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.
Originally posted by edmc^2
could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread551296
First of all let me clarify something so that there’s no confusion, as a Christian JW I’m not what you call a “creationist” for the following reasons:
1) Many creationists believe that the universe and the earth and all life on it were created in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago. This, however, is not what the Bible teaches.
2) Creationists have embraced many doctrines that lack support in the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religious teachings solely on God’s Word.
3) In some lands the term “creationist” is synonymous with Fundamentalist groups that actively engage in politics. These groups attempt to pressure politicians, judges, and educators into adopting laws and teachings that conform to the creationists’ religious code. Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses are politically neutral. They respect the right of governments to make and enforce laws. (Romans 13:1-7) However, they take seriously Jesus’ statement that they are “no part of the world.” (John 17:14-16) In their public ministry, they offer people the chance to learn the benefits of living by God’s standards. But they do not violate their Christian neutrality by supporting the efforts of Fundamentalist groups that try to establish civil laws that would force others to adopt Bible standards. Taken from: Are JW's creationist? www.watchtower.org...
Now back to what you said “there is no such thing as "random"… “life could not arise from "mere chance" - Are you admitting then that life came not by accident but by design?
You also said “The universe follows a definable set of patterns and laws”. I totally AGREE! But was this law always existed to govern the ‘patterns” of the universe or did it came by accident since ““there is no such thing as "random"… “ as you put it. How could this happen? Will you please share your knowledge and enlighten me?
In the meantime let me tell you what I learned and came to know from my study/research: that the obvious is the ONLY answer, that it was put in place by someone who knew the laws of the universe. If we use simple good logic I’m sure you will agree with me that
LAW REQUIRES A LAWMAKER.
This is not just based on mere belief or 'faith' but based on scientific observation and study. Being a person of science I’m sure you are aware that the entire universe, from atoms to galaxies, is governed by definite physical laws. There are laws for governing heat, light, sound and gravity, for example. As physicist Stephen W. Hawking said:
“The more we examine the universe, we find it is not arbitrary at all but obeys certain well-defined laws that operate in different areas. It seems very reasonable to suppose that there may be some unifying principles, so that all laws are part of some bigger law.”
Do you think Dr. Hawking is wrong?
Again simple logic:
When we think of laws, we acknowledge that they came from a lawmaking entity. A traffic sign that says “Stop” certainly has behind it some person or group of persons who originated the law. What, then, about the comprehensive laws that govern the material universe? Such brilliantly conceived laws surely bear witness to a supremely intelligent lawmaker. Don’t you agree? I hope so.
[edit on 19-3-2010 by edmc^2]
i'm still waiting
Easy. Here's an experiment you can do at home!
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2] -william L. rowe
Taken logically, any creator who would design this stuff is pretty bad at what he does, and can't be called "brilliant" if one of his creations (the one with the loop-de-loop balls and backwards retinas and a tendency towards baldness) can call him out on the design flaws.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread551296
Those are young-earth creationists. You can be (and apparently you are) a creationist without being one of these guys.
Of course they do. So does every other denomination. So does every other religion. If you're trying to impress me, it's not working.
Do you believe that god created the universe? Then you're a creationist. Your denomination doesn't figure into it.
No, I'm telling you that it is not an either-or argument. The absence of randomness does not immediately mean the presence of a designer. If I put vinegar and baking soda together, it will always foam. Always. it's predictable. It will never explode, it will never turn to ice, and it will never start singing hte howdy-doody theme song. This does not mean that it is designed, or that the guiding hand of a deity or spirits or angels or devas or demons or the ghost of Carl Sagan is making it happen. It's simply how acids and bases react.
The same logic applies to other chemical and physical reactions; given the same substances and conditions, a reaction will always get the same results.
The absence of randomness does not immediately mean the presence of a designer.
Regrettably, physics and chemistry aren't my strong suits. My knowledge of them is peripheral and mostly restricted to practical applications and their effects in biology.
It would seem that the physical laws of the universe have been in existence across the whole universe since the moment it started.
Nice try. Unfortunately the use of the same word does not infer an identical meaning. It’s sort of like that other science word that throws creationists, "theory". All a scientific law is a universal constant. For instance, 1 + 1 = 2 is a law. No matter where you go in the universe, one and one always equal two.
Are you going to tell me that one plus one doesn't equal three because a diety has declared it so?
….Do you think Dr. Hawking is wrong?
Nope, I don't think he's wrong. I think you're taking his statement and trying to turn it into advocacy for some omnipotent all-knowing supernatural jewish sky-spirit with a thing about foreskins.
Do you disagree that if you proposed your idea to Mr. Hawking, that he would likely laugh at you? I imagine it in my head as "Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Hee. Hee. Ho. Ha."
...Little Hawking humor there.
What he is saying is that there is some conjunctive law between the observable laws of the universe. This is, in short, the "theory of everything." I assure you, "god" is not the answer - ir, on the wild off chance it is, I'd be pretty certain it's not any sort of god you've ever conceived up, much less given worship to.
Again simple logic:
….? Such brilliantly conceived laws surely bear witness to a supremely intelligent lawmaker. Don’t you agree? I hope so.
[edit on 19-3-2010 by edmc^2]
What makes you think they're "brilliant" exactly? it's entirely possible that our universe's laws are like the bargian-bin scraping bootleg laugh track version of the laws that all the other, cooler universes got. we'd never know, but it's wholly possible.
Taking this logic of yours back to biology, I often hear claims of how life MUST be designed because of how "perfect" it is. Sorry, from an engineering standpoint, most life forms are pretty terrible.
Do you defecate? I'm going to assume you do, I hope you don't mind. Do you know how much food gets wasted in our digestive system? we are terrible at getting the most energy out of our meals; herbivores like horses or rabbits are even worse! it takes nearly as much energy for a horse to digest a meal as that meal would provide! This is why working and race horses are fed grains and vitamins and supplements and all this other stuff to give them extra energy for the labor they perform; otherwise they'd starve to death no matter how much they ate.
is that magnificent design? I'd say it's not.
Now let's look at the giraffe's neck. Inside there's a nerve that connects the giraffe's larynx to its brain via the spinal cord. You or I, were we designing a giraffe, would attach this nerve to the rear of the larynx, and plug it into the spinal cord right there in the neck. It's rather intuitive, don't you think? Instead, this nerve attaches to the front of the larynx, travels down the entire length of the neck into the chest, loops under the aorta, then curves back up into the neck, where it joins the spinal cord somewhere just above the shoulders. This same nerve follows the same configuration in every chordate, from fish to humans - giraffes, due to their long necks, just make a better illustrative example.
Another example in mammals are testicles. When you're born, your testicles are high in your abdomen, and descend afterwards. In so doing, they loop over your kidneys. The "tubes" that connect the testicles to the rest of the, ah, apparatus, travel up into your abdomen, around your kidneys, and back down. Same problem with the giraffe's larynx, it's just counter-intuitive.
Taken logically, any creator who would design this stuff is pretty bad at what he does, and can't be called "brilliant" if one of his creations (the one with the loop-de-loop balls and backwards retinas and a tendency towards baldness) can call him out on the design flaws.
post to defend my beliefs
You shouldn't" have to post" to defend your beliefs. Even if someone posts something offensive. if your belief is solid enough it shouldn't even phase
you or what you believe. That's one thing I've learned from ATS. Nobody
here can cause me to react. People offend to draw you out. Timing is
everything.
is there some doubt you have? sorry to bring that up man but heres a dancing bannana for your troubles