god and science

[subversion]

Life is one of the greatest mysteries, but will we ever explain it? Scientists believe life started somewhat spontaneously in a prebiotic soup here on planet earth some 3 and a half billion years ago. But how this actually occurred, is somehwat of a mystery. Life is the one miraculous fact of existence which we have yet to fully wrest from God's hands, so proving how life started, will be the final death blow to religion and god. Or will it?

I am not saying I believe in god, but I find he may be hard to disprove. Consider this, in order to determine how life started from non-living material, humans will have to posit a good scenario to describe how such spontaneous life generation could occurr. We know that amino acids and various building blocks of life might be present in comets and that these could have been present on the early earth and perhaps tumultuous conditions such as hot volcanic springs and active lighting and weather could have given the spark to allow the building blocks to begin reacting. But going from normal chemical reactions to an actual reproducing organism with volitional will is quite a leap. Nonetheless, it should be science's goal to explain how this can happen, and then to try to reproduce it.

The problem comes when we reproduce it. Reproduction is absolutely necessary as final proof according to the way science works. However, if we reproduce life ourselves, would we be disproving god, or proving him? So it seems science belies itself. For science believes that to show how life started we must recreate it, but does science realize this would prove that you CAN create life? We will then be forced to accept the possibility that we could have been created by another lifeform. So you see, it is impossible to prove that life can not be created. Proving life can be created spontaneously without aid, will only prove that it can be created non-spontaneously and with aid as well. Kind of freaky huh? Therefore it is impossible to prove that life can only arise spontaneously unless you are there to witness it for yourself in a natural, non experimental setting.

[michellemfry]

Speaking as one who has reproduced, first I must tell you it is a great deal of work. A vast amount of energy is involved in reproduction. And there is the ever present danger of loss. These things must have been present when life began. And yet, here we are. Noone knows where the energy comes from to accomplish such things. It seems to grow with the growing thing inside of you. That is the only way I know to describe such a thing to you. Hope that helps.

[subversion]

when I say reproduction I am referring to artificilaly creating life from non-life in a laboratory setting. In other words, reproducing the advent of the emergence of life in order to determine if our hypothesis about how life possibly emerged is correct. If we reproduce, or recreate, the advent of the beginning of life, we would simultaneously be proving and disproving god in different senses. Disproving him in the fact that we show, "look, anybody can create life." Or proving him in the fact that we show, "look, anybody can create life." Does that make sense?

[baudrunner]

Therefore it is impossible to prove that life can only arise spontaneously unless you are there to witness it for yourself in a natural, non experimental setting.

The sciences of investigative Geology and Paleantology allowed us to derive some fairly well established premises. As a matter of fact, the process of the creation of life occurred over such an immense time frame that it boggles the mind, considering that it took approximately 2 billion years just to evolve eukaryotes from single-celled life which contained just a few simple nucleotide sequences. Not exactly what I would call a spontaneous occurrence.

The original life forms were anaerobic and came into being about 4.2 billion years ago. It is generally believed by experts that oil is the waste product of the digestion of the ferrite substrata of this earth by a bacterial type of fungal mold which metabolises in the absence of oxygen. Those early life forms would be forerunners, if not direct analogues.

Oxygen entered the atmosphere about 3.5 billion years ago and then we have the beginnings of "life", that is self-contained photosynthetic reactions, yielding eventually blue-green algae and early aerobic bacteria. Some of this life evolved eventually into sponge spicules and marine algae which are dated at about 1 billion years ago. About 650 million years before the present day we see the emergence of microscopic trilobyte-like creatures with a clearly defined symmetry, ie. left and right side, mouth and anus.

God doesn't actually enter the picture until about thirty-three hundred years ago, around the time when Moses went looking for Him in the 'celestial river' ie. the Milky Way rising out of the southern Nile at night. Everybody thinks he went east by north east but that is just assumption and the geographical data on which that is based were entered into the bible to support that misconception much later. There is some fairly compelling evidence to support the idea that he went south, and that he did actually find someone (God?) on top of a kind of mountain, more like a mesa, but that's another thread.

[enton]

Life is one of the greatest mysteries, but will we ever explain it? Scientists believe life started somewhat spontaneously in a prebiotic soup here on planet earth some 3 and a half billion years ago. But how this actually occurred, is somehwat of a mystery. Life is the one miraculous fact of existence which we have yet to fully wrest from God's hands, so proving how life started, will be the final death blow to religion and god. Or will it?

I am not saying I believe in god, but I find he may be hard to disprove. Consider this, in order to determine how life started from non-living material, humans will have to posit a good scenario to describe how such spontaneous life generation could occurr. We know that amino acids and various building blocks of life might be present in comets and that these could have been present on the early earth and perhaps tumultuous conditions such as hot volcanic springs and active lighting and weather could have given the spark to allow the building blocks to begin reacting. But going from normal chemical reactions to an actual reproducing organism with volitional will is quite a leap. Nonetheless, it should be science's goal to explain how this can happen, and then to try to reproduce it.

The problem comes when we reproduce it. Reproduction is absolutely necessary as final proof according to the way science works. However, if we reproduce life ourselves, would we be disproving god, or proving him? So it seems science belies itself. For science believes that to show how life started we must recreate it, but does science realize this would prove that you CAN create life? We will then be forced to accept the possibility that we could have been created by another lifeform. So you see, it is impossible to prove that life can not be created. Proving life can be created spontaneously without aid, will only prove that it can be created non-spontaneously and with aid as well. Kind of freaky huh? Therefore it is impossible to prove that life can only arise spontaneously unless you are there to witness it for yourself in a natural, non experimental setting.

The explanation of life is death. In the Bible, it was stated that the giver or provider of life is GOD or the cause of all existence. If you recall, God in the Bible, particularly Deuteronomy 32:39 and I Samuel 2:6 is powerful. He, "the LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." But the carrier and source of death is none other Lucifer or Satan.

So even if we may taste death (though the living at the coming of Christ Jesus will not taste death), that death is a temporal death for mankind, because Satan is the eternal death.

Life as some people view it is just temporal because of death, that is right materially speaking. Many human beings compare themselves to animals. But this should not be the case. We have to bear in mind that human life has a source and a purpose. Animals live to eat only. They do not think for clothes and scholarly situations. Thus, the life of animals is not known by animals, but by us.