Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Bible and Religion

*NT*

firstly, i am a physicist. i have taken a biophysics course, specifically dealing with membrane formulation due to electrostatic interactions and boltzman's free energy laws. i do not pretend to be an expert in the field of biophysics specifically but i know enough to give a brief overview without making things up. my background should not matter, however, so long as what i say is accurate.
secondly and much more importantly, you need to understand what a scientific theory really is. gravity is a theory. can you see gravity? can you touch it? no. the only way you can detect gravity depends on indirect measurements. we do this by measuring the rate at which a mass is attracted to another mass, right? well who is to say that god isn't accelerating the mass toward the object? how do we know? we don't. but, the rules and laws we have discovered and written describe a universe which does not require a hand of god to push things around - we can describe systems independently using the theory of gravity, among many other theories.
as far as evolution goes, it is a theory at this point, just as gravity. we can detect it indirectly, just as gravity. we do this by analysis of dna, molecular structure of cellular objects and so on. we do not need to spawn life form nothing to call it a theory.
also, hyperspace and worm holes are not stead-fast theories. they are manipulations of physics via mathematics to describe something theoretical. mathematics is not a science. physics is.

Impressive that you are a physicist.

The process of evolving has been substantiated. The creation of a single cell has not.
I do understand what a scientific theory is. It is such a general term where substantiated processes are lumped in with unexplainable, hypothetical phenomena. Theory
We are talking about the "theory" of a cell being created from non-living matter. That tends to be lumped in with the idea of evolution (evolving of already living entity's). They are different.

yes, you are correct that abiogenesis is different than evolution. there are no testable theories to create a functioning cell from scratch, either. we can, however, show the individual pieces of cells will spontaneously form, as the lipid bilayer example i gave earlier. this is where the 'potential of science' i referred to earlier comes into play. it is within our means to explain abiogenesis entirely via the scientific method. after all, we already have a few of the key puzzle pieces figured out. the next step is to show how and why the work as a functioning unit. i also refereed to the idea of convergence earlier. this is a highly speculative field, but personally, i feel it has the ability to describe abiogenesis.
anyways, because we cannot figure it out yet does not give reason to install god to the problem, especially when we know many of the important pieces of the picture.
we probably know more about abiogenesis than we do about jesus christ himself. if you make the correlation that believing in jesus christ means you believe in god (i realize this is not the case, but just assume it is) then you should base at least equally as much faith in a working theory which describes abiogenesis. now, this may sound like a faith in science, but it is not. humans exhibit an incredibly savvy track record in the ability to describe our surrounding universe using the scientific method, given time and the allowance for breakthrough. you can make a logical deduction that the human array of knowledge will continue to grow based on our track record and the very apparent exponential growth in scientific discovery (versus time). since we already have pieces of the puzzle, it seems logical to me that we will weave these pieces together, it is only a matter of time.
with that said, i realize you can make equal claim that god was involved upon for said weaving of pieces. there is no problem with that, to me, since we can not disprove or fail to disprove it until more resources are devoted to the matter of abiogensis (which i suspect will be one of the next hot topics, since evolution stands on such solid ground now). but, i should mention, there is no logical reason as of now that god HAD to have been the one to assemble the pieces - it is merely that god COULD have been there, just as god could be the one who pushes objects toward one another instead of gravity.

i thought i'd throw in the quote from physicist and nobel laureate steven weinberg, which sums up what i was trying to say for the most part:
science doesn't make it impossible to believe in god, science makes it possible to not believe in god.

And yet, thats where the religious fail yet again.
You believe in a afterlife without proof.
We dont believe in one because there is no evidence of one.
Why is that so hard to understand?

Here is a link for you to look at.
Makes you want to go to see a new movie about smart people.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

rofl is this a comedy? christians complaining about being silenced. Oh the hipocrisy.