Poll: How did human life come about?

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: DrPizza
p.s. Even the Catholics, one of the slowest to come to grips with reality, agree with the big bang theory and evolution. (Since Pope Pious the some #)

So you're telling me all Catholics disregard the first book of the Bible?

Big Bang and Evolutionary theories are not in conflict with the Book of Genesis. Quite the opposite, they are too much in accord IMO.

I'm not saying that they are. But DrPizza seems to believe that since the Pope supposedly agrees with both the big bang and evolution that religion is stupid and everyone who believes in something is ignorant.

Well, he seems to have a hard time recognizing that religion and science are not in conflict with each other. This is typical of the internet scientist crowd, which wrongly thinks that scientific reality is somehow influenced by the percentage of people who believe in it. Meh, IIRC he's a teacher though, so I suppose in his case it's excusable. But to the rest, science is about facts, not beliefs. Religion is about beliefs, not facts. That's what makes this thread flawed to begin with -- it begins with the assumption that science concerns itself with what people believe. And hence when have internet scientists running in to proselytize their faith.

:thumbsup: I love internet scientists. ...oh wait..no I don't. they affect my BP too much.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Leros
All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.

Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.

What evidence? Last I checked it is impossible to have evidence that god does not exist. But maybe you know of some substance or way of measuring god matter that I don't know.

 

[zinfamous]

I like that the original source mislabled options 1 and 2 as creationist and theistic, respectively. Option 2 more-or-less defines creationist belief, yet both sources that are linked call this the theistic option....am I missing something?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I like that the original source mislabled options 1 and 2 as creationist and theistic, respectively. Option 2 more-or-less defines creationist belief, yet both sources that are linked call this the theistic option....am I missing something?

Generally, "creationism" is viewed as a diametric opposite to "evolutionism" (which isn't really an "-ism" at all, but I digress). Option 2, therefore, represents a "theistic evolutionist" point of view.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Leros
All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.

Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.

What evidence? Last I checked it is impossible to have evidence that god does not exist. But maybe you know of some substance or way of measuring god matter that I don't know.

Sounds like you found some evidence that he doesn't exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Leros
All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.

Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.

What evidence? Last I checked it is impossible to have evidence that god does not exist. But maybe you know of some substance or way of measuring god matter that I don't know.

Sounds like you found some evidence that he doesn't exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Leros
All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.

Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.

What evidence? Last I checked it is impossible to have evidence that god does not exist. But maybe you know of some substance or way of measuring god matter that I don't know.

Sounds like you found some evidence that he doesn't exist.

Huh? Do you even understand the term evidence?

 

[ForumMaster]

i don't believe in god. there, i've answered your question.

 

[exdeath]

"It was the central hull of a colossal spacecraft with a diameter of at least 40 kelts.
Judging from the condition of the hull, we estimated the ship was thousands of years old."

"It was determined, by examining the inside of the wreckage, that some kind of accident occured on this ship about 10,000 years ago... which forced it to crash onto our planet."

""Alien beings that came to our planet from a far off galaxy, aeons ago..."
Could it possibly have been that our ancestors were the passengers of this ship and had crash landed here on this planet... "

"Seeking god and his divine wisdom... 'Razael's Tree'... which, it is said, lie here in Mahanon, we proceeded further. "

In its center were two gently glowing objects.
It was the source of divine wisdom... It was 'Razael's Tree'.
And the cavern itself was a giant computer called Razael.

"A large unmanned strategic weapon and its battalion of terminal interface weapons, travelling from star system to star system. And a gargantuan mothership used to carry them... "


Dreams...
A life of a man named Lacan... And the lives of countless other men...
All but dreams...
Now that I am awake, those countless numbers of long, heartrending dreams are almost impossible to remember at all...
In those dreams, I loved one woman... No matter the day, No matter the era... That did not change...
Nor did her name...

Dreams...
A life of a woman named Sophia... And the lives of countless other women...
All but dreams...
Now that I am awake, those countless numbers of long, heartrending dreams are almost impossible to remember at all...
In those dreams, I loved one man... No matter the day, No matter the era... That did not change...
Only his name...

 

[SirStev0]

I don't know about this whole gallop question. What of Americans that do not fit in the judeo-christian sects? Eastern religions dont even really get into things like this. Hell, half of their philosophy is based on there always being the world and it was in an attempt to fulfill the purpose of the world that there was humans.

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: keeleysam
Option three, minus the god part.

I believe in God but also evolution, which is funny b/c it totally contradicts itself

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: keeleysam
Option three, minus the god part.

I believe in God but also evolution, which is funny b/c it totally contradicts itself

It really doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't have to. It depends what you believe about God, I guess.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

and so what your saying is that if somehow abiogenesis is proven untrue, or lets even speculate that it should be shown that the initial conditions for the natural selection theory are impossible to happen in the universe... then the whole theory goes out the window? Evolution included?


What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen. And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.

Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.

And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.

Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.

And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."

/confused

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.

Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.

And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."

Im not disputing evolution does & is continuing to happen today...
What i question is the following... it seems that we have the cart before the horse...

Natural selection claims that life has as its furthest common ancestor a single cell. If it should be proven that the common ancestral single cell organism could never have existed, then what happens to the theory of what did ultimately happen from the beginning until today, not what does happen today.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.

Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.

And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."

/confused

/can't help ya without some additional feedback

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.

Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.

And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."

/confused

/can't help ya without some additional feedback

Well said Garth. :beer:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Natural selection claims that life has as its furthest common ancestor a single cell. If it should be proven that the common ancestral single cell organism could never have existed, then what happens to the theory of what did ultimately happen from the beginning until today, not what does happen today.

Hmm... IMO you've sorta mischaracterized evolutionary theory a bit, but what you've said is indeed a more-or-less accurate popular understanding.

Either life began or it didn't. One way or the other, life is here, and it evolves. That much is certain. Moreover, genetic and fossil evidence reveal a nested hierarchy of interrelatedness of the species. That indicates strongly the common ancestry of all biological organisms. These facts remain no matter what the "ultimate," "last," or "greatest" common ancestor was.

It is conceivable that there were multiple abiogenesis events -- that life began several times. For that reason, it is conceivable, and not incompatible with evolutionary theory that all life can be traced back to ONE OF SEVERAL common ancestors.

EDIT: I guess my point is that no matter what we know or don't know about abiogenesis, we know about common ancestry. I don't think you can dispute that abiogenesis happened. Once there was not life, then there was life. In between, whatever happened, *that* was abiogenesis. What we want to know is what happened. We can be fairly sure that something did happen.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: TheChort

Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.

anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!

Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.

Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.

I'd love to see you explain gravity. We can't but would you deny gravity?

So if I claim it's impossible to scientifically prove the non-existence of God, that means that I would deny gravity??

You got your logic backwards. :roll:

All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.

Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.

I'm sorry, this is a ridiculous straw man. In addition, what little logic you are using you have applied completely backwards.
Let me clarify: we have evidence for gravity, we can observe it. In the meantime, we may or may not have evidence for or against the existence of God, if only we could define what "God" is. But as we can't even get that far, we are pretty sure that we can't make a determination one way or another.

If, by some chance, you manage to prove the non-existence of God in a scientific manner, I promise you that you will get the Nobel Prize.

In the meantime, I suggest you stick to arguments you understand, as opposed to jumping at some apples and oranges conclusion and then pretending to yourself that you're clever.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.

Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.

And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."

/confused

Not sure what confuses you, but I think one point Garth was trying to get across (and he can correct me if I've misrepresented) is that when you're discussing abiogenesis in the nuts and bolts details, how you define what's "alive" and what's not "alive" becomes somewhat arbitrary. I might say it was the first self-replicating molecule. Then I'm stuck with something like this, and my definition seems inadequate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.

Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.

And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?

I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."

/confused

There's nothing to be confused about. "Life" is a human word for a human concept, therefore, humans define it. I suppose to understand this it would help to understand the biggest mistake that people make when they conceptualize these types of subjects. You see, most people think they are outside looking in. Meaning that they imagine that they are observers of reality from an external and objective viewpoint, and thus their definitions and viewpoints are also external and objective. This is wrong. You are inside looking out. We are inside looking out. We are participants creating and defining our experiences and observations as we go along.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

(and he can correct me if I've misrepresented)

No, you've summed it up quite well. :beer:

 

[Crono]

The way pride is expressing itself on this forum, I'm surprised people aren't claiming that they created themselves :disgust: :brokenheart:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono
The way pride is expressing itself on this forum, I'm surprised people aren't claiming that they created themselves :disgust:

Well, just because I have a penchant for puttin' the screws to the faithful...

To a certain extent, we each do create ourselves, continuously. Perhaps you're familiar with the fun fact that the matter which composes our bodies become completely renewed every 7 years or so. That matter is replenished with new matter that we have in fact "acquired" through ingestion and metabolism. It is true enough to say, then, that the "me" that I am now -- that is, this particular pattern of flesh and bone -- has been built up by my own bodily functions beginning some 7 years ago. I am a new person and the person that I was is dead.

Obviously, this raises a lot of interesting questions about identity as it relates to material reality, but I think those are beyond the scope of this thread.