omnipotence. if God is omnipotent than literally it is ANYTHING. anything you can create in your head and more. that also means that an omnipotent God can be nothing as well.it can be in any state, non-state or even multiple or infinate states. saying that, that means God can possibly be perceived or imperceivable at the same time! as stated before, we can figure out all the mechanics of the universe and still not be able to understand God. after everything has been discovered and understood there will always be the final "why?" or "what's the point?".

maybe the fact that we have a concept of god at all is all you need to know and its useless or pointless to try and figure out "why?". maybe the fact that we can question why we are "here" at all or that we have the ability to question anything itself is the evidence of god? maybe thats what is meant by "faith"?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Nice points homeskillet. I admit that the nature of God is WAY beyond my comprehension, but I believe that God exists . . . whatever that means.
I think the fact that virtually every society in history has had some concept of God or gods is very interesting. For some reason, the idea of God has pervaded mankind's psyche throughout history. Does this prove that God exists? Not necessarily. I think it's compelling evidence for something beyond our immediate perception, but whatever the reason it's an interesting thing to ponder.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
Personally, I see nature itself as proof of God. Without a driving force, why would anything exist, why would evolution take place, where did the physical laws governing the universe come from? I'm sorry, it's hard for me to relate this concept in words, but if you spend some time pondering reality and existence maybe you'll get what I'm rambling about.
Because of this, I contend that God cannot be rationally proven or disproven by scientific methods. What say you?
[edit on 25-8-2006 by Rock Lobster]
Firstly nature does not constitute proof of a god (which one we talking here - Jehovah????). Secondly while I understand your ramblings they are wrong - There doesn't need to be a god for all this to work!!
I agree that god cannot be proven/disproven using the scientific method however that still doesn't mean that god exists, thats why you need faith. FAITH is the belief in something for which there is no proof, While logic and reasoning would give rise to the unbelief in a deity.

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
For instance, if there really exist or existed prophets who could speak with God or perform miracles, than that is sufficient to point toward the existence of God. If the Near Death Experience phenomena is an actual reality and not just the actions of a dying brain, than that is proof that an afterlife exists. If ghosts are real and not just figments of imagination, than this indeed prove the existence of a soul.

What do you think?
I agree these points would indeed offer proof but in the past 100,000 years has any of these points actually been proven??? The answer is NO.


G



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Firstly nature does not constitute proof of a god (which one we talking here - Jehovah????).

I'm not specifying any specific conception of God, just God (Divine Power, Underlying Force, whatever you want to call it).



Secondly while I understand your ramblings they are wrong - There doesn't need to be a god for all this to work!!

The point I was trying to make was kind of obscure so I'll try to restate it. Say someone believes there's no God. When asked about the origin of the universe, life, etc. they would probably say something along the lines of "the big bang started everything in motion, then eventually our solar system formed following the laws of gravity etc. then amino acids combined, single celled organisms were formed, they evolved etc. etc." My point was why did any of this happen? What was the impetus for anything to evolve into anything else?



I agree that god cannot be proven/disproven using the scientific method however that still doesn't mean that god exists, thats why you need faith. FAITH is the belief in something for which there is no proof, While logic and reasoning would give rise to the unbelief in a deity.


Yes, that was basically the point of my first post. I disagree somewhat with the assertion that logic and reasoning would give rise to the unbelief in a deity. Logic and reasoning can give insight into how things work, but as far as underlying causes it's basically anyone's guess. In my opinion, logic and reasoning alone ultimately show that the existence of God is unknowable/ not provable.

The weird thing is if there's no God, why are we sitting around talking about this concept? I got the feeling from your post that you're an atheist (if not I'm sorry for assuming so). If you are though, why do you think the concept of "God" has been in the human psyche as far back as we can tell. I would be interested to hear your opinion.


[edit on 6-9-2006 by Rock Lobster]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Lobster

Originally posted by shihulud
Firstly nature does not constitute proof of a god (which one we talking here - Jehovah????).

I'm not specifying any specific conception of God, just God (Divine Power, Underlying Force, whatever you want to call it).

I understand where your at, however as the concepts of god are highly varied then I think a description of the Deity is needed. I.e I am more inclined to assume that a 'god' can be an energy source but with no influence or divinity, no ID etc




Secondly while I understand your ramblings they are wrong - There doesn't need to be a god for all this to work!!

The point I was trying to make was kind of obscure so I'll try to restate it. Say someone believes there's no God. When asked about the origin of the universe, life, etc. they would probably say something along the lines of "the big bang started everything in motion, then eventually our solar system formed following the laws of gravity etc. then amino acids combined, single celled organisms were formed, they evolved etc. etc." My point was why did any of this happen? What was the impetus for anything to evolve into anything else?

Why does there have to BE a reason? Why cant things happen just because they DO? There might be some 'underlying force' that takes 500 billion years to take effect or even 10000 billion years.




I agree that god cannot be proven/disproven using the scientific method however that still doesn't mean that god exists, thats why you need faith. FAITH is the belief in something for which there is no proof, While logic and reasoning would give rise to the unbelief in a deity.


Yes, that was basically the point of my first post. I disagree somewhat with the assertion that logic and reasoning would give rise to the unbelief in a deity. Logic and reasoning can give insight into how things work, but as far as underlying causes it's basically anyone's guess. In my opinion, logic and reasoning alone ultimately show that the existence of God is unknowable/ not provable.

The weird thing is if there's no God, why are we sitting around talking about this concept? I got the feeling from your post that you're an atheist (if not I'm sorry for assuming so). If you are though, why do you think the concept of "God" has been in the human psyche as far back as we can tell. I would be interested to hear your opinion.



[edit on 6-9-2006 by Rock Lobster]
Yes quite correct in the assumption of me and Athiesm and in the fact that god is unprovable (although I wouldnt use the word unknowable - that is still based on the assumption that there is a god). However in my experience and studies I have concluded that certain deities/god cannot exist.
On the concept of gods and the human psyche I will explain my thoughts later as I am at work at the moment and it will take a bit of thought and preparation.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainKirk

Originally posted by tayzer
I don't doubt that there is evolution. I just don't think that human's came from monkeys because scientists have never found the missing fossil that connects us to monkeys. Maybe someone or something put us here on earth? If humans live on earth for thousands of years shouldn't there be a abundant of fossils that link us to monkeys? Why is there an abundant of fossils that link mokeys to apes? What about monkeys to human? Not a single fossil found. Maybe ETs put us here for an experiment or maybe God created us. Who knows. It really makes me wonder.


There are an abundance of fossils linking us to monkeys. All you need is a little research.


Hi Captain/
Actually, there are not an abundance of fossils linking us to monkey!
Only an abundance of monkey fossils linking them to monkeys!
There has been evidence to say that all collections of 'fossils' used for the 'evolution theory' of linking man to monkey are not as true as one thinks so.
eg/
The "Piltdown Man," is known to have been a deliberate fraud and a great one at that!
What is even more terrible, is that all this was done with the intention to deceive .....
just do a 'search'.......
Also do a search on
''Teilhard de Chardin''......this character has some explaining to do above!

Now, does believing in evolution contradict with the teachings in the Bible?
No.
God Created all good.
After the fall........................Adam
(which actually means,'first created man')......and Eve fell in the garden of Eden......nature changed.
Since man entered into 'SIN'(missing the target)all within the earth was also subject to SIN.........including all animals and nature.....
Read ............(Rom.8:19-21).......Man and animals were hold to bondage till a Saviour would free them.
.....
helen





www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
The weird thing is if there's no God, why are we sitting around talking about this concept? I got the feeling from your post that you're an atheist (if not I'm sorry for assuming so). If you are though, why do you think the concept of "God" has been in the human psyche as far back as we can tell. I would be interested to hear your opinion.

Here is the short answer:
In my opinion the concept of "God" is a relatively new concept due to the fact that monotheism is a relatively new concept (in the context of human existance). For many years before (and after) the concept was of polytheism. In most, if not all, of these polytheistic and monotheistic religions a sacrifice is given to a deity. A sacrifice is usually of something valuable to appease an angry god or to give thanks to a god for perceived benevolance (although giving thanks is a later concept).

This sacrificing shows that the people were afraid of the appropriate deity enough to give up which they held precious which in some cultures was human life. Fear is a basic emotion that affects us all but combined with a mind that cannot comprehend the world around it then fear gives rise to a perceived higher power that controls that unknown world.

The first 'gods' probably appeared when man was a hunter gatherer living in small family sized units, these gods would be basic good luck charms. However once man started settling in larger numbers and started agriculture then the preconceived old gods changed into newer gods with added powers i.e moon and sun gods. As man gains more knowledge of the world around him the gods become more advanced and more powerful until a whole religious way of life can be based around these deities. A logical progression then comes from deities to a main deity or 'God' as people then find that most of the gods they worshipped do nothing when they sacrifice to them a prominent deity comes to the forefront (as is whats likely with the Hebrews). The added bonus of spirituality most likely comes from use of psychoactive plants that distort reality and give rise to a 'godlike' experience.

The combination of all these things and others is probably why the concept of god is so ingrained in cultures.



G



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Harte said....


The idea that life could arise on it's own, given the right conditions, is on the absolute verge of being proven, IMO. Amino acids were "created" in the laboratory in the sixties, after all, and self replicating molecules and classes of self-assembling collections of molecules are already well known. The only real problem delaying the scientific creation of life itself, as I see it anyway, is that we don't really know what conditions are "necessary." Meaning that we are unaware of exactly what conditions under which life on Earth first arose. Additionally, and as a corollary, we don't know how long it took. I mean, a few millenia of self-replication and self-assembly might be an absolute requirement. Who will run an experiment for that long?


As a matter of interest....




Design of Proteins

Scientists have been attempting to be able to determine a protein's native conformation (or folding) by examining the amino acid sequence. Despite years of study, the ability to do this using even the fastest computers is beyond our reach. For example, for a typical 100 amino acid protein (moderate to small in size) could exist in any of 3200 possible backbone configurations. Using a super fast computer (1012 computations/sec) it would take 1080 seconds, which exceed the age of the universe by a factor of 60 orders of magnitude! This fact alone may give you a better perspective on the mind of God.
IBM is now making a new supercomputer to attempt to address the protein folding problem. A $100 million research initiative will build a supercomputer 500 times more powerful than the current record holder and be able to process 1015 computations/sec. Dubbed "Blue Gene," the computer will include over 1 million processors, each capable of 1 billion operations per second. Using special estimation techniques, the computer may be able to solve the protein folding of a small protein in about a year. However, at the end of that time, researchers may discover that it didn't work. If the estimations are not close enough to actual conformations, the folding may be incorrect. Calculating the exact folding of all positions would require 1077 seconds, only 57 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe. This is what we in research call a long-term project!

Service, R.F. 1999. Big Blue Aims to Crack Protein Riddle. Science 286: 2250
Berendsen, H.J.C. 1998. Perspectives: Protein Folding. A Glimpse of the Holy Grail? Science 282: 642-643.


Source..
www.godandscience.org...

[edit on 22-9-2006 by qrios]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I would claim that it is an atheistic argument. For me at least.

I'll take the neanderthal argument, there is a caveman who has just finished making tools, and he looks up and asks, "Who made all of this then? Well, since I'm the only one I know who makes things the person who made the world must be like me, except much more talented, powerful and larger, and since I don't see him around, he must be invisible".
Then he thinks, "Well, why did they make the world?" and he looks at the caves that are good for shelter, and the stream for drinking, and the forest for hunting and fruit, and the animals for meat and pelts and thinks, "This world seems pretty suited for me, so he must have made it for me".

Of course the problem with this thinking is that the world isn't suited for or designed for the caveman, by evolution he has adapted to his environment, the climate and the foods. You could drop humans onto some of the most inhospitable areas of the world, and under evolution they would adapt so that they think the world would suit them. The evolution of humanity is like water in a container, it changes shape according to the shape of the container it is in.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Another point that made me into an atheist is about tribes. There was a professor in a university who was fascinatd by the differences and similarities between different tribes all over the world; their customs, religion, technology and culture.

He actually made a compendium that cross-references around 33,000 tribes by certain characteristics. For example, tribes play games of chance unles they work with leather (which requires skill) at which point they also develop games of skill.

This research caused him to split the tribes into two categories: Rainforest people and Desert People.
Rainforest people beleive in many gods, since there are many resources, one for fruit, one for animals, one for trees, and they don't believe god is interventionist, if a creature gets away there will be another one nearby.
Since desert ecosystems are a lot less dense, desert people tend to believe that gos is interventionist, as a miss of a spear could mean life or death, and they believe in one God since the environment is scarce and inhospitable.

There are many other changes as well, desert people are warlike, having to fight for rescources with other tribes, whereas rainforest people have enough for everyone.
Desert people repress women, the man usually planning the next raid or huint, whilst she raises children, whereas rainforest people don't.

The thing is, we are all Desert People. Jew, Christian, Muslim. All of us, the desert person profile has been incredibly hardy over the centuries, and we succeeded because we are more violent than those around us. Thus the world we live in is an imperfect violent, repressive world as opposed to a more utopian Rainforest civilisation.

What is the point of this?

Well it shows that religion and many of it's beliefs are responses to climate and geography, and coupled with my Neanderthal Argument above, which shows that we evolve to fit into our climate and geography, proves that evolution is responsible for our religion. The birth of Allah, or just God is based on where our race came from, the beliefs outlined in the Torah, Qu'ran or Bible are pictures of what our society and culture were like, which were also defined by our evolution to our environment and geography.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join