TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- there is no G-d? religion is bull? read this and I DARE YOU TO ARGUE :)
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus I don't won't to alleviate this thread from its religious appointment, so to mute this point all I will say is; At least you don't see capitalist societies massacre their own. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Bondor when i pray i dont say "god do this thing for me" and then act like its not going to happen, that just kills the prair. when i pray i then act as if whatever it is has already happend. Of cource it happend because i acted in the right way. "faith without works is dead" |
| quote: |
| they might not think they are living horrible lives |
| quote: |
| i dont understand what you mean. |
| quote: |
| i have no idea, im sure god has his reasons for then and 9-11. on the good side 9-11 was a huge learnign experience for this country (and a well needed one at that, but dont get me wrong i did think it was horrible). who knows you might be right about them praying. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON Currently we believe everything was made from molecules, deeper then that we say, it was a burst of matter, then ultimately the current top people in the field (not exactly sure what scientific name it was for these quoted professors) say that it was a burst of information/knowledge/wisdom. This is a scientific theory about the beginning of the world. |
| quote: |
If you look at the jewish tradition of the first word in 'genesis', it spells "Created with wisdom". |
| quote: |
"The critique makes valid points. Unfortunately, I am still at a loss as to how the beams of energy of the Big Bang creation changed into life, let alone how the rocks and water and the few simple molecules on the earth some 3.8 billion years ago became alive. Really, rocks and water became alive. Now that's evolution at its best. But for teh rest he may be correct. Sorry I can't help more. Gerry " |
| quote: |
| If you look at modern day Jews, they are extrapolating so much information from science and the world today that is talked about in the bible. It is crazy stuff! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 But are works without faith dead? No, the only positive effect that faith has is to make you less nervous and convinced things are going to turn all right. If your primary stance on any action is that you'll succeed, chances are greater that you will than if you were to think that you'll fail. That's simply because faith gives you confidence. |
| quote: |
That is however an interesting point, and in my opinion the only valid excuse for faith. Faith indeed does give you a feeling of well being and a peace of mind to some extent. But that's exactly why it is for the weak minded. A strong minded individual realizes his status for what it really is. A weak minded one can't stand the threat of reality and is therefore believing in fantasy. |
| quote: |
So the evil and unfaithful people always die, while the good ones are saved? I guess jews in Europe at the middle of this century really lost their faith then. Also, how do you then explain Stalin getting to power? He was definitely not a religious person, infact he dispised religion, and yet he got everything he wanted. And please don't give me an answer among the lines of "mysterious are the ways of god". |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Bondor i have no idea, im sure god has his reasons for then ... |
Re: Re: Re: further reading..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON As for what Dr. Schroeder wrote back its kind of short: "The critique makes valid points. Unfortunately, I am still at a loss as to how the beams of energy of the Big Bang creation changed into life, let alone how the rocks and water and the few simple molecules on the earth some 3.8 billion years ago became alive. Really, rocks and water became alive. Now that's evolution at its best. But for teh rest he may be correct. Sorry I can't help more. Gerry " |
| quote: |
| Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Enjoy! Even though abiogenesis � the origin of life from non-life � is not related to the validity or falsehood of evolutionary theory, it is an interesting subject in its own right. Although evolutionary theory does not rest on the truth of abiogenesis, creationists in particular seem to demand that a non-supernatural origin of life be �proven� before evolution can be accepted. It is in that sense that I will undertake to provide a brief synopsis of the various hypotheses, and discuss in general terms both the positive aspects and the potential problems with each. Consider this the �Reader�s Digest Condensed Version� of abiogenesis. The discussion of the origin of life is one of the most complex and contentious issues in science today. Because the issue is so complex, there are many, including even some scientists (almost all from outside the biological sciences), who claim that it was, in fact, impossible for life to have arisen through solely natural processes. They believe there was required some Divine Spark, or Supreme Designer, standing outside all known universal laws to initiate the process. Finally, they believe that life contains some level of organization below which recourse to merely physical laws cannot explain how it came into being � a First Event from which all else flows. Although our knowledge in some areas may be weak or we may be missing some details today, natural abiogenesis studies begin with the premise that there is nothing unknowable in nature. Life, in the final analysis, makes perfect sense using known physical laws. The actions of a Supreme Being are not required to explain it. Reason, analogies drawn from modern organisms, and the results of scientific research from disciplines as diverse as astronomy, astrophysics, microbiology, parasitology, chemistry, biology, genetics and geology, as well as dozens of others, provide sufficient explanation. There was no First Event. There are currently three main scientific hypotheses for how life arose on Earth. All three have their adherents, and all three are actively being researched by some of the finest scientific minds on the planet. All three have both empirical and inferential support (for elements of the theory), but all three contain certain assumptions that must be true for the theory to be valid. All three contain elements that have been shown either in the lab or in nature to lend credence to their hypothesis. There is one unifying thread that ties all three hypotheses together which must be understood at the outset: all three hypotheses rest on a foundation of organic chemistry. Don�t get confused. �Organic� here does not mean �living� or �coming from life�. Organic chemistry is nothing more than the chemistry of carbon. It happens to be enormously richer than the chemistry of other elements - and thus able to support life - because of the unique associative properties of the carbon atom. In all likelihood the first building blocks of life arose as do all natural chemical compounds - spontaneously, according to the rules of thermodynamics. In one way of looking at it: we ARE carbon. 1. The Biotic Soup Hypothesis This is arguably the most well-known (and least understood!) hypothesis. In essence, the hypothesis argues that chemicals available on the Hadean Earth from either terrestrial or extraterrestrial sources combined via standard chemical reactions to form biologically significant macromolecules. The biotic soup hypothesis uses an ammonia-methane atmosphere as a starting point, and naturally occurring electrical storms and radioactivity as the energy source. Spectroscopic analysis by astronomers has revealed that space is permeated by an extremely tenuous cloud of microscopic particles, called interstellar dust, containing a variety of combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and, sometimes, sulfur or silicon. These are mostly highly reactive free atoms and small molecules that would hardly remain intact under conditions on earth, but in space could interact to form more stable, typical organic compounds, many of them similar to substances found in living organisms. That such processes indeed take place is demonstrated by the presence of amino acids and other biologically significant compounds on celestial bodies � for example, the meteorite that fell in 1969 in Murchison, Australia, Comet Halley (which was analyzed by the Giotto spacecraft during its 1985 passage), and Saturn's satellite Titan, the seas of which are believed to be made of hydrocarbons (based on the Voyager fly-bys) and which contains an atmosphere with significant organic compounds. The modern chemical composition of the Earth is mostly Fe, Mg, Si, and O, with the other elements contributing 5% of the total. Life originated as a result of chemical reactions occurring (largely) in the atmosphere followed by reactions in the primeval oceans and lakes. The atmosphere at the end of the Hadean Period (~4-4.2 gya) is primarily composed of variable amounts of CO2, N2, SO2, H2S, S, HCl, B2O3, and smaller quantities of H2, CH4, SO3, NH3 and HF (but no O2), due partly to outgassing from volcanoes, and partly to the reaction of condensing water vapor (formed as the Earth cooled) with minerals such as nitrides (hence NH3), carbides (hence CH4, CO, etc.) and sulfides (hence H2S). There was no free oxygen (any free O2 would have reacted with P, Si and metals such as molten iron to give minerals e.g. iron oxides, silicates, phosphates, etc.). This atmosphere readily lends itself to the formation of small organic molecules, which in turn readily combine to form more complex macromolecules. In the lab, tantalizing experiments attempting to re-produce the atmospheric conditions of the early Earth have produced astonishing results. As early as the 1950�s Harold Urey used simple electrical stimulation of a hydrogen-methane-ammonia atmosphere and � in just a few days � saw over 15% of the methane/carbon converted to amino acids: one of the key building blocks of proteins and hence life. Although his postulated atmosphere was probably inaccurate, the same amino acids in nearly the same proportions have been discovered in the Murchison asteroid. Since Urey, besides amino acids and other organic acids, experiments have yielded complex sugars as well as purine and pyrimidine bases, and even adenine: some of the components of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, the genetic repositories of the codes of all life. Stanley Miller is STILL working on the problem at UC San Diego. There are a few problems with this hypothesis. In the first place, it is impossible at this remove to determine the exact chemical composition of the early atmosphere � hence whereas the chemical reactions are quite straightforward, the relative yield is open to interpretation. In addition, many of the small organic molecule precursors such as HCN and HCHO are volatile and would break down readily in the atmosphere. It is postulated that these precursors were absorbed into the primeval ocean where they would be shielded from the damaging UV (<300 nm), creating the �organic soup� of the Urey-Miller experiments. 2. Cairns-Smith Crystal Matrix Hypothesis One of the problems with the biotic soup hypothesis, even assuming the chemical reactions were as stated, is how these macromolecules � randomly distributed as they were � were able spontaneously to form the key biological macromolecules such as peptides and nucleic acids. The probability of the formation of these crucial biological molecules from a random mixture of organic chemicals is vanishingly small. In addition, these molecules had to be self-replicating. The chemist Alexander Cairns-Smith proposed that inorganic materials, rather than organic, represented the first replicators. The fundamental problem he was trying to address is the requirement that the first "life" (using the term very loosely) had to have been self-replicating. Cairns-Smith speculated that the earliest replicators were not organic at all, but rather were self-replicating crystals that were later superseded by the rise of the far-more-efficient organic replicators. In this view, the first replicators were crystals of the type that exist in clay or mud along riverbanks; they transmitted their "genetic" information through the natural tendency of these types of molecules to fit together into a geometric pattern. The fundamental characteristic of crystals as replicators must be hereditary variation, or inheritance. Fortunately, crystals in nature display this pattern: they may be perfectly aligned until a specific point is reached, in which a flaw has accumulated (these are quite common in natural crystals). This flaw has a tendency to percolate down the subsequent layers of crystal, setting up a rudimentary system of heredity. Furthermore, atoms of the crystal's substance may be more attracted to certain geometric patterns than they are to others. This sets up a kind of "differential reproduction" which then leads logically to a form of natural selection. The hypothetical crystals described above may very well begin a basic process of cumulative selection. Certain crystals may have the property of altering streams or other water sources for their own "benefit", such as by increasing the likelihood of more of the same material being deposited in the same location. Crystals may also encourage the formation of "spores" by breaking easily into subsequent "generations" Those crystals that broke into generations most easily would be selected for; these generations would invariably contain mutations on occasion and would intensify the competition between rival variants. In time, the crystals could evolve a sort of "phenotype" by altering other materials in their environment. These materials could be used to further the crystal's replication by inhibiting rival crystals from forming or promoting the parent crystal's reproduction. Cairns-Smith's hypothesis is that the materials used by the crystals for self-replication later turned out to be even more efficient replicators in their own right � the earliest peptide-RNA � which ultimately replaced their inorganic substrates. This process of replacement might repeat for several cycles, or the first products used by the crystals may have been the ancestors of modern replicators - i.e., RNA and eventually DNA. The principal difficulty with Cairns-Smith�s hypothesis is the fact that clay doesn't necessarily form a lattice/matrix that is perfectly designed for the arrangement of biologically significant molecules. Since there are a rather large number of potential arrangements, getting the precise arrangement necessary to act as a catalyst for a specific molecule is pretty problematic. Finally, the type of clays best suited for this type of �inorganic evolution� are usually found in riparian zones � the smaller biological molecules are fairly unstable when subjected to unshielded UV. It remains to be seen whether such processes could occur in such a way that these molecules could persist long enough to form stable compounds. However, as with Miller, Cairns-Smith�s organic replicator overthrow of the inorganics only needed to occur once� 3.a. Submarine Hot Springs Hypothesis � Electrochemical Variant In this hypothesis, life is believed to have begun at the sites of warm submarine springs where chemical energy was focused and the mixing of spring water with seawater could lead to the precipitation of chemicals. The precipitation of chemicals on mixing of solutions can form a barrier preventing further mixing and precipitation. This barrier can also provide a template for the assembly of chains of organic molecules, and act as a catalyst for electrochemical reactions. This hypothetical precipitate, again operating in a naturally occurring biotic soup, consisted mainly of small groups of iron and sulfur atoms. Iron-sulfur groups still play an essential electrochemical catalytic role in all living cells. As a boundary, the precipitate concentrated organic molecules such as amino acids. These formed at depth below the spring where water and its dissolved chemicals reacted with rocks containing Fe and iron-rich minerals. The boundary also concentrated other chemicals that could participate in chemical reactions. As a catalyst the groups of FeSiO4 and Fe3O4 could activate molecular hydrogen (and probably methane which consists of carbon and hydrogen) which also formed at depth in the spring. The hydrogen is essential for the synthesis of organic molecules. Electrons produced as a by-product (and representing the dissipation of energy) are transferred to a type of iron, known as ferric iron, dissolved in seawater. (The ferric iron is produced from dissolved ferrous iron (richer in electrons) at the ocean's surface by sunlight. The same processes cause the reddening of the surface of Mars as iron-bearing minerals have �rusted�. As a template, the iron sulfide precipitate (consisting of small crystals of only a hundred atoms or so), could bond chemically to, and assemble a sequence of, the molecular components of RNA. Acid springs of high temperature, coupled to emergent magma plumes, emit ferrous iron and other transition metals to the ocean. Solar energy oxidizes some iron to the ferric state, generating a dispersed positive terminal. Cooler alkaline waters emanate from the deep ocean floor, bearing hydrogen, methane, ammonia, formaldehyde, cyanide and hydrosulfide - molecules reduced from water and carbon oxides by reaction with ferrous silicate, residual nickeliferous iron and ferrous sulfide. Where these waters seep into the ocean, mounds, comprising layers of ferrous sulfide and green rust flocculants and films, arise. These mounds are where the reduced molecules are filtered and adsorbed. Concentrated, they react to form glyceraldehyde, amino acids, and the components of nucleosides. The fluids are prevented from mixing thoroughly with the surrounding ocean by the spontaneous precipitation of a barrier of colloidal iron compounds. Nucleotides can then assemble in green rust. The thermal potential begins to be dissipated but the chemical potential is dammed. Though the hydrothermal solution is constrained, electrons escape from adsorbed hydrogen through the conducting layers of iron monosulfide, drawn to reduce the photolytic ferric iron. There is invasion of the iron sulfide/hydroxide barrier by protons, pyrophosphate and carbonic acid, through iron sulfide-walled micro-channels. The newly formed nucleotides poison the iron sulfide but combine with peptides, producing pRNA. The side chains of particular amino acids register to fitting nucleotide triplet clefts. Keyed in, the amino acids are polymerized, through acid-base catalysis, to alpha chains by invading protons. The resulting short protopeptides sequester ready-made iron sulfide clusters to form ferredoxins, ubiquitous proteins with the longest evolutionary pedigree. These take over the role of catalyst and electron transfer agent from the iron sulfides, promote further chemosynthesis and so support the electrochemical reactor from which they sprang. The principal problem with this hypothesis is the reliability of the invasion and precipitation scenario. To wit, how effective is the sulfide barrier and the green rust substrate at providing a template for biological macromolecules? In addition, to be more plausible, the hypothesis must assume a fairly high concentration of chemical precursors. Especially since, unlike the evaporation-concentration element of Miller�s biotic soup hypothesis, there is no specific mechanism for concentrating these molecules into sufficiently close proximity for the electrochemical bonding to take place. 3.b. Submarine Hotsprings Hypothesis � Flow Reactor Variant Similar to the above, however instead of a postulated electrochemical mound as one of the poles, this theory using the high-temperature (300-400 C) energy found in the cracking front of submarine steam vents (�black smokers�) to provide the necessary energy. In a hot spring, the flow of heat is constrained by the structure and constitutive properties of magma, rock and water; the gravity field, etc. The model proposes that in addition to the coherent flow of fluid, these constraints produce phase space trajectories which lead to the creation of high-energy molecular and macromolecular structures in which the particles are locked, or frozen, into coherence. The cooling particles fall and are trapped into the potential energy wells, i.e. attractors, provided by the constraining forces that bind matter together. In other words, life is an emergent property of the high-temperature chemistry and physical constraints present in the flow reactor of a submarine magma pipe. The products of rapid heating and quenching at the cracking front follow a highly constrained trajectory, rapidly mixing with cool sea water flowing upward through a matrix of fractured rocks of enormous surface area, lined with a highly catalytic surface of clay minerals (note the use of Cairns-Smith�s clay matrix). They began their ascent as hot (~350� - 600�C), acid (pH~3.6), highly reducing fluids, and approach a low temperature end member which is cold (~2� - 20�C), slightly alkaline (pH 7.9), and oxidizing. A fraction of the thermal energy traveling from mantle to ocean is trapped into the high energy bonds of organic molecules, which remain as static equilibrium structures. The process is thermodynamically analogous to the emergence of matter from energy during the expansion and cooling of the early Universe. As with the other hypotheses, this one also relies on the presence of organic molecules in the primeval ocean. However, unlike the biotic soup idea, these precursor molecules would be concentrated by the geophysical properties of the mantle at the site of the hotsprings. Conclusion Regardless of which of the above hypotheses ultimately leads to the creation of self-sustaining biomolecules, all show that life is merely an inherent property of chemical reactions. Any time conditions are appropriate, life (as we know it) should arise. And once we get self-replicating molecules, evolution (heritable variation, random mutation, and natural selection) + time are sufficient to explain the amazing diversity of modern life. Science has yet to provide evidence for any of these hypotheses beyond reasonable doubt. But since all are �brand new� ideas, the only thing lacking is time� Stay tuned! |
Re: Re: Re: Re: further reading..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What does Dr. Schroeder teach? What is his emphasis in research? This is such an incredible elementary and borderline uneducated answer that it truly amazes me where it would come from. Just to check, I did a search on a couple of Creationist/ID websites (www.iscid.org, www.discovery.org), and thankfully didn't see his name on either the board of directors or fellows. However, I couldn't help but be perplexed by his reply on abiogenesis. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus so to mute this point all I will say is; At least you don't see capitalist societies massacre their own. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: further reading..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Everybody, meet Dr. Schroeder: S: Hi Everybody! E: Hi Dr. Schroeder!! |
Dr. Schroeder graduate of hamburger university
http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/careers/hambuniv/
I havn't read all this thread because it is very long and i got a headache already lol, but some people are talking about pain and suffering...e.g. 9.11. "If they prayed why didnt the towers not topple over" or something like that.
God gave man free will. That is the perfection with us, we choose what we want to do. You can't blame god for it, you blame the people. The world could be such a beautiful place if we humans decided to be more loving, peaceful and generous. This doesn't happen and the result is the current state of world affairs.
Those who do not live a life of loving people will go to hell, those who live their life true to themselves etc.. will go to heaven.
On a side note, why is it that people get so worked up discussing other peoples opinions. I mean, if you don';t believe it god, then fair enough, u have the right to believe in what you want, which is your right. It is also another person right to be "weak minded" etc... and believe that there was a creator and that it was god. Why can you not accept that? The reason is, is because allot of people become ignorant, and believe because they "know" the answer, this means then can look down on people who believe in god. In reality, its bullying and immature.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt I havn't read all this thread because it is very long and i got a headache already lol, but some people are talking about pain and suffering...e.g. 9.11. "If they prayed why didnt the towers not topple over" or something like that. God gave man free will. That is the perfection with us, we choose what we want to do. You can't blame god for it, you blame the people. The world could be such a beautiful place if we humans decided to be more loving, peaceful and generous. This doesn't happen and the result is the current state of world affairs. Those who do not live a life of loving people will go to hell, those who live their life true to themselves etc.. will go to heaven. On a side note, why is it that people get so worked up discussing other peoples opinions. I mean, if you don';t believe it god, then fair enough, u have the right to believe in what you want, which is your right. It is also another person right to be "weak minded" etc... and believe that there was a creator and that it was god. Why can you not accept that? The reason is, is because allot of people become ignorant, and believe because they "know" the answer, this means then can look down on people who believe in god. In reality, its bullying and immature. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON you are right. It is in our hands. If we die of a drug overdose, is it G0ds fault? No we did the drugs. Well today, we are removing G0d and morals and ethics from the classrooms, removing the bible from the hearts and minds of our society, and what is happening in the end? nothing but more and more suicide, death, immorality, and lack of true happiness. Anyways This thread is no where close to done, all these people as we can see throw out any proof almost no matter how true it is. If these people here threw out reality, then how can you present them reality? They already reject it as a possibility. This is why, I am not writing quickly to all the responses here. I try to put a little time in to put some answers and further questions, but the major points I want to get across require perfection in their delivery, so that the cynics and mockers will have no way to discredit what is said. The reality is that G0d exists and controls the world. The illusion is the opposite. IT is a matter of wording to bring this to a point where no one can challenge it because it is true. Like the sun will rise tomorrow, the truth will eventually stand on its own. Happy Rosh Hashanah everyone! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt I havn't read all this thread because it is very long and i got a headache already lol, but some people are talking about pain and suffering...e.g. 9.11. "If they prayed why didnt the towers not topple over" or something like that. God gave man free will. That is the perfection with us, we choose what we want to do. You can't blame god for it, you blame the people. The world could be such a beautiful place if we humans decided to be more loving, peaceful and generous. This doesn't happen and the result is the current state of world affairs. Those who do not live a life of loving people will go to hell, those who live their life true to themselves etc.. will go to heaven. On a side note, why is it that people get so worked up discussing other peoples opinions. I mean, if you don';t believe it god, then fair enough, u have the right to believe in what you want, which is your right. It is also another person right to be "weak minded" etc... and believe that there was a creator and that it was god. Why can you not accept that? The reason is, is because allot of people become ignorant, and believe because they "know" the answer, this means then can look down on people who believe in god. In reality, its bullying and immature. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt On a side note, why is it that people get so worked up discussing other peoples opinions. I mean, if you don';t believe it god, then fair enough, u have the right to believe in what you want, which is your right. It is also another person right to be "weak minded" etc... and believe that there was a creator and that it was god. Why can you not accept that? The reason is, is because allot of people become ignorant, and believe because they "know" the answer, this means then can look down on people who believe in god. In reality, its bullying and immature. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Bondor u r awesome! the thing that i hope all the athiests realize is that by being mean and bullying us believers, you are infact only making us stonger believers because it says in the bible that we will be procecuted, and since you are procecuting us that just gives us one more reason to believe. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Bondor u r awesome! the thing that i hope all the athiests realize is that by being mean and bullying us believers, you are infact only making us stonger believers because it says in the bible that we will be procecuted, and since you are procecuting us that just gives us one more reason to believe. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orbax You're an idiot. Have fun doing well in life. |
I'm not a die hard christian or anything, so i kinda dont want people to see me that way. When i hear die hard christian, i think of preachers on the street. Times have changed, and to spread the word of god, u dont do it by ennoyence in the streets, you do it by doing good will to others, another words, be a loving, kind and trustful person and it will catch on through overs (inspiration etc...)
i have no disrespect to DJBARON or anyone who argues, but sometimes, people get too heated in the discussion, and it goes two ways. One is never ever going to out prove the other, because you simply cannot prove that god doesnt exist.
I didnt mean to say that all atheists are mean or whatever, that is untrue, nothing like a good debate. there are two sides to the coin, and if the argument being put forward is that, what i said earlier, free will for humans, then you must be understanding that people can also choose to question their beliefs etc...
anyway its late and the methane from my dog farting is giving me a headache so must dash, sorry if this is grammatically incorrect!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Once again, you are looking at time as being a two dimensional, linear entity. Try to look at it as being finite yet boundless much like space. |
| quote: |
On a side note, it's interesting to see how religion so readily embraces science with respect to the big bang theory to propogate the idea of the creator yet so casually dismisses the theory of evolution to surmise how we came into existence. If God created a perfectly working and logical universe in order to "hide" his existence, why would he come out of "hiding" to create us??? If the universe spawned from a singularity to the galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, etc., why is it so difficult to believe that this perfectly logical and scientific universe created us??? I've always despised how organized religion seems to have a certain sense of arrogance about it. God created us in his image, we are his chosen people, etc. |
| quote: |
The Torah supports the theory of evolution every step of the way, except for one key difference. Are Judaism and evolution mutually exclusive? No. Belief in science and belief in the Creator are absolutely consistent. As Albert Einstein once remarked, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God." In Genesis, the Torah describes a gradual process of creation from simple to more complex organisms: first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This, of course, is the same evolutionary process proposed by science. But didn't the evolutionary process take much longer than the six days of creation? In reading the story, you might observe that the Torah describes a "day" before the creation of the sun and moon to demarcate a 24-hour period. So what kind of "day" is it? Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explains that each Biblical "day" represents a mingling of raw materials (erev), followed by bursts of dramatic new development (boker). The six days are simply six epochs, stages of the process. This has been the Jewish view for centuries. The Torah's position has not changed; rather science has come to match it. Arnold Penzias, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his research on the Big Bang, once remarked: What we see marking the flight of galaxies with our telescopes, Maimonides saw from his metaphysical view. ACCIDENTAL ODDS There is one key point where Torah and evolutionists diverge: the question of "accident versus design." Evolutionists say that life happened by accident; Judaism says that God made it happen. What is the possibility that life and all the wonders of nature accidentally occurred? According to Yale Physicist Harold Morowitz, the accidental formation of life necessitates precise bio-molecular activity at every step -- small organic compounds must accumulate, biological polymers must form, proto-cells must arise, and a genetic and protein-synthesizing system must evolve. Dr. I. Prigogine, recipient of two Nobel prizes in chemistry, spells out the bottom line: The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero. Sir Fred Hoyle, the distinguished astronomer, writes: The trouble is there are about 2,000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000 power (10 with 40,000 zeros after it), an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. Hoyle concludes: No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare -- for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material. COMPLEX ORGANISMS Believers in the theory of evolution must accept the idea that in thousands of examples throughout nature, two independent lines of mutations occurred in the same random way at each of the 500 steps of development. With one million potential choices at each step (and even if only 100 of the 500 choices needed to be the same), the odds against success would be one in 10 to the 600th power. And this is only for one simple transition! For a complicated organ such as a wing or a kidney or an eye, the probability against such an accident would increase by the billions. Darwin himself wrote in "The Origin of Species:" ...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications - my theory would absolutely break down... Consider the Bombardier Beetle, a little bug equipped with a chamber of hydroginine and a second chamber of hydrogen peroxide. When combined, these two chemicals are explosive -- but a mechanism inside the beetle keeps them separate. However, when provoked by an enemy, the beetle heats the chemicals to the boiling point and squeezes them into a reaction chamber to undergo a combustion process like igniting a rocket engine. From here the explosive material streams out of the beetle at a rate of 1,000 pulses per second. (Pulses, rather than a continuous stream, give the beetle a chance to cool itself.) The poisonous fuel is expelled through a nozzle which, much like the turret of a tank, can rotate in any direction, under the legs or over the back. The enemy is poisoned, the beetle is saved! So the questions immediately spring to mind: 1.Which came first: the hydroginine or the hydrogen peroxide? One without the other is useless. 2.Which came first: the chemicals, or the independent chambers separating them? One without the other is useless. 3.Which came first: the chemicals, or the shooting mechanism? One without the other is useless. The human eye is another example of coordinated evolution. If the cornea is fuzzy, or the pupil fails to dilate, or the lens becomes opaque, or the focusing goes wrong -- then a recognizable image is not formed. The eye either functions as a whole, or not at all. Could this all possibly have evolved by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian mutations? In a private letter, Darwin expressed anxiety over what he called "organs of extreme perfection," and admitted that "the eye, to this day, gives me a cold shudder." ("Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", London, 1888, Vol. 2, p. 273) SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS So what difference does it make how this all came about anyhow? The difference is simple yet profound: If the world is an accident, then I am too. And if I'm an accident, then there's no purpose to my creation. Life is random, not meaningful. If I am just a random collection of molecules, should I have any more respect for a human being than I do for a dog? Should I save my drowning dog or the drowning stranger?Is it then acceptable to label a race of people sub-human and to enslave or kill them all? The Torah says that God blew into Adam a spiritual soul (Genesis 2:7). Man is not just a smart monkey. Man is a qualitatively different creation. This "spiritual consciousness" separates man from all other creatures, enabling us to sanctify life and get close to God. Maimonides writes: "As long as you are occupied with the mathematical sciences and the technique of logic, you belong to those who walk around the palace in search of the gate. When you complete your study of the natural sciences and then get a grasp of the metaphysics, you enter into the inner courtyard and are in the same house as [God the King]." To learn more about the Jewish perspective on evolution, read: The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder (Free Press) Permission to Believe by Lawrence Keleman (Feldheim Pub.) |
another response
Hey I got another response into more reading material to back up the Jewish claims that science and judaism go HAND IN HAND. According to the current held theories give or take a little, everything seems to par up. Meaning that chances are the current theories are correct (Because i know that the torah and judaic approach is correct) and here are some sources for you guys that are really smart and into this subject
| quote: |
" I always sugggest Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes. It is by far the best book on the early universe and totally seculr. Weinberg is an athiest or agnostic. Also Rita Carter's Mapping the Mind for a brain works book.. Gerry Schroeder" |
Re: another response
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON I think the major argument here was why is it that I have to think there was a purpose to creation, VS randomness? I cant understand how someone can go through their lives thinking everything is just random, or that if there was a G0d (sic), He just disappeared! |
| quote: |
if that is the case, why are you guys not plundering and murdering and getting whatever for yourselves that you can? I see no reason to live 'morally' if morals are just what man made up. Why live half as good as you could of if you were to 'break some of those random rules'?? This is a serious reason behind why I do what I do. I am a moral person, with values, because I learn from G0d about those values. |
| quote: |
I heard recently from someone who said this is why america is turning to shit today, because america so vehemently has been removing G0d and his morals and ethics from the education system, thus turning society into what it is today... |
why on earth do people spell God G0d or G-d, are you trying to fool him into thinking that your not actually using his name? or do you think the atheist in this debate will be offended if you actually spelled it out? or the believers? seriously its retarded.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Bondor why on earth do people spell God G0d or G-d, are you trying to fool him into thinking that your not actually using his name? or do you think the atheist in this debate will be offended if you actually spelled it out? or the believers? seriously its retarded. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON G0ds name is holy in every language. G0d happens to be the real way they say it in english, so that means that word has a level of honor you give it, which translates to you just being a little safer with using that word, incase someone were you print this up, and it has G0ds name on it, and something dishonourable happens to that paper... yah i know it sounds wierd but that is the way it is... you will notice im far from the only person that does that... check google i bet you will find tons... cortexbomb I will get to your stuff tomorrow or later 2nite i think.... peacceeee baron |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON I think the major argument here was why is it that I have to think there was a purpose to creation, VS randomness? I cant understand how someone can go through their lives thinking everything is just random, or that if there was a G0d, He just disappeared! |
| quote: |
| if that is the case, why are you guys not plundering and murdering and getting whatever for yourselves that you can? I see no reason to live 'morally' if morals are just what man made up. Why live half as good as you could of if you were to 'break some of those random rules'?? This is a serious reason behind why I do what I do. I am a moral person, with values, because I learn from G0d about those values. |
| quote: |
| I heard recently from someone who said this is why america is turning to shit today, because america so vehemently has been removing G0d and his morals and ethics from the education system, thus turning society into what it is today... |
| quote: |
| G0ds name is holy in every language. G0d happens to be the real way they say it in english, so that means that word has a level of honor you give it, which translates to you just being a little safer with using that word, incase someone were you print this up, and it has G0ds name on it, and something dishonourable happens to that paper... yah i know it sounds wierd but that is the way it is... you will notice im far from the only person that does that... check google i bet you will find tons... |
Re: there is no G-d? religion is bull? read this and I DARE YOU TO ARGUE :)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON lets see if any of these people that laugh when I base things on G-d and religion can back up their laughs, or are, as we expect, full of SHIT! Does the intricate design of the universe serve as evidence for the existence of God? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJBARON G0ds name is holy in every language. G0d happens to be the real way they say it in english, so that means that word has a level of honor you give it, which translates to you just being a little safer with using that word, incase someone were you print this up, and it has G0ds name on it, and something dishonourable happens to that paper... |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.