The Moon and Design

Originally posted by humy

I don't agree with evolution, by itself, without first...a creator.

What you don't agree with for religious reasons is irrelevant to what the truth may be.

Like: oh....wouldn't a brain be lovely to assist us with life.....poof,

You really need proof that a brain helps us to survive?
Do you really believe you can ...[text shortened]... t and is not a theory of how the first life arose thus doesn't require explaining the beginning.

I am not disputing evolution.

I said a reasonable beginning was required first. You ignored that because you don't have a clue how life started.

Evolution without a beginning is half the story, and you seem content with only that half, and a little magic tossed in to fill the missing puzzle pieces.

Originally posted by chaney3
I am not disputing evolution.

I said a reasonable beginning was required first.

No, not for the credibility of evolution. Evolution is NOT a theory of how the first life arose thus doesn't require explaining a beginning.

Originally posted by humy
No, not for the credibility of evolution. Evolution is NOT a theory of how the first life arose thus doesn't require explaining a beginning.

Then tell me, what is the theory of how first life began?

Originally posted by chaney3
Then tell me, what is the theory of how first life began?

Just google abiogenesis and read all the research on it; that is the theory, which is based on logistical reasoning, experimental evidence and observations. In contrast, Goddidit is based on just blind faith, not logic or evidence.

Originally posted by chaney3
I am not disputing evolution.

I said a reasonable beginning was required first. You ignored that because you don't have a clue how life started.

Evolution without a beginning is half the story, and you seem content with only that half, and a little magic tossed in to fill the missing puzzle pieces.

See, this is where we get into the part where you think humans, having SUCH huge brains should have all this stuff, the entire wall of bax, figured out now. But think of this. Lets go with even the stupid 6000 year date of the literal creationists.

So humans around 6 ish thousand years. So science as we know it started something like , lets go for broke and call it the year 1400 or so, people started thinking more in terms of well, just what is it that makes water turn to ice, why does it melt, why does ice float, kind of questions. So now, we have say just for grins, 600 years of science. So that makes science only the last 10% of our existance, 90% of the rest of the time we didn't know jack about anything and just make up crap. Like the 7 day creation myth. That is directly copied from a much older Egyptian 7 day creation myth just plagiarized by the Jews back whent they lived, or slaved, whatever, in Egypt, names were changed to protect the innocent. So they didn't know jack either, ESPECIALLY either.

So forward to year 1400, 1500, 1600 and so forth. 1600 we had a decent little telescope so that what's his name could see funny stuff going on at Saturn, actually at first Galilleo saw what he thought were handles on a coffee cup kind of image, then better scopes came about shortly after and he realized they were rings of stuff going around Saturn.

So that got the world buzzing.

So now, it's only 400 years later and we didn't get going big time till maybe 1850 when they started discovering useful chemical tricks, making deep blue dyes for instance, batteries new, electric motors still a few years off but telegraphs were around. Still in the dark even about simple stuff like DNA🙂
So forward another hundred years and it is now 1950 or so and those Crick dudes figured out DNA, with the help of that lady who should have gotten the Nobel along with the boys, but you can't have THAT now can you.

So fast forward another 60 years we figure the age of Earth pegged at around 4.5 bil, and the solar system itself maybe a bit older, dust collecting from star poop, that's what we are.

Still don't know jack about how life started. So what you are doing is dissing science, a really young discipline for being as it is now, just out of kindergarten. Come back in another hundred years if you want to see answers to those bigasss questions.
We have theories like the out of mud with lightning kind of thing kick starting just biologicallyish acting molecules getting more complex as time goes by with a trillion trillion trillion little chemical experiments going on all at once all over the planet, whether it was clay covered in water and stuff seeping in, phosphorous and what not and after the first couple trillion experiments, they were complex enough to make RNA, the forerunner to DNA. So theories are bandied about sort of like that, with variations, but nobody knows at this date in time so you can feel good about yourself dissing the young disipline of science but you may have noticed, science now is expanding logrythmically (Sp?)

So 10 years ago we knew only 1/10th what we now know, 10 years from now we may know a hundred times what we now know. LOTS of papers being written on the life origin subject. And BTW, Life origin questions are ALWAYS tied directly to Evolution science, that way they religious asssholes can (in their deluded minds) dis an entire science without ever having to the hard work to actually learn it. Go figure.

Now look at the case where we have good evidence it was not a stupid, REALLY stupid. 6000 year timeline, since we know now how to date ancient rocks with 10 different disciplines, like tree ring dating, or for weather and climate, ice core analysing, or carbon 14 dating, good for say 30 odd thousand years and that is just the barest beginning because our dating science says some protohuman fossils were alive something like 3 MILLION years ago and modern humans (the kind you could take as a baby from 100,000 years ago, and raise him or her in Greenwich village, as an adult, nobody could tell that person popped out of a time machine from 100,000 years before the present.

Brains just as smart or dumb as anyone else, their could be people from that period if educated modern like, could have IQ's of 200 like some of the smartest of us moderns.

So now we have a date of 100,000 years where science could have at any time in that loop, come up to today's level. So say 500 years V 100,000 years. That is one part in 200, or 1/2% of our human time devoted to modern science.

See my drift here? 99.95 percent of the time we knew jack, and lightning was a god.

Now we know just don't let it touch you and you may be scared but not dead.....

So lets wait till we have at least 1% has gone by, another 500 years, see if we are still in kindergarten scientifically speaking, assuming we don't off ourselves as a high tech civilization by being stupid, something that comes quite naturally to most humans, lets see, save the planet or build up my 401 K to 20 million bucks, which would you choose? But that aside, with 500 uninterrupted years of science advances we will answer that question and probably because we figured out how to travel a million times the speed of light and see a lot more of the universe and have found life dam near everywhere there is light, liquid water and a few minerals like phosphorus and such for light and lightning can do their trillion trillion trillion little life probe kind of experiments where stuff gets subjected to light, heat, lightning in a watery rock and something emerges that says, Hey I'm smarter than YOU at least...

Originally posted by sonhouse
See, this is where we get into the part where you think humans, having SUCH huge brains should have all this stuff, the entire wall of bax, figured out now. But think of this. Lets go with even the stupid 6000 year date of the literal creationists.

So humans around 6 ish thousand years. So science as we know it started something like , lets go for broke ...[text shortened]... lightning in a watery rock and something emerges that says, Hey I'm smarter than YOU at least...

Wow. What a post.

All I can say is that not only does design make sense to me, but it explains what science cannot explain. Origin of life.

By the way, my creator is God, but as I said to wildgrass, I see no reason why the Bible must be interpreted to say anything about 6,000 years.

Whether a person believes the Adam story or not, I don't see how a theory of human origin can include a scenario where human life began with an infant. The infant would shortly die. So the evolution theory must begin somehow with the first human being old enough for self survival. If one doubts the Adam story, at least the writers were smart enough for him to have started as an adult male, capable of surviving on his own.

Originally posted by chaney3
Wow. What a post.

All I can say is that not only does design make sense to me, but it explains what science cannot explain. Origin of life.

By the way, my creator is God, but as I said to wildgrass, I see no reason why the Bible must be interpreted to say anything about 6,000 years.

Whether a person believes the Adam story or not, I don't see how ...[text shortened]... ers were smart enough for him to have started as an adult male, capable of surviving on his own.

I think you are severely missing the key points of evolution. The fundamental meaning is "to change". I don't ever recall that it states the human race began from a lone human infant that survived and somehow cloned itself. It postulates we began from something entirely non human.

Originally posted by joe shmo
I think you are severely missing the key points of evolution. The fundamental meaning is "to change". I don't ever recall that it states the human race began from a lone human infant that survived and somehow cloned itself. It postulates we began from something entirely non human.

Science does not know the origin of life. Whatever their guess is, which you say is non human, when "IT" does become human, it must be an adult.

I don't buy that ridiculous guessing by the way.

Creation to start, then evolution to follow.

Originally posted by chaney3
Science does not know the origin of life. Whatever their guess is, which you say is non human, when "IT" does become human, it must be an adult.

I don't buy that ridiculous guessing by the way.

Creation to start, then evolution to follow.

If you're going to have a faith discussion in a scientific forum, you need to treat Genesis as a metaphor.

I hope this does not come off as condescending, but you're changing your tune here. At first it seemed like you were arguing determinism; that is, a series of events was purposefully set in motion at the big bang which led to current events. If so, given the immutable laws of physics, reasonable people can disagree on the "purposefully" part, but in a sense it is unfalsifiable since I don't think anyone could have proven you wrong.

But now you're saying an adult human being simply appeared out of the dirt? Why? Obviously life existed before this point. It doesn't make sense. Entertaining all possibilities, how would you then explain the uncanny similarity of our genomes with other apes? Did Adam skip puberty? Was this adult human White or Hispanic or what? How was genetic diversity established if the male/female were genetically identical? Did trees appear suddenly too, as fully grown and mature, with all their seasonal rings? Given what we know about the world we live it, the idea is fantastical.

Please indulge me on this front: Ask yourself, working within the framework of the scientific method, how would you prove the existence of the Creator? You have a hypothesis, now you need to design the experiment and present the results. Without evidence to support this hypothesis, you can't simply ask others to prove you wrong. Even if the results are hypothetical, what would be the key experiment that would prove or disprove your position? Please think about this carefully before you respond.

It probably goes without saying that this has been contemplated for several millenia. Since we have no way to prove or disprove your position, it is irrelevant. It is what I'd call a moot point.

Originally posted by wildgrass
If you're going to have a faith discussion in a scientific forum, you need to treat Genesis as a metaphor.

I hope this does not come off as condescending, but you're changing your tune here. At first it seemed like you were arguing determinism; that is, a series of events was purposefully set in motion at the big bang which led to current events. If so, ...[text shortened]... e no way to prove or disprove your position, it is irrelevant. It is what I'd call a moot point.

I will reply with more later, time does not permit now, but wanted to clear up the 'adult human' thing.

I only said it that way because an infant or toddler would likely not survive on its own.

So somewhere in the midst of evolution, without a creator, this hurdle must be addressed, and this applies only to humans of course, not trees.

If I am wrong, which is likely, please let me know why.

Originally posted by sonhouse
See, this is where we get into the part where you think humans, having SUCH huge brains should have all this stuff, the entire wall of bax, figured out now. But think of this. Lets go with even the stupid 6000 year date of the literal creationists.

So humans around 6 ish thousand years. So science as we know it started something like , lets go for broke ...[text shortened]... lightning in a watery rock and something emerges that says, Hey I'm smarter than YOU at least...

A classic! Save this one for your book.

Originally posted by humy
Just google abiogenesis and read all the research on it; that is the theory, which is based on logistical reasoning, experimental evidence and observations. In contrast, Goddidit is based on just blind faith, not logic or evidence.

misedit

"logistical reasoning"

is supposed to be;

"logical reasoning"

Originally posted by chaney3
I see evidence of design in the human body, nature, the brain, emotions, the universe, which includes eclipse, the human spirit, magnetic shield, food, love, the mere existence of physical laws, etc etc.

These may seem silly to some, or easily explained away as luck or probability to others, but I see design. Can I prove it? No, it's just how I interpre ...[text shortened]... me ask you: what evidence of design would suffice? What is it that you and others need to see?

As I explained, for evidence for design to exist, one needs to be able to point to something that could not have happened without design. For instance, why couldn't the human body have come about without "design"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
As I explained, for evidence for design to exist, one needs to be able to point to something that could not have happened without design. For instance, why couldn't the human body have come about without "design"?

He really needs to look up the word "evidence" in the dictionary and then come back to us.

What he doesn't seem to get is evidence is what changes the probability of a hypothesis.
If it doesn't change that probability, it isn't evidence for or against that hypothesis.
And, if it doesn't change any probability, it isn't evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

chaney3;
How do YOU define what evidence is?

Originally posted by chaney3
Science does not know the origin of life. Whatever their guess is, which you say is non human, when "IT" does become human, it must be an adult.

I don't buy that ridiculous guessing by the way.

Creation to start, then evolution to follow.

You are implying that science will never know the origin of life. I am here to tell you you are dissing science which for now is still in kindergarten level. Of course we don't know origin. YET. I am confident (though I won't be here) that in time, 1 hundred, 2 hundred, whatever, years, we WILL know exactly how life started here and I think it safe to say it won't require a god creator. That still leaves you a opening of course, since we also don't know exactly how the whole universe started, we have good theories based on evidence but so far we can't say for sure, so you are safe to say god created the universe in such a way as to allow life. The catch there is, Earth is not in any kind of special place in the universe, only a relatively special place in our galaxy. That is to say, away from all the radiation and stuff of the center of the galaxy but not so far out in the burbs to be in an area where the stars out in the fringe are low metal stars.

Our sun is a relatively high metal content star and so was the dust that formed our whole system billions of years ago and all that metal dust and carbon and water and such formed planets with lots of metal, even the moon has lots of metal. Without such metal, life would be in an energy poor environment, unable to make the key proteans we need.

So in that sense we are in a fairly special place, but only in our own galaxy. That however leads to the idea that even in our own galaxy there are literally hundreds of millions of stars just like Sol, and their solar systems that would go with it. The implication there is life is everywhere and therefore life on Earth is not that special and if and when we ever achieve interstellar travel I would fully expect to find life in boundless numbers even in our own galaxy and don't forget there are literally trillions of galaxies so it looks mathematically sure that there is life elsewhere and we are not unique, maybe even down the list of the top life forms in terms of intelligence, compassion and such for life elsewhere.