Science vs Religion - Page 21

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-17, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Not sure if trolling.

The entire premise of the "god must have created life because life is too complicated to have just happened" argument hinges on the idea that creating life doesn't just take intelligence. It takes a supreme intelligence that could also create a universe, suspend natural laws when necessary, and understand a cosmic truth.

We did it in a laboratory in (if I'm not mistaken) Rhode Island. Or was it New Jersey?

I'll tell you what it isn't: a miracle. It's not even that impressive. It didn't even make front page news. I expect most people won't be impressed until we invent from scratch some kind of 'cool' animal, like a dragon.

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe that we're aware of. Each galaxy possesses, on average, about a trillion stars. Even within our own galaxy, we've observed, with our primitive technology, numerous planets that exist within "goldilocks" zones capable of supporting life.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are one thousand planets per galaxy capable of supporting life. Considering how many we've already found, and considering that galaxies have trillions of stars, that's probably a significantly under-representative figure, but I don't need it to be bigger to make my point.

So a hundred billion galaxies each with a thousand life supporting planets. That's a trillion planets. Let's say the average age of these planets is, oh, five billion years, to again take a lowball estimation.

DNA would have to synthesize only once out of all of those for us to be having this conversation. DNA synthesizes by (again, simplifying considerably) combining certain chemical compounds in just the right mixture and applying energy in just the right amounts. Nothing needs to be invented. All the raw materials are there, they just need the right conditions.

Let's say that the necessary compounds exist on ONE THIRD of the possible planets. That's three hundred and thirty three billion. Now let's say that the chemicals shift around or mix up or get struck my lightning or whatever on average once per year. That gives us 1,665,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances.

That's a big number. A sextillion if I'm not mistaken. (Tee hee. Sextillion.)

The actual number of chances is much higher.

Given that, since the discovery of DNA structure, it took us about fifty (50) years to create it on our own, with our meager technology, it seems fairly likely to me that it would happen. At least once.

And it did! Here we are talking about it.

Now I could be mistaken. My math is probably atrocious, my reasoning flawed. But I can tell you one thing. Having that explained to me by somebody who does understand the nitty gritty science of it is a lot more engaging than being told a magical monkey man living in the sky did it, and by the way he hates gays and is super interested in your life. Your tiny, tiny, short, cosmically meaningless life.

Thinking such a being would give a shit about you or any of us; thinking that the planet was put here for us to enjoy it; thinking that we hold some special supernatural significance in the universe; thinking that such an entity would even LOOK like us or care about what we ate or what our sexual habits were... that's arrogance.

And believing the entity is there at all is delusional.

You do understand though that the chances of RANDOM chemicals in a primordial soup mixing together to form a perfect strand of DNA is almost mathematically impossible right?

Many Many Many biologists have stated so. They agree that it had to have intelligent help from something. Aliens, God, whatever.

And in the end, I don't know why anyone wants to argue this shit? Who cares if you don't believe in God? I certainly don't.

And why should anyone care if I do? How is it affecting you in any way shape or form?

What I see here from a lot of people is "Stop liking what I don't like."

And a shitload of grand posturing.

Life is too short to argue the small stuff, because the FACT of the matter is...no one really knows yet. You have ideas and theories and faiths and beliefs...but no one knows.

This argument and debate is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

Figment · 2012-04-17, 01:24 PM

Wildguns, they don't agree an inteligence was needed. CHRISTIAN biologists and all MIGHT say it took intelligence, but in fact, most of them don't even say that.

And even IF they would say that, where did the aliens come from?

Where did the god come from?

If it takes a superintelligence to create a lifeform, then what kind of intelligence does it take to create a god with omnipotent power to create lifeforms and universes?

MadPenguin · 2012-04-17, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

And in the end, I don't know why anyone wants to argue this shit? Who cares if you don't believe in God? I certainly don't.

And why should anyone care if I do? How is it affecting you in any way shape or form?

What I see here from a lot of people is "Stop liking what I don't like."

And a shitload of grand posturing.

Life is too short to argue the small stuff, because the FACT of the matter is...no one really knows yet. You have ideas and theories and faiths and beliefs...but no one knows.

This argument and debate is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

If this is your opinion why post anything at all, why even read the discussion? We are people who find this question interesting and dont consider the question among the "small stuff". You disagree? Thats fine, but coming onto a discussion that you couldnt give 2 shits about and telling people that ARE interested that its just grand posturing and we are wasting our time may as well be the definition of trolling.

This is your opinion? Then keep it to yourself and just dont read any posts on this discussion.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-17, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

You do understand though that the chances of RANDOM chemicals in a primordial soup mixing together to form a perfect strand of DNA is almost mathematically impossible right?

Did you read my post? Even in my admittedly shoddy and probably highly inaccurate example, I gave it a one-in-1.6-sextillian chance. That's a pretty slim chance.

The reality is, the chances are probably much higher than that. Scientists now hypothesize that its entirely possible that DNA could form in chemicals we had not previously anticipated. Instead of carbon-based, lifeforms could be silicon-based, or otherwise. We have some small evidence to support this, and are working tirelessly (and by we I mean lots of guys way more intelligent than I am) to figure it out.

I don't care of many many many biologists (and I'm not really sure how many there are not currently employed at Baptist universities) who say intelligence is required for DNA to form, because there are a great many people who can have bad ideas. A recent article indicated to me the interesting fact that Newton (you may know him as the guy who invented calculus) was an alchemist.

To your final point, we're arguing it because, as you may not have noticed, this thread is entitled "Science vs. Religion".

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-17, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

If this is your opinion why post anything at all, why even read the discussion? We are people who find this question interesting and dont consider the question among the "small stuff". You disagree? Thats fine, but coming onto a discussion that you couldnt give 2 shits about and telling people that ARE interested that its just grand posturing and we are wasting our time may as well be the definition of trolling.

This is your opinion? Then keep it to yourself and just dont read any posts on this discussion.

I'm sorry who are you again?

Oh, Nobody? Cool.

Baneblade · 2012-04-17, 10:54 PM

For the record, there is no such thing as a perfect strand of DNA... unless it is artificial.

NivexQ · 2012-04-17, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

1 Samuel 2:3

I lol'd

CutterJohn · 2012-04-18, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

You do understand though that the chances of RANDOM chemicals in a primordial soup mixing together to form a perfect strand of DNA is almost mathematically impossible right?

Yeah. Long odds. Fortunately thats not what happened. Or at least not whats hypothesized to have happened.

All that had to form initially was a simple self replicating polymer that competed with other self replicating polymers for scarce resources. Thats it. And theres still long odds against that, but nothing even close to the odds against forming DNA, since DNA doesn't even function without the support structures in place in your cell.

Thats all life started as. A self replicating molecule that competed with other self replicating molecules for scarce resources. Those that were better at getting the resources out competed those that weren't, because they had more resources to work with. Those that were better at replicating out competed those that weren't, because they replicated faster or made more stable copies. Those that were less cannibalistic out competed those that weren't, since they spent less time hurting themselves.

Those things don't take DNA, or even particularly complex molecules. DNA came millions, perhaps billions, of years later, after a whole host of molecular tools necessary for the cell to decipher and utilize DNA developed. Thats why there is no multicellular life for the first billion years of life on earth.. That was time spent getting cells to the point where they were complex enough to support multicellular life.

Traak · 2012-04-18, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

One thing i never got is Satan is this angel who basically despises God. God then decides to send to him all the people who think the same as Satan, agree with him about God. And we are expected to believe Satan tortures these people? All im saying is if I was Satan, damn right I'd build an army. And sure as hell i wouldnt torture these people, I'd hold a party. It really takes an idiot to send to your enemy everyone who would ally with

So, penitentiaries are in danger of spilling over the land with people partying and destroying every single law envorcement official that exists? Strangely, prisons aren't a ceaseless party, but a place where the inmates, lacking innocent victims, turn on each other in rape, torture, murder, etc.

Prisons, following your line of reason, would be ruling the whole planet, since prisoners are far more potent compared to law envorcement officials than the sum total of all sinners and all demons are in comparison to God.

However, they aren't ruling the world, and prison is not a ceaseless party, from what I've seen or heard.

Saying that evil people should not be imprisoned, either on Earth or under it? What do you suggest be done with evil people? Live at your house? Bunk in a kindergarten? Some people are just evil, and are not fit to be near others who are not of their kind. So prisons exist, and so does hell, and ultimately, the lake of fire.

There are people who society imprisons and executes, based on flawed testimony of fallible men. God makes eternal life available, and people can choose to reject it. By making this choice, they, like convicts in the Earth, choose bad consequences, consequences that are enforced by an almighty, all-knowing, impartial God who is a perfect judge of right and wrong.

Blaming God for anyoe going to hell is like blaming the police for the murders that the people they arrest commit.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-18, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

[a much more knowledgeable breakdown of what happened than what I proposed]

Thanks. I had a feeling that I was oversimplifying to an almost criminal degree.

MadPenguin · 2012-04-18, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

So, penitentiaries are in danger of spilling over the land with people partying and destroying every single law envorcement official that exists? Strangely, prisons aren't a ceaseless party, but a place where the inmates, lacking innocent victims, turn on each other in rape, torture, murder, etc.

Prisons, following your line of reason, would be ruling the whole planet, since prisoners are far more potent compared to law envorcement officials than the sum total of all sinners and all demons are in comparison to God.

However, they aren't ruling the world, and prison is not a ceaseless party, from what I've seen or heard.

Whats up with your anologies man...

Prison is taking people that have committed crime and handing them over to the forces of the Law, who are definately NOT on the inmates side. While it IS true that the inmates hang out with other inmates, they dont have any say on how the prison is run. Thats up to the law who as i have said arent on their side.
Hell is supposedly (if you believe this) God giving everyone who doesnt like him to his worst enemy. A better anology with hell would be if the prison were run by the inmates. Or perhaps more acurately a kingpin who is on the inmates side. How long do you think the prisoners would stay locked up?

Saying that evil people should not be imprisoned, either on Earth or under it? What do you suggest be done with evil people? Live at your house? Bunk in a kindergarten? Some people are just evil, and are not fit to be near others who are not of their kind. So prisons exist, and so does hell, and ultimately, the lake of fire.

When did i say this? Pick the quote out for me please. All i said was it is silly to send these people to the person who hates you most. Its not a binary system of either give them to your worst enemy or dont imprison them.

Blaming God for anyoe going to hell is like blaming the police for the murders that the people they arrest commit.[/

Note that I didnt lay blame at anyones feet in what i said. Again, give me the quote that gave you this impression please. All i was saying is its a little stupid to hand these people over to Satan.

I should point out that I do appreciate not everyone sees hell this way, I just think those that do need to reassess the logic behind it.

Edit: On a side note Traak, have you ever heard of the phrase the punishment should fit the crime? You keep on saying dont blame God. I would never blame God for someone committing a crime, but what I would question is whether his punishment fits the crime. Imagine a guy steals a £10 teddy from a megastore. The man then gets caught and locked up in jail for the rest of his life. What your doing is equivalent to saying "dont blame the justice system for the man stealing the teddy, if he didnt want to be locked up for the rest of his life, he shouldnt have stole the teddy". We WOULDNT blame the justice system for the man stealing the teddy, nor we would chastise the system for punishing him. What we WOULD do is ask whether the punishment fit the crime.

Vash02 · 2012-04-18, 08:41 AM

Can blame him for the equivalent of a Judge sentencing a person to torture for the rest of their life for the crime of littering or sex outside of wedlock or that the defendant didnt love the judge enough.

That judge would be derided as a madman worse than Hitler. But here you are kissing Gods arse.

I think Hitchens had it right when he proposed this question to Christian's espousing God morality:

Would you, if you thought that you child didnt love you enough, put them in the basement of your house and have them tortured for the rest of their life?

Figment · 2012-04-18, 09:47 AM

Ratio vs Religion comes up quite often in relation to... well let's find a fun chapter of the bible... Noah's Ark.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-18, 09:54 AM

It would have to have been a big boat.

Probably wasn't very kind to the 2nd generation of animals who survived on it, having to have sex with their siblings and giving birth to all sorts of terrible incest babies.

Maybe god suspended the detrimental effects of incestuous parentage for the first couple hundred years, but that doesn't mean that brothers and sisters weren't forced to get freaky.

Gods infallible plan, everyone!

Figment · 2012-04-18, 10:25 AM

It's really up to Traak, who claims the Bible has no errors, to prove this is possible and how it's normal.

Would also be fun to know how during a flood of 150 days that covered even the mountains, both the fresh and salt water fish survived. Any biologist will tell you only select few species can survive in both fresh and salt water and 150 days is more than enough for water to mix.

And then there's the whole stratification geological bit that does not agree with a world flood, at all and it's quite easy to demonstrate through experiments that world flood theory is utter bogus.

But let's go over the verses:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/7.html#4

I mean the amount of biological and geological problems with the Ark story are tremendous. Not to mention the remainder of problems.