Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One possibility is that humans came from somewhere other than Earth.
What I personally think is that, there is no such thing called God sitting on a throne etc. God is more like a subtle consciousness. When we are really talking of evolution, we cannot ask, who did this. If we ask who created us, we woud be believing the concept that there was an intelligence present prior to anything (which many call God). consciousness is more subtler than intelligence.
Advaita (Vedas from Hinduism) says that this consciousness has the ability to reduce it itself to anything ... In the process of identifying itself, consciousness questions itself ...but consciousness cannot find itself ... The awareness cannot be aware of its own awareness ... It can only be relatively be aware of itself through an external object ... When that happens, consciousness gets confused and thinks it is that object ... and then a chain reaction sets in place between objects and other objects due to this confusion about identities ... In this process, the whole world is manifested ... Hence, Upanishads (Hindu scripture) have concluded, that everything is consciousness ... Tat Tvam Asi ... which is nothing but That Art Thou ...
He believed that something as complex as human DNA could not have come about by random chance in the time it had to do so.
Do you happen to know when he said this (roughly what year)?
Until the early 1970s we didn't have a very good understanding of the principles by which ordered systems emerge from chaos. Also, as of the 1990s we now have some evidence to suggest that mutations are not always purely random. It would be helpful if you could offer a reference for your statement about Crick.
You do not get to delimit or decide what God's attributes are
This is the problem however. NO ONE can do so. They have not been able thus far to even establish the entity exists and is real, let alone what attributes it has.
Yet people insist on doing it all the time. They tell us what it hates, what it loves, what it forgives, what it wants, how it wants things to be done, what position we can have sex in and with whom, when it adds the soul to a fertilised egg and much much much more.
So unless they have access to sources of information that are not available to me, they are just barefaced lying... both about their knowledge the entity exists AND the attributes and opinions they have ascribed to it (which much much more often than not always just happen to match the opinions of the person telling you what gods opinions are).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Our ignorance and the inscrutability of God is not license for you to demand that YOUR preferences become the default without substantiating them absolutely with scientific evidence.
And yet every single theist alive does just that by assigning the attribute, based on nothing any of them have thus far gotten around to showing me, that the entity actually exists. You say "Only those so substantiated are allowed to be default" well tell theists that because the fact this entity exists is NOT thus far substantiated in even a small way to my knowledge yet they consider the fact that it exists default.
Or is it one rule for theists and one rule for everyone else in this regard???
This is the problem however. NO ONE can do so. They have not been able thus far to even establish the entity exists and is real, let alone what attributes it has.
Yet people insist on doing it all the time. They tell us what it hates, what it loves, what it forgives, what it wants, how it wants things to be done, what position we can have sex in and with whom, when it adds the soul to a fertilised egg and much much much more.
So unless they have access to sources of information that are not available to me, they are just barefaced lying... both about their knowledge the entity exists AND the attributes and opinions they have ascribed to it (which much much more often than not always just happen to match the opinions of the person telling you what gods opinions are).
And yet every single theist alive does just that by assigning the attribute, based on nothing any of them have thus far gotten around to showing me, that the entity actually exists. You say "Only those so substantiated are allowed to be default" well tell theists that because the fact this entity exists is NOT thus far substantiated in even a small way to my knowledge yet they consider the fact that it exists default.
Or is it one rule for theists and one rule for everyone else in this regard???
Just because you prefer to believe that the Creator and the source of life and reality is NOT a God (which is amazingly arrogant given the scope of what you are rejecting) . . . you claim that all the evidence of this Creator and reality must be ignored until OTHER attributes people prefer to believe about God are established to your satisfaction. Utter nonsense. If the Source of everything that exists cannot be called a God to us puny insignificant cosmic microbes . . . what can?
Just because you prefer to believe that the Creator and the source of life and reality is NOT a God (which is amazingly arrogant given the scope of what you are rejecting) . . . you claim that all the evidence of this Creator and reality must be ignored until OTHER attributes people prefer to believe about God are established to your satisfaction. Utter nonsense. If the Source of everything that exists cannot be called a God to us puny insignificant cosmic microbes . . . what can?
If you want to define the term 'God' as simply "the Source of everything" then I don't think you'd find any rational person arguing that God (insofar as we accept your definition) does not exist. Physics accepts the quantum vacuum. Buddhist accept a pregnant Void or Nothingness. Atheist, in general, will accept some sort of "pure potential" or existential ground of being. On the basis of this definition, why would you even bother to argue about my proposed "primordial qualitative chaos"? I'm happy to call it "God" if you like (tho I prefer "Goddess"). Why isn't my proposal at least as likely to be as philosophically/scientifically productive as any other? THIS is where things get interesting. If you say that God is not a chaotic system, then you are applying some qualifications to God. So then you need to explain why your qualifications are better than mine.
Do you happen to know when he said this (roughly what year)?
Until the early 1970s we didn't have a very good understanding of the principles by which ordered systems emerge from chaos. Also, as of the 1990s we now have some evidence to suggest that mutations are not always purely random. It would be helpful if you could offer a reference for your statement about Crick.
I don't have a date. It was mentioned in passing on a show called "Ancient Aliens", which has a number of episodes.
Just because you prefer to believe that the Creator and the source of life and reality is NOT a God....
You have right there stopped talking with me and started talking past me at this point and just started playing your record.
I have clearly adumbrated my position and NOTHING ABOUT IT indicates or is dependent on any preference either way.
The fact no one is offering a single shred of evidence, argument, data or reasons to me... in 18 years of asking.... that lends any credence to the claim is entirely independent of any “preference” I might or might not have in your imagination.
I could prefer it all I want… but wishes do not become truths.... it simply does not change what people have offered me.... which is nothing.
So you can imagine "preferences" and "biases" in your head and falsely assign them to me until you turn grey(er) and old(er). It changes nothing, nor is it in the slightest way accurate as I possess no such preferences on the subject.
You do not know me, so do not pretend to by inventing preferences for me that I do not hold and putting them in my mouth. I have more than enough words of my own without you adding yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
you claim that all the evidence of this Creator and reality must be ignored
Again: Please keep your words out of MY mouth as I have more than enough of my own.
I said numerous times I have not been SHOWN any such evidence. I not once said that that evidence must be ignored??? PLEASE QUOTE ME EVER SAYING THAT or withdraw the lie now.
It was you yourself, not me, that said that unsubstantiated attributes can not be accepted as default. You said that and I fully agree with it. The problem however is that the attribute of it actually existing IS one of those unsubstantiated attributes. I merely ask that you apply your own rule therefore, which unless you think it is one rule for you and one rule for the rest of us is in fact an entirely correct thing to request.
I don't have a date. It was mentioned in passing on a show called "Ancient Aliens", which has a number of episodes.
Here is an update from Wiki:
"During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms. At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”. In a retrospective article, Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life."
No scientist can suggest extraterrestrial origins for humanity and ever expect to be taken seriously--so what else do you expect?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
