The Origin of Life (Electrical)

[Bob Scott]

Hey Everybody!

Wave to the spam fairy as she flits by!

[MrAl]

Hi Bob,

Yes, that screen name keeps spamming, here and in another topic too.
It's gone now.

[ian]

A few (logical) words about knowing, and not knowing.

It stands to reason that if there is no God, and no intelligent design, man cannot "KNOW"
anything at all. Anything our minds knew would be susceptable to the fickle forces of blind, programmed,
evolution, and therefore, suspect. How would we know if something we thought were true wasn't just a result of evolutionary programming? How could we trust our minds if they were programmed by random
forces?

Verifiable scientific theory you say? I say a series of broken calculators cannot verify themselves.

And that is why hard core atheists crack me up. They say if I uncloud my mind and think clearly without
the delusion of a deity I would know the "truth". But it seems the truth from that standpoint is that I
cannot really "know" anything!

There's an odd little quark of logic for ya.

[CeaSaR]

The truth of that matter is that Human logic is by definition illogical. And that depends on the viewpoint
taken by the observer and whether their beliefs are in line or opposite to the logic under question. And as
long as there are differing viewpoints, beliefs or whatever "it" may be called, there will be no way of settling
anything once and for all. Even then, there will be no way to keep an answer in situ as it is just human nature
to be contrary. If it wasn't this way, mankind would have died off long ago. It is that difference in humans
that makes us strive for more / better than what we have / are that makes us improve our chances of
continuing on as a species. Be that as it may, I would rather be right here, right now, than at any other
time in our history.

Thank you, and goodnight.

CeaSaR

Pertinent...

[haklesup]

"From Chaos comes Order"

This was true after the big bang and its true at the sub atomic level

What we mere mortals percieve as random may in fact be governed by a yet undiscovered rule.

If one should so choose, there is always more room for God in Physics as we learn more about the universe (if one should choose to augment reality with the unobservable and unprovable, that's why its called faith)

[MrAl]

"From Chaos comes Order"

This was true after the big bang and its true at the sub atomic level

What we mere mortals percieve as random may in fact be governed by a yet undiscovered rule.

If one should so choose, there is always more room for God in Physics as we learn more about the universe (if one should choose to augment reality with the unobservable and unprovable, that's why its called faith)

Hi there Hackle,

I believe that chaos can in fact bring order, but when we say, "From Chaos comes Order", we are automatically assuming that the
'Chaos' part was the first thing that was in 'existence'. What we dont know is what came before that. From the two choices
Chaos to Order, or Order to Chaos, it's seems to infer that we must pick one of the two, but that's not necessarily true. We can
at the very least also ask just how many cycles have already elapsed before this last one, and that should show how incomplete our
knowledge is. In this case we would have to ask what was the very first thing to appear or happen (or both).

Pure science is just too relative. It's often relative to the subject (no real absolutes) as well as to the times. Knowledge itself
is often relative to itself and also relative to the times...today it's true and tomorrow it's not, or vice versa.

Here's the thing that puzzles me...
When we consider an advanced subject in science we always want to know every possible angle before we make any conclusions,
and not dismiss the possibility of something before some proof shows up that really disproves it. Yet the possibility, the mere possibility,
of there being an all powerful being of some type out there somewhere seems to be ignored even without any real proof.
Analogy:
We have a large white rectangular table we divide in half with a black magic marker, right down the center forming a right half plane and
a left half plane. We have about 50000 biologists that are going to inspect this table for infectious diseases, and they all have the most
cutting edge modern equipment to work with. Now we also have 228 million people (yes that's 228,000,000 people) from the USA that
tell them that they are pretty sure (and some are very sure) that there is a very deadly bacteria on the left side of the table that could
kill millions of people if it gets off the table and into mainstream society. The fifty thousand biologists search the right half of the table
fervently over and over, and are unable to find a single cell that could cause harm to any human on this earth. They thus conclude that
there are no infectious cells on the left half plane either and go back to their everyday jobs as happy and as confident as they could
possibly be. Oh yeah, to be fair, there were 4.8 million people who said that they are pretty sure that there are no diseases on the
left half plane, and the rest of the people (67 million) just did not care.
Now if we ignore the 67 million, is it realistic to believe 5 million people over the 228 million people and just walk away once the analysis
of the right half plane is complete and no diseases were found?


I am also glad you brought up the question of advancing science and how the existence of God may be being proved right before our
eyes without anyone realizing it just yet.
One of the key points that i have noticed in recent science theory about the universe is that for years various texts on different
religions have mentioned time as being a very indistinct thing rather than the way we perceive it normally, and that was written
some five thousand years before it was discovered that time may be able to stop under certain conditions, and that time and
space are the same thing. The most interesting part is that since time can literally stop means that something could have been
in 'existence' for what we humans might interpret as "has always been in existence", or "no beginning or ending". If we assume
that there can be some form of existence without time, then something can surely exist without having to travel through time,
and thus it could be said to have been 'always' in existence. That's exactly what was written many years before the new scientific
view of time and space became familiar to us. The question is, what would make someone write something like that way back
then when there was no science like we have today? This was even wayyyyy before Newton.