The Origins of Life

[Ken Davison South Wales]

The Creationists never have an answer to who or what created the creator. It's all supposed to be down to "faith". A universal get out clause if ever there was one. Why do people have a problem with accepting that there are certain concepts that human brains are just incapable of understanding.

It is accepted and that is why we have religion it disolves the problem and helps to create order. It tidies up a lot of loose ends which would create sever problems of a lot of people.

 

 

 

You don't expect a dog to understand trigonometry, so what's the problem with humans not fully understanding time, space and the creation of energy and matter?

Creationism? Piffle.

 

There are those amongst us who need to know so they keep on delving, it is all down to personal choice.

 

And who is to say that the human mind is incapable of understanding something which at this point in time we do not have the answer for.

 

A thousand years they thought the earth was flat now we know different and we have learnt to live with it.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Ken Davison South Wales

[Vagabond]

Coming back to the difference between "intelligent design" and "creationism"

 

Apparently an American court has ruled they are essentially the same.

 

Teaching religion is illegal in American state schools. So teaching creationism is not allowed. However, some state schools were teaching "intelligent design" and following parental complaints a case was brought before a court - it ruled that "intelligent design" was a religious concept and should not be taught in state schools.

 

Flying Tench says "many scientists" accept "intelligent design" albeit their understanding of its meaning is different to my (literal) interpretation . An even greater number (Richard Dawkins amongst them) do not! Not that the numbers or identity of individuals believing anything has any bearing on whether its true or not.

 

If you examine the "many scientists" FT mentions, I think you will find many were deeply religious before becoming scientists, and had problems reconciling the religious beliefs inculcated during childhood with evolutionary theory. Thus "intelligent design" was conceived as a sort of compromise - a cobbling together of creationism and evolution.

 

The American court referred to above has recognised "intelligent design" for what it is - neocreationism.

 

I'll try and find the references for it.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5092600817.html

 

thats the preliminary - I understand it went to the Supreme Court, whch ruled against ID being taught.

 

and here is a bit of background.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

 

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html

 

That last reference is very interesting - if you scroll down you find a neat diagram that expresses succinctly the differences in types of "design" that I was trying to describe in an earlier post

Edited February 2, 2006 by Vagabond

[Vagabond]

There is a problem with the way that the majority of people understand the phrase "the survival of the fittest".............................. in some circumstances, it's best not to flee, but to blend into the environment and stay very still.

 

Leon, I think you underestimate the understanding of those who have responded to this thread - the concept of "fitted/unfitted" used in the Darwinian sense is pretty widely understood - it extends even beyond your examples of a/ first to flee survives and b/ most well camouflaged survives.

 

Such things as developing :-

 

taller trees to outreach mammalian herbivores

longer necks to reach the topmost leaves

 

stronger teeth/beaks to crack shellfish

thicker shells to withstand teeth/beaks

 

plant toxins to discourage herbivores

antibodies to neutralise plant toxins

 

indigestible seed coats

powerful digestive enzmes and/or swallowing grit to break down seed coats

 

the abilty to retain moisture in dry seasons/environments

 

producing more eggs/fry etc than the predators can eat

 

.....and many many others, including the nous to stay away from trouble in the first place.

 

Not forgetting retaining the genetic ability to adapt rapidly. Many organisms adapted to their original environment so well they became highly specialised and could not adapt quickly enough to new conditions - hence the high number of extinctions in the fossil record.

[gozzer]

While I think it's great that such a subject as this can be discussed on a forum of "ordinary" folk, I don't think we will ever come to a conclusion. We are conditioned to think and accept things in a way that is relevant to life as we know it. If the answer is ever found, I think it will be done by a computer, because it will be done with pure logic, without emotions, self-importance, self-interests or any doctrines clouding the issue. By then it will probably be too late, the machines will have taken over!

 

Just to show the effect all this talk about the meaning and origin of life is having on me. I was thinking last night and this thought came to mind.

If a moth dies, and is told to follow the light, at what point does it realise its dead?.... Think about it!

Edited February 2, 2006 by gozzer

[Jim Roper]

Here

 

So we are at the centre?

We must be important!

[corydoras]

So we are at the centre?

We must be important!

That is one of the paradoxes of our universe. No matter where you appear to be at the centre.

Wierd huh!

[Steve Walker]

I'm not trying to suggest some simple knock-down argument here, but someone quoted Dawkins earlier as saying that the problem with using God to answer these kind of questions is that you're just pushing the question back and you then have to ask 'Why God?' True, but isn't it a bit easier to believe that God, by his nature, doesn't need to be caused than to say the same thing about an infinitely dense pin head with the potential to produce me and you?

 

Not for me. God seems to me to be a more complicated thing than matter and energy. Evidence, the advocates of ID would proclaim, of design and thus of a designer! It gets circular very quicky...

[*Ant*]

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

[Alan Stubbs]

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

 

The space available.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

While I think it's great that such a subject as this can be discussed on a forum of "ordinary" folk,

 

I take it you have not met Vagabond, one could call him many things but he is certainly not ordinary

 

He is an excellent angler and a very good companion to fish with and I am looking to meeting up with him again this year if possible.