Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

How did life begin?

January 10, 2013

To the editor: One of the anonymous commenter’s (2:44 P.M....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(44)

svensota

Jan-13-13 11:40 AM

In the end, no one knows for sure. That's the basis for faith, and that's the basis for those little Darwin chrome thingamabobs. Testament to our lack of certainty is in the 457 posts we've had on the subject the past five months, or so.

As someone posted not too long ago: we're here, it's what we do here and now that counts, not how we got here.

Makes sense to me.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrandmaD

Jan-12-13 11:23 PM

I have total respect for your father's beliefs, for your beliefs, & for everyone's beliefs. As I stated earlier, I believe in God, & I believe in Science. There is room for both.

I believe Pope Pius the ? stated that there was no conflict between evolution & the Bible or Christianity or something, as long as Christians believe God created the soul. I might get some grief on that, but I know something on that order was said.

I wouldn't attempt to get into the deep debate going on here because I wouldn't know what I was talking about. I just want to be respected as a Christian, in that I believe God to be my Creator & Jesus to be my Savior. And those Darwin fish, especially the ones with the little legs, still aren't nice.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-12-13 10:16 PM

My father was a renown geneticist. He was also an elder in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. He never thought the two were incompatible. Never.

Neither do I.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrandmaD

Jan-12-13 8:01 PM

Alas, you have been mislead, Sven. Those guys who drive around with chrome "Darwin" fishes (especially the ones sporting little legs) truly are not true believers. The truth be told - they are mocking Christianity.

I don't have a fish symbol on the trunk of my car, but if I did, it would have Jesus' name in it because I am a true believer. God bless. :)

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GopherState

Jan-12-13 4:26 PM

Oh ye of little faith, Ring.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-12-13 3:25 PM

I have always felt that evolution was the proof of God. That they are not mutually exclusive arguments but, rather, conclusive proof.

There's rarely "de-evolving" in Nature, but always more and more evolving. What greater proof is there of the "hand of God"?

Little do those guys know that drive around with chrome "Darwin" fishes on the back of their trunks, that they really are True Believers.

It's just a crazy mixed up world, no?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrandmaD

Jan-12-13 3:02 PM

Ring2003 - I do believe in God, my higher power. I don't have an explanation as to how everything came about, only that I believe He is responsible, & that it is a part of my faith. If you consider me naive' & shortsighted & my faith to be an easy cop-out, so be it. I am happy & fulfilled as a Christian & in how I believe.

I have never believed that lightening is God showing anger, nor that thunder was the angels bowling. My parents & grandparents used to say things like that, but they didn't believe it either.

I believe in God, & I believe in Science. There is room for both, and there is room for everyone to believe how they want & to respect how everyone else believes.

I do wish, however, that my grandkids' legos would magically put themselves away, better yet put themselves together. :) :)

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Jan-12-13 1:10 PM

I think it is incredibly naive' and shortsighted to attribute anything you can't understand to a higher power. What an easy cop-out. "I don't know how to explain it. It must be god." Think of all the things attributed to a godly force that are now explainable due to science. Do you still think lightning is god showing anger? Using the existence of a god as the default for everything not currently explainable is a sad way for humans to feel comfortable with needing to have an answer and not wanting to work very hard to find one. Science says we don't know but let's find out.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

zepnbeer1968

Jan-12-13 11:45 AM

Alien life (be it a god or gods or other living creatures) brought life here...

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jan-12-13 8:45 AM

My kids sometimes scatter their Legos everywhere. I have yet to see a single one of them magically put themselves away.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-11-13 10:02 PM

Dead, you've pretty much got the hang of it.

However, in your last paragraph just insert "NFL football" where you have"religion", and where you use "science", insert "ess ee ex".

Then everything will make sense and you will understand how life began.

(I can't believe this was so easy!)

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BackFromTheDead

Jan-11-13 2:19 PM

I gave a much better argument for intelligent design than MT has, that's for sure.

Science, though, is doing a much better job than either myself or MT to find answers to where we came from and how life began.

I think religion is where one applies the question of "Why?" to life's beginnings, whereas science is where one applies the questions of "How?" and "When?"

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Norwaymaple

Jan-11-13 1:29 PM

BFTD, You just gave a strong argument for a creator. THe DNA for the yeast made by scientists didn't just form itself. It was put together by scientists, intelligent design, if you will.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BackFromTheDead

Jan-11-13 1:00 PM

MT: "Unless scientists are able to figure out a process that would enable them to put together a living cell from non-living material, the question is more philosophical than scientific. "

May 21, 2010: "For the first time ever, scientists have created actual artificial life. This real life Frankenstein is a single cell of yeast with a complete set of artificial DNA that functions and looks exactly like a natural cell of yeast. Spearheaded by Dr. Craig Venter and his team of scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute, the project has far reaching — not to mention philosophically questionable — implications."

There you are MT. Is this science enough for you yet?

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BackFromTheDead

Jan-11-13 12:57 PM

MT, perhaps you've never heard of theoretical science?

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jan-11-13 12:52 PM

notsonuts: You are absolutely right. If science limited itself to science, scientists would spend their time studying the world as it is, not trying to figure out how life got started.

Actually, the question of origins does not lend itself to scientific inquiry. Unless scientists are able to figure out a process that would enable them to put together a living cell from non-living material, the question is more philosophical than scientific.

Scientists can and do carry out their work perfectly well without ever having to know how the first cell came into being. But there are those (on both sides) who insist on introducing it into the science classroom and not subjecting the claims of one side or the other to truly scientific testing. That results in the introduction of religion (on both side of the issue - pro- and anti-creation) into the science classroom.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BackFromTheDead

Jan-11-13 12:48 PM

MT: "As I said earlier, neither you nor anyone else can provide a scientific answer to the problem that the letter-writer poses."

That the point of science though MT. There are countless scientists who have already invested countless man-hours into finding this very answer. Just because they haven't found the answer yet doesn't mean it isn't there. THIS IS SCIENCE MT! They've found an incredible wealth of evidence to support the theory of evolution, and they'll found more. Or, perhaps they'll find something that will show that they were wrong about evolution, and they'll then investigate that line of logic. Again, THIS IS SCIENCE MT!

You can use all the backwards logic you want, but it won't hold up, especially considering your own religious bend.

For example: "It may be theoretically possible for piles of junk to assemble themselves into new cars, but in the real world it doesn't happen."

Let's apply this same logic to your religion, shall we? In the real wor

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bloozboy

Jan-11-13 12:25 PM

I'll just sit here and play solitaire instead of getting any more involved in this. Wait! I DON'T think I'll play solitaire. I'll just lay out the cards and let nature finish the game for me!

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

notsonuts

Jan-11-13 12:17 PM

Does it really matter how we got here? I think it's what we do now that we ARE here that's important.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jan-11-13 11:51 AM

BFTD: I did not fail to answer your question. I have no intention to answer that question. I am addressing my comments to the subject matter of the original letter and nothing else.

As I said earlier, neither you nor anyone else can provide a scientific answer to the problem that the letter-writer poses. So you seek to change the subject and shift the burden of proof.

As to the question of possibility, there is a difference between theoretical possibility and what is actually possible in the real world. Science recognizes something that is theoretically possible, but then tests that possibility by real-world criteria. It may be theoretically possible for piles of junk to assemble themselves into new cars, but in the real world it doesn't happen.

What you are postulating is fantasy, not real world.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BackFromTheDead

Jan-11-13 11:03 AM

MT, you do clearly do not understand what is possible and what is possible, both in math and in nature. If there is any chance, however slim, then it is possible. Period.

You failed to address my question. What makes it more plausible for an intelligent being to oversee this process than for this process to occur on it's own in nature? You're arguing against the odds of one side, even using the word impossible, without acknowledging the odds of the other side.

Your play MT.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-11-13 10:38 AM

Nor, thine either, oteron.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oteron

Jan-11-13 8:00 AM

Sven, There was not any humor bestoweth in thine creation....!

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jan-10-13 11:49 PM

BFTD wrote: "That "1" over any number, however large, means that it is possible."

No, it does not. If I know the number of nucleotide bases that make up a stands of human DNA, their type, and their sequence, I can calculate mathematically the odds of those particular elements happening to sequence themselves in that particular order by themselves. But that is only a mathematical computation; it has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually possible for that to happen. In other words, simply calculating that the odds are "1 to XXX,XXX,XXX" DOES NOT mean that it is possible. In fact, when that number is calculated in the case of human DNA, it forms a rather convincing evidence that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Why? Because once the odds against something rise to a certain level, they simply do not happen in nature.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-10-13 10:03 PM

I think ********** stands for "snow fairies" or elves or grumpy old men. Not sure.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 44 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web