crowTrobot, on Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 11:58 AM, said:
maybe the "mud" was always there. if you think it's possible that god can be eternal there's no reason to think matter/energy couldn't be. no double standards allowed
Everyone knows that this 'point' of yours is ridiculous. If there wasn't a beginning then scientists wouldn't be actively trying to figure out what it was. Also, you would need to get rid of the pesky red shift theory
crowTrobot, on Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 12:22 PM, said:
LongLiveYorke, on Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 1:16 PM, said:
The light didn't get switched on. There's no discrete jump between "life" and "non life." A human is alive. It can think, breath, cry, read, listen to music, etc. A chimp is alive. It can think, breath, cry, and listen to music, but it can't read. An ant is alive, but really all it can do is make several simple choices involving scents, moving around, and eating. A cellular organism is sort of alive. It can't think and doesn't know it exists. All it can do is absorb things through its cell walls, eat them, and create more of itself. It doesn't know it's doing that. Even though it's just one cell, it's still extremely complicated and has many, many moving parts. It has DNA, RNA, ribosomes, mitochondria etc.Really, you can zoom in and say that a particular ribosome is "alive." Processes amino acids into long protein strands, polypeptide chains, and RNA. It's just a smaller version of the one-cell organism. But now we're getting down to a fuzzy border. A ribosome is little more than a group of chemicals and proteins that work almost mechanically to do their job. So, is it alive, or is it a component? Is the engine in my car alive? Is a one cellular organism alive? Is a skin cell in my body alive? Is one neuron in my brain alive? It just takes chemical input, converts it into electrical signals, and then sends chemical output to other neurons.If no cell in my body is "alive," then how do they make up something that is alive? If I lose 50% of the cells in my body, am I still alive, or am I less alive? Am I less alive if I lose a leg or an arm? If I can't digest food and need machines to do it for me, am I alive? If I have an artificial heart? If I become brain damaged and am afflicted with mental retardation, am I less alive? What if I'm a vegtable? What if every cell in my body dies except for one neuron, which becomes supported artificially in a lab. Is that neuron me? Am I that neuron? How many do I need for it to be me?What if I write a computer program and design a machine that takes in protein and gives out waste? Is it alive? What if I build a tiny robot that does everything that an ant can do? Have I created life? It can't think, but neither can an ant. Where's the dividing line?Okay, all these questions are getting annoying and obvious. My point is this: pretty much every conflict between religion and science boils down to a conflicting view on whether life is a discrete or continuous thing. Is it yes/no, or is it a gradual increase in intelligence and functionality.
. (since you're really the only one that bothered to answer the OP directly.) You make an interesting point though.
Sal Paradise, on Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 1:30 PM, said:
nah, that's too confusing. lets just say that god did it.
You didn't even read his post... did you!