Is God real post your thoughts!

[Lenticular_J]

I still don't understand how that evolves into sentience. I understand most of evolution, but the very beginnings, and I guess what we could call the present (human self-consciousness), just confuse the hell out of me on how it could happen so coldly and - well, not artificially. But you know what I mean.

 

 

 

I just think there had to have been a little spark somewhere, even if it wasn't God.

 

 

 

Plus, what we know is our best guess. Perhaps some really crazy [cabbage] went on back billions of years ago, and we just can't comprehend it.

[Cup Lion]

Though I haven't finished reading through the links venomai has posted, I agree with Lenticular. Its extremely hard to understand how physical things (chemicals, reactions) can form such psychological things (conscience, emotions, thought process). It doesn't seem possible that chemicals reacting to energy can form something so complex and...can't find a word to describe it (not physical, unseen)... as a conscience.

 

 

 

I am just repeating myself over and over again. It just doesn't make sense that it could happen without some intervention.

[warri0r45]

I recently read in a book that our Milky Way galaxy contains some 100,000 million other stars, and that there are at least 100 million more galaxies like ours. If there are, lets say, 10 planets for each star, that comes to roughly 10^20 chances that we could have been created. At least, that is how I interpreted it. You could even say 10^100 if you wanted. Yet, in the early 1980s, Chandra Wickramasinghe (an astrophysicist in Wales) and Fred Hoyle (a well-known British astronomer) calculated that if humans were created by chance, and not designed by a higher being, we would have a one in 10^40,000 chance of being created. They did this by calculated the odds on whether random shuffling of amino acids could have produced life. Kind of an unimaginable number, if you ask me...

 

 

 

How would one explain that?

 

 

 

Hoyle's fallacy highlights one of the fundamental problems with trying to argue the odds of abiogenesis. The assumption that life requires a specific subset of enzymes and in a specific sequence is wrong on two levels. First, the definition of life is biased towards what we know today - it's only ever phrased in terms of cellular life, which of course requires a specific subset of enzymes to work at all. However, theories of abiogenesis never propose that this subset of enzymes evolved all in one step to form cells from amino acids - that's rightly called absurd.

 

 

 

Abiogenesis can create "life" in the form of autocatalytic systems of oligopeptides or oligonucleotides that direct their own "reproduction". A gradual change in sequence (catalysis without the complex cellular machinery we have today would have been inaccurate) coupled with natural selection can add to the complexity. Eventually, cellular life resulted and gave us the genetic system and subset of enzymes that we all use today. My analysis is a gross oversimplification, but it adds one crucial dimension that Hoyle neglected - no one's saying that modern enzymes were made from scratch. No one's saying that life as we know it evolved enzyme for enzyme in one fell swoop. They eventuated over vast amounts of time through numerous small changes.

 

 

 

The second reason calculations like Hoyle's are wrong is that they likely assume (I don't know for sure) that one specific sequence of each of these enzymes must be the final product for it to work, however, that's biologically absurd. Many amino acids in a given protein are variable which means that they can change with little or no functional difference to the protein. The main conserved (i.e. functionally constrained) parts of an enzyme are amino acids at the active site and any that are crucial to 3D structure. Having said this, the first reason is the biggest contention against Fred Hoyle's analysis.

 

 

 

By the way, Hoyle wasn't even a biochemist or molecular biologist. He was an astronomer.

[Cup Lion]

I got your point, Warri0r. To be honest, I got it via the link venomai posted (though, it was from wikipedia. :P). You just said it in a way more complicated way. But thanks for the clarification.

 

 

 

Still, what I find hard to believe is how if our creation was the same as that of all the other organisms in the world, why are we given a conscience, a thought process, etc.

 

 

 

I know Hoyle was an astronomer. I stated it clearly in my post. I was more concerned with Chandra.

[warri0r45]

I got your point, Warri0r. To be honest, I got it via the link venomai posted (though, it was from wikipedia. :P). You just said it in a way more complicated way. But thanks for the clarification.

 

 

 

Still, what I find hard to believe is how if our creation was the same as that of all the other organisms in the world, why are we given a conscience, a thought process, etc.

 

 

 

I know Hoyle was an astronomer. I stated it clearly in my post. I was more concerned with Chandra.

 

 

 

Haha, sorry, I missed the astronomer comment. I basically wrote out that post as a generic response to the last few posts and thought it would be topical to add in your post as a quote above it.

 

 

 

Apologies if it was a bit full on with jargon, I'd gladly explain any point of it more clearly but it looks ike you got that with venomai's link, so that's good.

[Cup Lion]

Ah, sorry for jumping to conclusions.

 

 

 

It was quite hilarious to see the look on my instructor's face today when I told him I had looked at some information that invalidated Hoyle's number. He's always seen me as a strong Catholic, so when I questioned the textbook and its "facts" he was quite surprised.

 

 

 

And those were some interesting articles posted by venomai. I'll post later when I organize my thoughts, because they seem to be mixed within all the Wikipedia articles :? I read.

[warri0r45]

Ah, sorry for jumping to conclusions.

 

 

 

It was quite hilarious to see the look on my instructor's face today when I told him I had looked at some information that invalidated Hoyle's number. He's always seen me as a strong Catholic, so when I questioned the textbook and its "facts" he was quite surprised.

 

 

 

And those were some interesting articles posted by venomai. I'll post later when I organize my thoughts, because they seem to be mixed within all the Wikipedia articles :? I read.

 

 

 

What textbook was this in, by the way? I find it hard to believe that an educational tool could contain such an uneducated argument.

[Lenticular_J]

Well, these days, any textbook that isn't brand-new (particularly things like theories and difficult scientific work) will be outdated within two years.

[folmer_veeman]

am i the only one who thinks the evolution theory can be linked with christianity/any other faith?

 

 

 

i just find it too unlikely for something as complex as human and the human mind to be created by chance.. if i would randomly combine pieces of coloured paper of one square millimeter, i wouldn't get the mona lisa either, would i?

[Rebdragon]

am i the only one who thinks the evolution theory can be linked with christianity/any other faith?

 

 

 

i just find it too unlikely for something as complex as human and the human mind to be created by chance.. if i would randomly combine pieces of coloured paper of one square millimeter, i wouldn't get the mona lisa either, would i?

 

With the size of the universe and the time it's been around, yes, eventually you would.

[folmer_veeman]

am i the only one who thinks the evolution theory can be linked with christianity/any other faith?

 

 

 

i just find it too unlikely for something as complex as human and the human mind to be created by chance.. if i would randomly combine pieces of coloured paper of one square millimeter, i wouldn't get the mona lisa either, would i?

 

With the size of the universe and the time it's been around, yes, eventually you would.

 

 

 

there is a very small chance, and a even smaller probability of it happening, sure it would happen eventually, but how do the chances measure up to the time the universe has been around?

[Rebdragon]

Do you have any idea how [bleep]ing big the universe is?

 

 

 

BIG.

[Lateralus]

am i the only one who thinks the evolution theory can be linked with christianity/any other faith?

 

 

 

i just find it too unlikely for something as complex as human and the human mind to be created by chance.. if i would randomly combine pieces of coloured paper of one square millimeter, i wouldn't get the mona lisa either, would i?

 

With the size of the universe and the time it's been around, yes, eventually you would.

 

 

 

there is a very small chance, and a even smaller probability of it happening, sure it would happen eventually, but how do the chances measure up to the time the universe has been around?

 

 

 

The Mona Lisa analogy is flawed anyway. We're not a random combination of parts. A better analogy would be that the little pieces of coloured paper are randomly generated, and if the colour is correct then they can stay. Any of the incorrect pieces are cast aside.

[psvstef]

i hope allah does exist ,otherwise ill burn in his hell when i die :lol:

[venomai]

i just find it too unlikely for something as complex as human and the human mind to be created by chance.. if i would randomly combine pieces of coloured paper of one square millimeter, i wouldn't get the mona lisa either, would i?

 

Of course, due to natural selection, the evolution of humans is not just a random process. :lol:

[Denismage]

Just as real as the flying spaghetti monster.

[Cup Lion]

What textbook was this in, by the way? I find it hard to believe that an educational tool could contain such an uneducated argument.

 

Its a text called "Issues of Faith and Morals". After reading what you said, which I partly understood, it kind of made me worry about the book, because it presents the idea of Hoyle's number as such a strong case against atheists and their belief in no God, when really, its a huge miscalculation.

 

 

 

My instructor found it interesting that his work would be invalid, since he was a "very careful and decorated scientist" and some of his works were awarded the Noble prize. He thinks there must have been something missing or that we don't know about if he made such an obvious error.

 

 

 

Meh, if only we could sit Hoyle down and ask him what the heck he was thinking. :P

 

 

 

With the size of the universe and the time it's been around, yes, eventually you would.

 

Its doubtable. To go with the Mona Lisa analogy (not a very good one), it could take, lets say, hundreds of years to get a millimeter square in the correct place, but who says the next year, it will be misplaced. The odds of everything being assembled correctly at the same time is unimaginable. Thus, I agree with Lateralus in saying it isn't the best example.

[warri0r45]

What textbook was this in, by the way? I find it hard to believe that an educational tool could contain such an uneducated argument.

 

Its a text called "Issues of Faith and Morals". After reading what you said, which I partly understood, it kind of made me worry about the book, because it presents the idea of Hoyle's number as such a strong case against atheists and their belief in no God, when really, its a huge miscalculation.

 

 

 

My instructor found it interesting that his work would be invalid, since he was a "very careful and decorated scientist" and some of his works were awarded the Noble prize. He thinks there must have been something missing or that we don't know about if he made such an obvious error.

 

 

 

Well there's the problem. You don't get information on science from religious books, especially ones called "Issues of faith and morals". Abiogenesis has nothing to do with faith or morals.

[assassin_696]

Fred Hoyle was brilliant in his youth, but his ideas went off the boil towards the end of his life anyway. He continued to believe in the Steady State theory of the Universe until his death, despite the huge evidence against it, which wasn't very scientific. It's a shame, he was born reasonably in the nearby city to me.

[Perakp]

Finnish children are not allowed to decide their religion on their own.

 

Parents can make their newborn child a member of the church, without her permission or understanding of anything. After that the parents can keep their child in the church against her will, as you need your parents' acceptance to resign. At the age of 18 you are allowed to decide for your own religion.

 

 

 

Today, resigning is more popular than ever. About 20% of Finns do not belong to any church.

 

 

 

[hide=reminder]God is not real ;)[/hide]

[Lenticular_J]

Well, the top part makes Finnish law sound crappy. I have a hard time believing it, though. From what I can look up, Finland has freedom of religion, and there is nothing that says you have to be over eighteen. Anyways, what church are you talking about? Evangelical Lutheran? For an evangelical church, they sound quite liberal. Also, according to Wikipedia, your figures are wrong by 4%. ;)

 

 

 

As to your last part: not even gonna touch that. Petty and worthless.

[BlueLancer]

Well, the top part makes Finnish law sound crappy. I have a hard time believing it, though. From what I can look up, Finland has freedom of religion, and there is nothing that says you have to be over eighteen. Anyways, what church are you talking about? Evangelical Lutheran? For an evangelical church, they sound quite liberal. Also, according to Wikipedia, your figures are wrong by 4%. ;)

 

 

 

As to your last part: not even gonna touch that. Petty and worthless.

 

 

 

Almost all countries, even the ones with a christian religion as the majority, require you to be 18 years old to make a decision about removing yourself from a church/joining it. (Some conservative countries with an islamic majority might even prohibit leaving) Otherwise you need the consent of your guardian or parent.

 

 

 

As a minor you can't sign binding legal documents without the supervision of an adult responsible for you, so if you, Lenticular wanted to join/part from a religion and were under 18 years old, you'd need the permission of your parents too pretty much regardless of where in the world you live. It's not just Finland or the USA.

[Lenticular_J]

Really? I never knew that. I guess just because I take part in personal religion rather than organized.

[michel555555]

ok its gonna take way to long for me to read all that so if this has been posted before let me know

 

 

 

consider the bible... probly gonna get a few flames for this so if you have a beef with me post me and don't dispute facts with "god wills it" and turn this forum into a flame fest

 

 

 

first off the story of jesus christ....

 

born of a virgin on december 25th

 

had 12 deciples who followed him preforming miricles

 

was known as the truth, the light, the alph and omega, the lamb of god, gods good sheperd etc etc

 

was killed buried for 3 days and reserected

 

 

 

you've all heard that story what you don't know are these...

 

 

 

horus

 

born of a virgin on december 25th

 

had thwelve brothers who followed him around preforming micacles such as healing the sick walking on water and turning water into wine

 

was know as the truth, the light, the lamb of god etc etc

 

interestingly he was also betrayed by one of his diciples was burried for three days and was reserected

 

 

 

this story repeats itself dozens of times throughout history...

 

 

 

dionices of greece.. born of virgine dec 25th dead for 3 days reserected

 

mythra of greece... born of a virgine dec 25 dead for 3 days and reserected.. interestingly her day of worship was sun day

 

 

 

i'm not going to go into all of them because there ARE literally around 100 other gods, goddesses etc who share this same story

 

 

 

thats one example of "fact" that is in the bible

 

 

 

lets move on to moses and his 10 comandments

 

 

 

lets see look up these names

 

 

 

manu

 

mino

 

mises notice anything yet???

 

moses

 

 

 

these all are other charecters from different religions that climb a mountain and recieve a stone tablet with 10 comandments from god

 

 

 

also look at the book of the dead from ancient egypt

 

the questions asked to get into the under world todays version

 

i have not killed------------------------thou shall not kill

 

i have not stolen-----------------------thou shall not steal

 

i have not told lies------------------------thou shall not bear false witness

 

etc etc

 

 

 

there is also the story of noahs arc and the great flood

 

 

 

there is a story from ancient greece around 500bc that tells the exact same story right down to noahs release of the dove to find land can't remember the name right now but you'll find it if you look it up

 

 

 

now ask yourself this. if their was a god why would he alow one religion christianity to take over almost all of these other religions that share so much in common?? sometimes they did this through violence, genocide, murder, torture.

 

 

 

k well thats my 2 cents if you want to learn more look up the movie zeitgeist the first part is great for those looking for facts about the existance of relegion the other two parts might not be for you but worth the watch.

[Barihawk]

I can blow a hole in your whole argument by stating the fact that Christ was not born on December 25. His date of birth is unknown, we only have the approximate year. According to subtle language in the Bible, it was likely in spring.

 

 

 

Christmas is celebrated on the 25th of December to take a whack at some pagan holiday that's been forgotten because the plan worked.

 

 

 

I call bs on Horus and the Greek legends. I find it laughable for one that the date is listed as December 25th even though it will be nearly a thousand years before the Christian calendar is instituted. The concept of a 24 hour day had not even been instituted and suddenly you have entire days and months pulled out of your nether regions.

 

 

 

Zeitgeist is the equivalent of a Michael Moore movie on Youtube.