Science could be superstitious too

[Saint]

I never claimed to be God. There is no God- how could I claim to be God?

But here's the clincher, you're acting as though something like this has happened which proves a God.
Problem is- that has never, ever happened.
It took 4.5 billion years for us to show up on the scale. So where's this God planting human brains in skulls?

4.5 billion years?
if that process can happen for so long,
why not now?
if it is a natural biological process for single cell to develop into very complicated organ,
can u simulate it?
by theory, u should be able to do it, but in fact, No!

evolution is against Second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Neverfly]

4.5 billion years?
if that process can happen for so long,
why not now?

This question does not follow- can you please try to rephrase it?

if it is a natural biological process for single cell to develop into very complicated organ,
can u simulate it?

On a computer. But to simulate it in life would require a very, very long time. Obviously. We already have the example to look at and how long it took- Life.

by theory, u should be able to do it, but in fact, No!

evolution is against Second law of thermodynamics.

This made no sense- it's not an English issue, it's you not knowing what your talking about.

 

[Saint]

if you are open-minded,
why not you also read books about the fallacy of evolution.

all natural processes are in the direction of increase of entropy,
single cell is impossible to arrange by itself to become complicated living things.

life comes from life, this is what we observe.

 

[Read-Only]

all natural processes are in the direction of increase of entropy,

I had chosen to stay out of this discussion. However, I see the need to point out one thing to you, Saint, that you clearly do NOT understand. Life itself is a temporary REVERSAL of entropy. It goes from simple things like chemicals and transforms them into large complex systems. Anyone who has ever seen a single tree should be able to see that quite clearly.

In the end, of course, when the organism dies, entropy takes over again. But that's the whole point - LIFE is no longer present when it dies.

 

[Saint]

please explain how can life came from non-life?
DNA got coding,
can immaterial things know coding?

 

[Neverfly]

if you are open-minded,
why not you also read books about the fallacy of evolution.

What are the fallacies of Evolution?

all natural processes are in the direction of increase of entropy,

False. Examine an ice cube or snowflake or diamond, all are complex chemical structures. Entropy is just one principle at work, like gravity. However, a magnet can resist gravity.

single cell is impossible to arrange by itself to become complicated living things.

False. You state this as fact even while you ignore scientific evidence presented.

 

[wynn]

what is designated by the birth and death of the body isn't simply a matter of opinion ...

So if one is born a black human, in 1850 in the US South, then one will be a slave, and heaven forbid one should try to break out of that?

Or if a person is born a female human, she has to submit to men, no matter what?

 

[Neverfly]

So if one is born a black human, in 1850 in the US South, then one will be a slave, and heaven forbid one should try to break out of that?

That they were born black had nothing to do with an actual designation- rather, a political designation was in effect that fortunately no longer is.

 

[lightgigantic]

So if one is born a black human, in 1850 in the US South, then one will be a slave, and heaven forbid one should try to break out of that?

given that some were in fact born a slave and died not a slave, it certainly appears to be variable

Or if a person is born a female human, she has to submit to men, no matter what?

lol

 

[Crunchy Cat]

4.5 billion years?
if that process can happen for so long,
why not now?

It still happens. Every child that is born is a product of continual evolution.

if it is a natural biological process for single cell to develop into very complicated organ,
can u simulate it?
by theory, u should be able to do it, but in fact, No!

Humans don't posess the technology to simulate however many billions of years and environmental conditions would be required for that. It took reality that long to do it... why do you think humans can magically do it much faster? You should look at the links that Neverfly provided, they are quite impressive concerning what we have been able to reproduce.

evolution is against Second law of thermodynamics.

What do you think evolution is? I am serious, clearly define your understanding. We have a sun in our solar system that constantly pumps new energy into our planet.

 

[spidergoat]

The human remains, the skeleton of so called millions years ago human,
are not evidence of evolution,
and science can not explain how can complicated human developed from single cell,
if it is possible, why not you do it in the lab to prove it right?

Not from a cell, before that there were simpler replicators, which might not be called life, like a virus. So life could have come from non-life. It just depends on your definition of life.

if you are open-minded,
why not you also read books about the fallacy of evolution.

all natural processes are in the direction of increase of entropy,
single cell is impossible to arrange by itself to become complicated living things.

life comes from life, this is what we observe.

Those books are almost universally written by religious people with a religious bias against evolution.

How do you know it's impossible for a single cell to become more complex?

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

not anymore than urea synthesis from the 1800's

That is dna synthesis applied to an already existing (living) cell.

Big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes ...

Thomas Chang, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell

 

[river]

From the big-bang point of view

It could be construed as being superstitious as much as God is, really

Both came from nothing and both are based on a belief mind-set

 

[spidergoat]

From the big-bang point of view

It could be construed as being superstitious as much as God is, really

Both came from nothing and both are based on a belief mind-set

No because the Big Bang is based on the observation of the red-shift.

 

[river]

No because the Big Bang is based on the observation of the red-shift.

Which then leads to the the single point of the begining

But the big-bang cannot describe what happened before the BB that's the problem

 

[spidergoat]

Which then leads to the the single point of the begining

But the big-bang cannot describe what happened before the BB that's the problem

But it leaves that out of the scope of the theory. There is no faith involved.

 

[river]

[ Originally Posted by river
Which then leads to the the single point of the begining[/quote]

But the big-bang cannot describe what happened before the BB that's the problem=spidergoat;3007061]

But it leaves that out of the scope of the theory. There is no faith involved.

I understand what your saying but there is faith involved because the faith is based on BB happening to explain the expansion findings

And not figuring out if there is an alternative explanation

 

[spidergoat]

Which then leads to the the single point of the begining

But the big-bang cannot describe what happened before the BB that's the problem

I understand what your saying but there is faith involved because the faith is based on BB happening to explain the expansion findings

And not figuring out if there is an alternative explanation

That's not faith. That's a reasonable inference based on evidence.

 

[cole grey]

You're assuming that in religion, "self-correction" means shifting toward a more liberal, humanist perspective.
But is that really "self correction" or is just plain change into something else - in which case, the notion of "self-correction" does not apply anymore?

"Self-correction" would be a movement toward greater consistency.
In the case of Christianity, this would mean stoning pagans and not having abortions.

If one were to stone pagans in the west, it would be considered a violation of basic human rights. If we are going to say good is bad and bad is good, which many would like to do, we might as well stop talking about ethics at all. We are required by our situation to see that a modern world religion cannot function in a civilized society without acting civilized. I would suggest that very little, if any, religious doctrine that can be practically applied has an opposition to the golden rule, or any basic humanistic protection of human rights.

 

[lightgigantic]

Thomas Chang, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell

Perusing the link strengthens my case. Is there anything in particular you want to highlight?