God did not Create the Universe, says Hawking (Abiogenesis, church, abortion)

[progmac]

Originally Posted by Heartsong

I feel the same about those who believe in extra-terrestrials. It must remain in the science fiction category (at least in my 'book') Hawking 'believes' it is likely that there are aliens, and not only that, but also fears they may be a danger to earth and humans. That does not sound at all scientific to me. I'd call it faith.

I think from Hawking's perspective, his belief in aliens is a theory based on scientific evidence showing a great number of earth-like planets. To take that data and say yes, there are aliens, definitely, is a leap of faith, but to simply say it seems likely there are aliens seems rational. I don't know what Hawking said about aliens. I think as our scientific knowledge expands, we will reach a point where the line between supernatural and scientific reasonability begins to blur.

[Pleroo]

Originally Posted by progmac

I think from Hawking's perspective, his belief in aliens is a theory based on scientific evidence showing a great number of earth-like planets. To take that data and say yes, there are aliens, definitely, is a leap of faith, but to simply say it seems likely there are aliens seems rational. I don't know what Hawking said about aliens. I think as our scientific knowledge expands, we will reach a point where the line between supernatural and scientific reasonability begins to blur.

So your are implying that if someone says that, based on the evidence, it seems likely that there is a god, that would be rational as well? If not, what's the difference?

[progmac]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

So your are implying that if someone says that, based on the evidence, it seems likely that there is a god, that would be rational as well? If not, what's the difference?

Yes, that would be rational as well.

[RAZZEL]

What is made requires a maker.

The more complex the thing is made, the most capable the maker must be.

[RAZZEL]

In his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,: Michael Denton a molecular biologist, states: "Even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, . . . each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery . . . far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

Regarding genetic code in each small cell, he states: "The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. . . . Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [products] appear clumsy. We feel humbled."

M. Denton also adds: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event." It had to have a designer and maker.

[RAZZEL]

"The perversity of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted just like the clay? For should the thing made say respecting its maker: 'He did not make me'? And does the very thing formed actually say respecting its former: 'He showed no understanding'?"—Isaiah 29:16.

[progmac]

Originally Posted by RAZZEL

What is made requires a maker.

The more complex the thing is made, the most capable the maker must be.

These pithy responses to complex questions aren't really helpful unless you subscribe to the underlying doctrine.

An enormous body of scientific evidence has been compiled since the watchmaker argument* was made over two hundred years ago. Even if all of that science is rejected outright, you still would be faced with having a designer of whom the rules of the universe do not apply and the question of why such a thing exists.

*watchmaker argument is -- if one finds a watch, it is so complex that one knows it has a creator.

[RAZZEL]

Originally Posted by progmac

These pithy responses to complex questions aren't really helpful unless you subscribe to the underlying doctrine.

An enormous body of scientific evidence has been compiled since the watchmaker argument* was made over two hundred years ago. Even if all of that science is rejected outright, you still would be faced with having a designer of whom the rules of the universe do not apply and the question of why such a thing exists.

*watchmaker argument is -- if one finds a watch, it is so complex that one knows it has a creator.

A complex artifact needs to be designed

[eloyfan]

Scripture is man-made. That aside, ancient (beginning of life) cells did not have nuclei, did not contain DNA, were not complex, were not at that time capable of evolving into aything more than single cell. That all took time, chance, failures, and adaptation. So, of course today's bacteria is a dynamo, fabulous and intriguing and such. But....over billions of years that is what one would expect. Evolution does this sort of thing.

Humans evolved from bacteria. Two thousand year old book written by man vs. 4 billion years of stuff undergoing change and advancement. The creator of life was the exciting laboratory we call Planet Earth.

I don't expect you to subscribe to any of this, I bet you won't. But, like many others who toss around scripture as fact, it would behoove your arguments to brush up on the basic TENETS of evolution, so you sound informed. Evolution is factual and it is all there to look up and learn. And it's evolving every day, unlike religion, which is so arrogant that it can't be "evolved".

[Phazelwood]

It's not really even scientifically plausible for gravity to have an effect on nothing since it takes the existance of matter for gravity to exist.