1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Primitive Alien Life May Exist, Stephen Hawking Says

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Celtkin, Apr 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    yes i have too. the frustrating part is that it is an un-winable debate unless you are of a particular faith. then, as you have said, facts become different. the amount of proof needed for "your" side to accept proof is ever changing and constant processing. keeping those that are attempting to offer proof constantly on their toes.

    i have a lot of respect for you from our discussions in the religious forums, they have been an insightful experience for me and i thank you for that. but these type of discussions always get to this point. melted down to the point of faith, and that is almost impossible to discuss because faith in not a tangible thing. you can point to things that bring you to faith but faith its self is not. how do you argue a point of faith?

    everyones faith is different. everyones faith is based on different things. no two people have the exact same faith. all you really have is groups of people of like or similar faith.

    i would like to turn this back to you. i want you to absolutely prove, as you are requesting of Mal, that creation is the only answer. do it without citing the Bible, unless you can prove that that is divinely inspired and correct. that is a point of faith and there is only one way to prove it.

    this is the problem with this type of discussion, it can only ever be one sided because it is science vs faith and in the eyes of those of faith they need no other proof than their belief and yet require everyone else to jump through hoops only to shoot them down with some divine belief or different "facts". often using their own arguments against them. but that never happens to faith, you can no more prove your point than you can accept anything Mal will ever present, factual or not. therefore this debate will be unending.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2008
    Celtkin likes this.
  2. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Thanks Kelly and I agree. I will end my part of this conversation after this point.

    What kind of me is that every science thread that talks about the earth or mankind being older than about 4-6,000 years, any discussion about evolution, or the possibility of life on other planets we get this kind of debate. If someone went into the religion forum and went off on an anti-God - anti-"faith" bashing rant whenever God was mentioned, I would soon ban that person from the forum. Yet, I sit here and put up with that lack of respect for phenomena based on observable, repeatable evidence in this forum.

    I am getting tired of it.
     
    Pagan and finswin56 like this.
  3. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    i have often wondered if there was some form of co existence between creation and evolution. there had to be a beginning, creation and it is proven that periods of time the Earth has gone through evolution. then followed by what seems to be leaps, possibly creation again. once again followed by points of evolution. could it be that possibly nature is about both creation and evolution? just a thought there...
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2008
  4. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    I believe there is a connection but it is not based on the literal interpretation of the Genesis account, IMO. What is read as a literal account is probably best thought of as a parable of God's love.
     
    Pagan, finswin56 and DOLPHAN1 like this.
  5. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    i understand what they are saying; that the earth did not exist until God created it and all that was, including man. but how can physical evidence of life before the possible existence of Adam and Eve just be rejected?
     
  6. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    It can't be.

    What I mean is that the whole Genesis creation event is flawed. I believe that God or a higher power if you will, put the events into place for life to exist but did not individually create the several million individual species.
     
  7. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    i think i understand. basically God(source) creates nature, nature takes it's course. kinda what i have always believed. then, to deny nature would mean to deny God, would it not?
     
  8. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    I believe so, yes.
     
    DOLPHAN1 likes this.
  9. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    then why don't you stick that part of the dicussion in the religious forum?
     
  10. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Where a discussion goes is pretty much dependent on where the members posts it. If you are suggesting that we take a rebuttal out of an existing thread and making a new thread from that in a new forum, don't you think that would seem a bit out of context?
     
  11. JCowScot

    JCowScot So funky the dead dance

    4,200
    1,825
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    FLA USA
    Just my 2cents: A good book that poses a plausible theory and logical evidence for such is Gerald Schroeder's The Science of God. In it, both the account of Genesis and the evidence records presented in the Earth are reconciled, as well as some translatory issues being cleared up (from the Hebrew to the Greek/English). I would most definitely recommend this for anyone who has ever questioned the validity of his religion b/c of science or vice-versa. It may not answer everything, but at the very least, your questions will be more pointed, direct and focused. :up:

    I am in agreement that you cannot simply throw out the scientific record present in our soil and underlying strata. By the same token, one cannot throw out the record of the Genesis creation if one is to believe in a God that is tied to the Hebrew/Christian Bible and/or the historical figure of Jesus Christ. One cannot logically or rationally separate the two. It would absolutely undermine the validity of ones entire belief system, just as it would undermine all the research and calculations of ones scientific study if they chose to disregard or selectively interpret the fossil records of our planet.

    IMO opinion, the bigger issue at hand is the total lack of understanding of ones individual belief system/faith. Why do you believe what you believe?? Is it logical?? Is it rational?? Can it be or has it been objectively verified?? Does it account for pain? Suffering? Morality? Life? The unexplained beyond (spirit world/ghosts)? Too few of us, I think, have questioned our beliefs and whether they hold up to the scrutiny of science and our own rational mind. Rather, we simply look for the evidence, no matter how small, that supports our point of view and call it. Game. Set. Match.

    We humans are the lone species on this planet that have the ability to ask 'Why?' From the very moment we are able to communicate with our elders, this is the first question on our minds- 'Why?' And when something doesn't make sense, whe ask 'Why?' again. So why, when we become of age, do we stop asking? Or if we do ask, why do we stop investigating after the first answer? Especially when further investigation reveals that answer to be illogical/untrue?? Why is our 'childhood curiosity' left to the children, when we adults are the ones that need it most??

    An interesting conundrum, to say the least. I suppose the old saying is true: 'Ignorance is Bliss." And most, it seems, would rather be blissfully ignorant than to work and search for the truth. Such a pity. :pity:
     
  12. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    Yes I state unapologetically that belief in evolution is a faith based belief system. You provide no evidence that proves that it isn't anything but a belief system. As I have stated elsewhere, there is no known mechansim showing any mutations that create new and heriditary information that can be passed on to the offspring. None. That is what evolution requires in order for it to be considered viable. There is no new information being created. In order for evolution to work there must be some evidence that shows new information being created, not reshuffling, or duplication of existing information.

    Fruit flies can grow two sets of wings, but this is just mutliplication of existing info. Mutations, which are 99% neutral or fatal, don't add information, and in many cases leave less information to pass on to offspring.
     
  13. Dolphan7

    Dolphan7 Member

    211
    21
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    AZ
    By itself? No it isn't alive. It requires other ingredients to be considered alive. Irreducable complexity.
     
  14. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    I have provided plenty of evidence of evolution and yes there is evidence that mutations pass on to offspring in a beneficial (an non-beneficial) way. Information is being created and adds to the survival of new evolving species.

    Since God did not create nylon, how would you explain the recent evolution of nylon metabolizing bacteria? FYI, nylon was invented ~ 1935
     
  15. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    RNA is not alive and there is nothing you can do to make it "alive". RNA is a code on which proteins (which also are not alive) are translated.
     
  16. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is not true. That is not true at all. There is a very low probability that you will win the lottery. Yet people win the lottery. That is not faith. Just because something has a low chance of happening and it happens is not faith. It is science.

    We are still primates. Humans are not horses, cats or sheep.
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  17. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    I am going to close this thread without further replying because it is clear that the thread is already too far off topic and it is getting tiresome to defend demonstrable evidence. I don't have the time to dispel some deep misunderstanding about scientific principals and, besides, it has and will continue to fall on a deaf ear.
     
    finswin56 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page