On the Origins and Development of Life

[CycloWizard]

Since there has recently been a lot of confusion regarding my beliefs on certain subjects and how that jives with my religious beliefs, I thought I would take the time to address these questions. Or, maybe it is more appropriate for me to say why I don't really care about these questions. In this treatment, I will supply basic, generic, informal definitions for certain terms that will serve as a working reference throughout the post. If you take issue with the definition, I don't really care. Call my 'theory' by some other arbitrary name and stick to the ideas rather than piddling over the words. I will also ignore the fundamentalist position of the major religions, instead sticking to the most generic form of religious belief that I can derive. Any diversions to discuss these things which I said I will not address will be ignored.

First, many threads have recently discussed the origin of life on Earth. Two major hypotheses exist to explain this phenomenon: intelligent biogenesis (in which a divinity/intelligent force created life) and abiogenesis (in which life was initiated by a random string of chemical reactions). The former theory is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being created life, it could very well appear as abiogenesis: the intelligent power could have set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the necessary configurations of molecules coming together in such a way as to form life, or even created the specific conditions in a lab and dropped the resulting product (life) on Earth. Thus, whether or not abiogenesis is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent biogenesis.

Next, I will discuss another issue appearing in many recent threads: how life has become what it is today. Again, two major hypotheses have been set forth: intelligent design (which, for the purposes of this thread, will take the very generic form of 'intelligent intervention in the development of life from its first forms to what we know today', ignoring the creationist/fundamentalist viewpoint as previously stated) and evolution (that random genetic mutations occur and those critters with favorable mutations will succeed while those with unfavorable mutations will fail and die out). Again, the former is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being was guiding the development of life, it could appear as evolution: the intelligent power could set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the appropriate mutations and conditions to promote natural selection and drive life to become what we know today. Thus, whether evolution is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent design as I have defined it.

So, hopefully now you can see why I said I will say why I don't really care about which of these theories is correct. The theories are not conflicting in any scientific sense. Indeed, it is entirely possible that all four theories are correct and even complementary. The question the former theories (intelligent biogenesis/intelligent design) address deal more with why life started and/or why life is what it is today, not how these things happen. Hopefully this will clarify why these debates are truly philosophical or theological debates, NOT scientific debates. Hopefully this post demonstrates why I'm not so interested in the questions of 'how' these things happen, as the 'how' is only of casual interest to me. The 'why' question, which is of substantial interest to me, may be addressed in future topics.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Since there has recently been a lot of confusion regarding my beliefs on certain subjects and how that jives with my religious beliefs, I thought I would take the time to address these questions. Or, maybe it is more appropriate for me to say why I don't really care about these questions. In this treatment, I will supply basic, generic, informal definitions for certain terms that will serve as a working reference throughout the post. If you take issue with the definition, I don't really care. Call my 'theory' by some other arbitrary name and stick to the ideas rather than piddling over the words. I will also ignore the fundamentalist position of the major religions, instead sticking to the most generic form of religious belief that I can derive. Any diversions to discuss these things which I said I will not address will be ignored.

First, many threads have recently discussed the origin of life on Earth. Two major hypotheses exist to explain this phenomenon: intelligent biogenesis (in which a divinity/intelligent force created life) and abiogenesis (in which life was initiated by a random string of chemical reactions). The former theory is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being created life, it could very well appear as abiogenesis: the intelligent power could have set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the necessary configurations of molecules coming together in such a way as to form life, or even created the specific conditions in a lab and dropped the resulting product (life) on Earth. Thus, whether or not abiogenesis is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent biogenesis.

first of all, your point about so-called biogenesis(who made that up) is moot we all realize that a teapot maybe circling out their in the universe to misquote russell...but, this arguement holds no more water than one saying that santa clause is out there.....

 

[Kerouactivist]

Next, I will discuss another issue appearing in many recent threads: how life has become what it is today. Again, two major hypotheses have been set forth: intelligent design (which, for the purposes of this thread, will take the very generic form of 'intelligent intervention in the development of life from its first forms to what we know today', ignoring the creationist/fundamentalist viewpoint as previously stated) and evolution (that random genetic mutations occur and those critters with favorable mutations will succeed while those with unfavorable mutations will fail and die out). Again, the former is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being was guiding the development of life, it could appear as evolution: the intelligent power could set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the appropriate mutations and conditions to promote natural selection and drive life to become what we know today. Thus, whether evolution is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent design as I have defined it.

Obviously the teapot existing is possible but, so is santa clause, point is moot obviously, "it' could exist....just as anything could...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: bthorny
first of all, your point about so-called biogenesis(who made that up) is moot we all realize that a teapot maybe circling out their in the universe to misquote russell...but, this arguement holds no more water than one saying that santa clause is out there.....

So, you stopped reading before the end huh? Shocker.

 

[Kerouactivist]

So, hopefully now you can see why I said I will say why I don't really care about which of these theories is correct. The theories are not conflicting in any scientific sense. Indeed, it is entirely possible that all four theories are correct and even complementary. The question the former theories (intelligent biogenesis/intelligent design) address deal more with why life started and/or why life is what it is today, not how these things happen. Hopefully this will clarify why these debates are truly philosophical or theological debates, NOT scientific debates. Hopefully this post demonstrates why I'm not so interested in the questions of 'how' these things happen, as the 'how' is only of casual interest to me. The 'why' question, which is of substantial interest to me, may be addressed in future topics.

You've bult a nice little world for yourself....
"the theories are not conflicting in any scientific sense"
stop right there because you just made a leap...
you have no support to show your hypothesis...other than faith in the existence of said "being"...which obviously is what it is....

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: bthorny
You've bult a nice little world for yourself....
"the theories are not conflicting in any scientific sense"
stop right there because you just made a leap...
you have no support to show your hypothesis...other than faith in the existence of said "being"...which obviously is what it is....

No, two of the theories have no scientific basis. The other two have no philosophical basis. Thus, the theories say nothing about each other. Maybe if you had read the whole thing in one go instead of piecemeal to increase your post count, you would have figured that out.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Yes I'm obviously here for the post count with my 2.4 post per a day...compared to your 10.03....

now that is scientific evidence

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: bthorny
Yes I'm obviously here for the post count with my 2.4 post per a day...compared to your 10.03....

now that is scientific evidence

So that's it? You're going to pull each paragraph out of context, come up with points that are clearly addressed when my OP is taken in its entirety, make an incorrect assertion based on my conclusion, then ignore it when I correct you? I'm not sure why you bother making 2.4 ppd if that's the best you can contribute. Oh well, I'll not bother to read anythign else you say. Lesson learned I suppose.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: bthorny
Yes I'm obviously here for the post count with my 2.4 post per a day...compared to your 10.03....

now that is scientific evidence

So that's it? You're going to pull each paragraph out of context, come up with points that are clearly addressed when my OP is taken in its entirety, make an incorrect assertion based on my conclusion, then ignore it when I correct you? I'm not sure why you bother making 2.4 ppd if that's the best you can contribute. Oh well, I'll not bother to read anythign else you say. Lesson learned I suppose.

It is obviously possible that both may exist, just that it is obviously possible that santa clause may exist or the teapot.
Your obvious, not profound...

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: bthorny
Yes I'm obviously here for the post count with my 2.4 post per a day...compared to your 10.03....
now that is scientific evidence

So that's it? You're going to pull each paragraph out of context, come up with points that are clearly addressed when my OP is taken in its entirety, make an incorrect assertion based on my conclusion, then ignore it when I correct you? I'm not sure why you bother making 2.4 ppd if that's the best you can contribute. Oh well, I'll not bother to read anythign else you say. Lesson learned I suppose.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
... I don't really care ... I don't really care ... I will also ignore ... I don't really care ... I'm not so interested

 

[Meuge]

He started another one, cause he got so deeply pwned in the "pope endorses science" thread.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Meuge
He started another one, cause he got so deeply pwned in the "pope endorses science" thread.

Some folks couldn't get a mortgage on a clue.

 

[CycloWizard]

So four people post here and none of them addresses any points that I made? Pretty impressive. Maybe I need some Venn diagrams to clarify for the reading-challenged visitors of this forum. :roll:

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So four people post here and none of them addresses any points that I made? Pretty impressive. Maybe I need some Venn diagrams to clarify for the reading-challenged visitors of this forum. :roll:

Or you could just give it up.


Buck o five, I'd give.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Since there has recently been a lot of confusion regarding my beliefs on certain subjects and how that jives with my religious beliefs, I thought I would take the time to address these questions. Or, maybe it is more appropriate for me to say why I don't really care about these questions. In this treatment, I will supply basic, generic, informal definitions for certain terms that will serve as a working reference throughout the post. If you take issue with the definition, I don't really care. Call my 'theory' by some other arbitrary name and stick to the ideas rather than piddling over the words. I will also ignore the fundamentalist position of the major religions, instead sticking to the most generic form of religious belief that I can derive. Any diversions to discuss these things which I said I will not address will be ignored.

Ah, framing the ID debate again I see. Ahhh well, I guess since it's your thread this time, I'll allow you this indulgence.

First, many threads have recently discussed the origin of life on Earth. Two major hypotheses exist to explain this phenomenon: intelligent biogenesis (in which a divinity/intelligent force created life) and abiogenesis (in which life was initiated by a random string of chemical reactions). The former theory is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being created life, it could very well appear as abiogenesis: the intelligent power could have set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the necessary configurations of molecules coming together in such a way as to form life, or even created the specific conditions in a lab and dropped the resulting product (life) on Earth. Thus, whether or not abiogenesis is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent biogenesis.

Yes, it very much could appear that way, but so what? I doubt you could ever prove it. So it this thread destined to be as short as the others? Where the only appropriate response is "Yes, I believe," or "No, I do not believe." What else is there I used to ask... And I never really got a satisfying answer by the way.

Next, I will discuss another issue appearing in many recent threads: how life has become what it is today. Again, two major hypotheses have been set forth: intelligent design (which, for the purposes of this thread, will take the very generic form of 'intelligent intervention in the development of life from its first forms to what we know today', ignoring the creationist/fundamentalist viewpoint as previously stated) and evolution (that random genetic mutations occur and those critters with favorable mutations will succeed while those with unfavorable mutations will fail and die out). Again, the former is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being was guiding the development of life, it could appear as evolution: the intelligent power could set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the appropriate mutations and conditions to promote natural selection and drive life to become what we know today. Thus, whether evolution is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent design as I have defined it.

It's only "correctness" for you individually. For someone, like say myself, it sounds like a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo no matter how generic you distill ID down. I mean believe whatever you want, but how in the world do you intend to convince the skeptics? With your faith? You believe so others should too? Is man truly so egotistical that he must invent some magical being that created man? In doing so, does he give his life some semblence of purpose? That sounds about right considering random genesis would mean we're just some cosmic error with no one looking out for us ... all alone. Yeah, so the "superior being" guiding our development sounds a lot more warm and fuzzy. And yet it's a cop out, because as soon as we start believing that, we stop looking for other possibilities.

So, hopefully now you can see why I said I will say why I don't really care about which of these theories is correct. The theories are not conflicting in any scientific sense. Indeed, it is entirely possible that all four theories are correct and even complementary. The question the former theories (intelligent biogenesis/intelligent design) address deal more with why life started and/or why life is what it is today, not how these things happen. Hopefully this will clarify why these debates are truly philosophical or theological debates, NOT scientific debates. Hopefully this post demonstrates why I'm not so interested in the questions of 'how' these things happen, as the 'how' is only of casual interest to me. The 'why' question, which is of substantial interest to me, may be addressed in future topics.

And still, I could put forth my belief that life starting on earth was simply a random cosmic accident. Take billions if not trillions of stars merely in our own galaxy, not to consider the other galaxies out there, and given enough time the right primordial ingredients are bound to mix together. "Bam!" you've got life.

Let's call it Random-o-Genesis hypothesis. Perhaps I need my own thread for this discussion?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, it very much could appear that way, but so what? I doubt you could ever prove it. So it this thread destined to be as short as the others? Where the only appropriate response is "Yes, I believe," or "No, I do not believe." What else is there I used to ask... And I never really got a satisfying answer by the way.

The entire point is that IT CANNOT BE PROVEN! The theories exist in different areas altogether - one in philosophy/theology, one in science. They have no bearing on the correctness of the other. I'm not sure why this is so hard to gather.

It's only "correctness" for you individually. For someone, like say myself, it sounds like a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo no matter how generic you distill ID down. I mean believe whatever you want, but how in the world do you intend to convince the skeptics? With your faith? You believe so others should too? Is man truly so egotistical that he must invent some magical being that created man? In doing so, does he give his life some semblence of purpose? That sounds about right considering random genesis would mean we're just some cosmic error with no one looking out for us ... all alone. Yeah, so the "superior being" guiding our development sounds a lot more warm and fuzzy. And yet it's a cop out, because as soon as we start believing that, we stop looking for other possibilities.

I have no desire to convince anyone of my beliefs. They're my beliefs, not anyone else's. I'm a proponent of everyone making up their own mind on the philosophical questions, and I can't help but laugh when people try to decide (usually based on a fundamentalist viewpoint) that the two scientific theories are false.

And still, I could put forth my belief that life starting on earth was simply a random cosmic accident. Take billions if not trillions of stars merely in our own galaxy, not to consider the other galaxies out there, and given enough time the right primordial ingredients are bound to mix together. "Bam!" you've got life.

Let's call it Random-o-Genesis hypothesis. Perhaps I need my own thread for this discussion?

This is simply a more expansive version of the abiogenesis theory, falling in the scientific realm, though I doubt it could be proven (not familiar enough with astrophysics to know how this could be proven, but let's assume it could be). Then, even this theory is not incompatible with my intelligent biogenesis theory, for the same reasons stated above.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, it very much could appear that way, but so what? I doubt you could ever prove it. So it this thread destined to be as short as the others? Where the only appropriate response is "Yes, I believe," or "No, I do not believe." What else is there I used to ask... And I never really got a satisfying answer by the way.

The entire point is that IT CANNOT BE PROVEN! The theories exist in different areas altogether - one in philosophy/theology, one in science. They have no bearing on the correctness of the other. I'm not sure why this is so hard to gather.

I guess I just have a hard time understanding why someone would believe something so strongly when you really just don't know.

Is it a gut feeling you have? Are you afraid of saying "I don't know?" Do you feel that without God (or a highly advanced and intelligent being) your life has little or no purpose? Does it make you feel small that we're floating around on the equivalent of a dust mote in a vast, incomprehensibly huge universe? Floating around with no purpose, no reason for being, no reasonable chance of ever figuring it all out?

 

[shira]

Numerous criticisms to your typically nonsensical remblings:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Since there has recently been a lot of confusion regarding my beliefs on certain subjects and how that jives with my religious beliefs, I thought I would take the time to address these questions.

1) Learn proper English.

Jive (slang): To talk nonsense; to cajole, mislead.

Jibe: To be in accord; agree

Maybe if you stopped jiving, you could write something the jibes with rational thought.

First, many threads have recently discussed the origin of life on Earth. Two major hypotheses exist to explain this phenomenon: intelligent biogenesis (in which a divinity/intelligent force created life) and abiogenesis (in which life was initiated by a random string of chemical reactions). The former theory is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being created life, it could very well appear as abiogenesis: the intelligent power could have set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the necessary configurations of molecules coming together in such a way as to form life, or even created the specific conditions in a lab and dropped the resulting product (life) on Earth. Thus, whether or not abiogenesis is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent biogenesis.

2) Oh, gee. One slight flaw. This "intelligent power"' where did IT come from? Another, earlier intelligent power? And where did THAT one come from? Yet another intelligent power? Ad infinitum?

So the ULTIMATE cause of life MUST be either:

(A) God (existing forever, never having been created), or
(B) abiogenesis

So let's drop the fraudulent language and say what we're really talking about: God-as-cause versus abiogenesis. In what follows, I'm going to use "God-as-cause" in place of "intelligent power" to make absolutely clear what we're discussing here, since "intelligent power" is SO intellectually dishonest. It can ONLY be a reference to God.

Next, I will discuss another issue appearing in many recent threads: how life has become what it is today. Again, two major hypotheses have been set forth: intelligent design (which, for the purposes of this thread, will take the very generic form of 'intelligent intervention in the development of life from its first forms to what we know today', ignoring the creationist/fundamentalist viewpoint as previously stated) and evolution (that random genetic mutations occur and those critters with favorable mutations will succeed while those with unfavorable mutations will fail and die out). Again, the former is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being was guiding the development of life, it could appear as evolution: the intelligent power could set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the appropriate mutations and conditions to promote natural selection and drive life to become what we know today. Thus, whether evolution is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent design as I have defined it.

3) Except that via Occam's razor, we have no need for a more complicated "explanation" involving God-as-cause. Why choose a more complex (and totally unverifiable) explanation when a simpler one (and an actual theory at that) does just as good a job all by itself?

So, hopefully now you can see why I said I will say why I don't really care about which of these theories is correct. The theories are not conflicting in any scientific sense.

4) By definition, it is impossible for a non-theory to conflict with a scientific theory in a "scientific sense". God-as-cause is not a theory, and non-science cannot cannot conflict with ANYTHING in a "scientific sense." God-as-cause can conflict with something only in a religious or philosophical sense.

Indeed, it is entirely possible that all four theories are correct and even complementary. The question the former theories (intelligent biogenesis/intelligent design) address deal more with why life started and/or why life is what it is today, not how these things happen. Hopefully this will clarify why these debates are truly philosophical or theological debates, NOT scientific debates. Hopefully this post demonstrates why I'm not so interested in the questions of 'how' these things happen, as the 'how' is only of casual interest to me. The 'why' question, which is of substantial interest to me, may be addressed in future topics.

5) "Why" presupposes purpose in the universe. It would be more honest to first consider the question, "Is there a "why?" The way you phrase is, the existence of a "why" is a foregone conclusion - you're just trying to figure out what the "why" is. Do you honestly even consider the very real possibility that there is no why?

I agree that God-as-cause, a non-falsifiable explanation, is subject to philosophical debate. As opposed to scientific theories, which are falsifiable and subject to experimental challenge. This being the case, scientific theories can be said to be "correct" or "not correct", but religious explanations can only be believed or not believed. If you truly wish to clarify your "interests", you would do well to cease muddying the waters by continually using "theory" to refer to non-science. In fact, don't even bring up the subject of God-as-cause in a thread on the origins of life or evolution - don't mix science with non-science.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess I just have a hard time understanding why someone would believe something so strongly when you really just don't know.

Is it a gut feeling you have? Are you afraid of saying "I don't know?" Do you feel that without God (or a highly advanced and intelligent being) your life has little or no purpose? Does it make you feel small that we're floating around on the equivalent of a dust mote in a vast, incomprehensibly huge universe? Floating around with no purpose, no reason for being, no reasonable chance of ever figuring it all out?

It's based on my own musings and observations. While experimental evidence serves as 'data' regarding a scientific theory, sound logical exploration is the data of philosphy. The rest of your post deals with the question of 'why' life exists, which is a question that each of us should work on on our own, though I may start a thread to discuss it eventually.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
1) Learn proper English.

Jive (slang): To talk nonsense; to cajole, mislead.

Jibe: To be in accord; agree

Maybe if you stopped jiving, you could write something the jibes with rational thought.

1. Look at the keyboard.
2. Notice that the 'v' key is adjacent to the 'b' key.
3. Look up 'typographical error' in the dictionary. While I try to overcome such errors in my post, one in the last 5300 posts isn't too bad.

2) Oh, gee. One slight flaw. This "intelligent power"' where did IT come from? Another, earlier intelligent power? And where did THAT one come from? Yet another intelligent power? Ad infinitum?

So the ULTIMATE cause of life MUST be either:

(A) God (existing forever, never having been created), or
(B) abiogenesis

So let's drop the fraudulent language and say what we're really talking about: God-as-cause versus abiogenesis. In what follows, I'm going to use "God-as-cause" in place of "intelligent power" to make absolutely clear what we're discussing here, since "intelligent power" is SO intellectually dishonest. It can ONLY be a reference to God.

Call it whatever you want. As I stated, I left things in the most general terms as I could and still hold the discussion. It doesn't affect the argument in any way. Why don't you actually address the arguments instead of piddling over the words?

3) Except that via Occam's razor, we have no need for a more complicated "explanation" involving God-as-cause. Why choose a more complex (and totally unverifiable) explanation when a simpler one (and an actual theory at that) does just as good a job all by itself?

Because Occam's Razor doesn't really tell us whether something is actually philosophically correct. IIRC, you're an engineer, so maybe this example will suit you. Consider a solid mechanics problem in which you're attempting to compute the maximum stress in a strangely shaped object. You want to solve the problem using finite element analysis (FEA), which increases the number of degrees of freedom to approximate the exact solution. If you have made incorrect modeling assumptions, the FEA solution will NEVER approach the true solution, even if you increase the dimension of the finite element space to encompass the entire energy space. Thus, while Occam's Razor tells you that you should try to use as few variables as possible, you still must appropriately model your system such that the true solution may be achieved or your results are meaningless. Thus, if you assume that there is no such thing as 'god' but there really is a god, then your model is totally wrong and any results you garner from said model are simply wrong.

4) By definition, it is impossible for a non-theory to conflict with a scientific theory in a "scientific sense". God-as-cause is not a theory, and non-science cannot cannot conflict with ANYTHING in a "scientific sense." God-as-cause can conflict with something only in a religious or philosophical sense.

God-as-cause is a theory. It's a philosophical/theological theory. But you're right - it cannot conflict iwth something in the scientific domain, as I already stated.

5) "Why" presupposes purpose in the universe. It would be more honest to first consider the question, "Is there a "why?" The way you phrase is, the existence of a "why" is a foregone conclusion - you're just trying to figure out what the "why" is. Do you honestly even consider the very real possibility that there is no why?

No, asking the question 'why' leaves space to allow for the possibility that no purpose exists. It's simply a question, not an answer.

I agree that God-as-cause, a non-falsifiable explanation, is subject to philosophical debate. As opposed to scientific theories, which are falsifiable and subject to experimental challenge. This being the case, scientific theories can be said to be "correct" or "not correct", but religious explanations can only be believed or not believed. If you truly wish to clarify your "interests", you would do well to cease muddying the waters by continually using "theory" to refer to non-science. In fact, don't even bring up the subject of God-as-cause in a thread on the origins of life or evolution - don't mix science with non-science.

I am not the one bringing it up in these threads. I am actually the one saying why it should NOT be brought up in these threads, as the explanations/theories are mutually exclusive. That was the point of this thread - to say that they should not be discussed in this manner at all.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The entire point is that IT CANNOT BE PROVEN! The theories exist in different areas altogether - one in philosophy/theology, one in science. They have no bearing on the correctness of the other. I'm not sure why this is so hard to gather.

Ha Ha! Classic! Do you know what the "Ph" part of your supposed PhD studies stands for? Let me give you a hint, in your case if the "P" was silent the rest would by hypocrite.

BTW, some of the most arrogant, stupid scientists i have ever met were MDs. Thanks for the affirmation. :thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Ha Ha! Classic! Do you know what the "Ph" part of your supposed PhD studies stands for? Let me give you a hint, in your case if the "P" was silent the rest would by hypocrite.

BTW, some of the most arrogant, stupid scientists i have ever met were MDs. Thanks for the affirmation. :thumbsup:

Do you know the origins of the degree 'doctor of philosophy'? Obviously not. Thanks again for yet another non-contribution. Keep up the pointless posts!

 

[judasmachine]

Anything's possible. I just want to know where the hell God came from.

And Cyclo, don't take us too seriously. We all have our own beliefs, and are arrogant enough to post them here and expect to make a differance to someone else, they won't. The genesis of life is something I'm going to guess that we will never know. Aliens, Freak Occurance, A God that popped outta nowhere....... They are all the same fevered delusion of a lost, and confused people.

I challenge everyone to disprove this: The Universe is about to collapse, and an eon old race of incredibly intelligent and wise beings escape the dying universe to an alternate universe. These beings being oxygen exchanging carbon based lifeforms then looked for a place to settle. Coming upon Earth, they hunker down in the young atmosphere, and begin to populate it. Are these, Gods, Aliens, Humans, or just lucky muthafukahs?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: homercles337
Ha Ha! Classic! Do you know what the "Ph" part of your supposed PhD studies stands for? Let me give you a hint, in your case if the "P" was silent the rest would by hypocrite.

BTW, some of the most arrogant, stupid scientists i have ever met were MDs. Thanks for the affirmation. :thumbsup:

Do you know the origins of the degree 'doctor of philosophy'? Obviously not. Thanks again for yet another non-contribution. Keep up the pointless posts!

Please just stop.

This image was made for a different ATP&N troll, but it suits your post.

For the troll...

 

[GoPackGo]

We are all a computer program running on a MAC SE30. The hard drive is nearly full.