Is "life" bound to happen?

Here's the question for you........... Who created God???? =}

Of course I'm sure you've heard this, and it isn't pertinent to the OP. How can God not have to be created, yet the universe has to be created? Makes no sense......double standard....

However you look at it..... spontaneous generation, primordial soup, creationism.... life is bound to happen.

 

Just because there is no evidence of elephants swimming like submarines doesn't mean they can fly like airplanes.

Creationism, Darwinism... all -isms. All religious beliefs, all require acceptance of certain premises apriory (with main distinction being: Creationists honestly admit to have origins of their beliefs in Religion, while hoax pepetrating Darwinists have audacity to claim that their Mythology has anyting to do with the Science).

The truth is there is no Scientific Theory to explain even Evolution of Species, let alone Emergence of Life.

Without any relevant evidence or valid, working scientific theory , how could anyone state with certainty if life was or wasn't bound to happen?

 

Some theologians say that the God of the Bible didn't actually create the universe but actually just transformed it into something else (I forgot how they came up with it but it came from the word create and what it implies or somethin)

You're right though, the universe COULD hold the same property as God as not requiring creation. =} (If we take the universe to mean everything ever in existence and not just the universe that started from the big bang... as in there was something outside of that)

But I think the argument is that, the universe as we know it to be seemed to have a beginning, and that God would be beyond the need of creation while this universe seems to require it because it had a beginning and we don't really know what set that off.

 

*Hate to divert a thread from it's original purpose, but.......... =} *

I personally believe that the modern concept of God (personalization, humanistic, emotional, all "knowing", all "powerful") is almost a corruption of the ancient understanding. I think the notion of Creator is way too closely tied to how us humans "create" things, cuz we're almost making him a physical being while also trying to put him outside of creation.

To say that God is beyond creation but the "universe" can't have a "universe" containing that (onto infinity) is still fallacious.

 

Ah, a war of attrition! You have fired many shots, let’s see if they’re accurate

Cute, but with a non-response you concede that such a philosophy is incoherent.

I should still claim that the world will exist tomorrow. The idea that we have to keep what we believe to be facts to ourselves because other people might not agree or like them is ridiculous and without merit.

Something can be considered factual if the evidence for it is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could possibly deny it. Evolution has weathered immense scrutiny by the greatest scientific minds of the last 150 years and remains axiomatic. You don’t have to agree, but I’m going to call it a fact regardless.

I’m unsure as you your point here. My point is that good can be achieved with knowledge and the individual (you and me included!) can utilize scientific knowledge to his and the world's benefit, not that knowledge is inherently a force for good. Knowledge is a neutral concept, but is the prerequisite for good and progress, it is the prerequisite to anything actually. That knowledge can also be used to do evil doesn’t invalidate or nullify the quest for more knowledge and doesn’t invalidate the good that scientific knowledge cam beget, as scientific knowledge isn’t a single entity but numerous individual, related, or unrelated entities. Your example of nuclear weapons has no relation to the good that evolutionary theory is responsible for, or the good or bad that any other knowledge begets. Again, I’m not sure what you’re doing here other than trying your darndest to counter something I say.

The food pyramid isn’t factual, nor can any food pyramid be factual in the same way that evolution is, as it is a normative endeavor. Many people have their own version and nobody can or will come to a consensus any time within our lifetimes. The government has their own horribly flawed and bias one, Harvard have theirs, many different nutritionists have theirs, I tend to side with a modified Paleolithic approach, but none of them are factual in such a way that evolution is. Nutritional facts are things like the fact that alpha-lipoic acid recycles vitamin antioxidants and amalyse is a digestive enzyme that breaks starch down into sugar. Things that are ubiquitous in their acceptance and if they weren’t true, numerous other things that make sense would cease to make sense. Much like evolution.

I think that you seriously misunderstand what I mean by fact. Something can be considered fact if the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it would be unreasonable not to believe it. You are dealing with absolute truths. Absolute truths are those that are immutable and irrefutable and there aren’t many of them. Facts are not absolute. Many things that were once factual didn’t turn out to be true. When that happened the new facts took their place. For example, the world used to be considered flat, and that was a completely reasonable conclusion until Galileo proved that to be incorrect. When that happened, the new fact took its place and all reasonable people now concede that the earth is spherical. What is currently scientific fact is always to be questioned and scrutinized, but when something has sufficient evidence and we can be nearly certain of it, it is perfectly reasonable to act as thought it is true. The alternative is denial of everything we can’t perceive directly, this would set us back to the stone age.

 

As you say, this has nothing to do with the OP but by definition God had no beginning and was not created. Scientists say the Universe had a beginning but God existed before that and if the Universe ends God will exist after that.

As for it had to happen, if creation is a fact then, no, life was not bound to happen, it happened at the discretion of God.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say.

 

There's no point in debatin........ you win.......

 

Sorry but this was very responsive you were telling a fellow human he can't fly and if mankind had listened to you, mankind would still not fly.

I didn't say what you believe to facts you should keep to yourself but at least you should admit that's what it is something you believe to be a fact and that it may not actually a fact.

You call it you mother if you want but that doesn't make it your mother. likewise you you can consider it a fact and you can call it a fact but that does not make it a fact and to say it does is intellectual dishonesty.

Say what, "the good that evolutionary theory is responsible for", and what is that pray tell?

You're one that brought up nutrition not me.

fact [fakt] (plural facts) n
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact
3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.
5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case

Does this mean that Evolution needs for you to change the definition of the word fact so that you can try to convince others that Evolution is a "fact"?

Interestingly, that "unscientific" book the Bible said the Earth was a globe hung upon nothing, some thousands of years before your "scientist" Galileo figured it out.

 

Also Stabby, why is it that you have diverted thread away from it's original OP?

 

Sorry, I didn't know we were debatin', I thought we were just discussin'.

 

It is simply not a matter of belief. The very nature of quantum probability demands the result you see and quantum probability is an observable phenomena.

 

There are no's on the outside for the observed; ad there are no's on the inside for the observer finding that negativity for fact, appropriate.

But that I think was perhaps Death. Maybe quantum mechanics gets one off topic.

 

TBH, i have no idea what the fuck is going on.

we are on a giant rock, circling another molten giant rock that is circling a region of space in which the gravity well is so deep that gravitational time dilation halts time completely forming an event horizon.

and all of this is going somewhere...

I say the man with the wackiest idea of what the hell is going on wins. Op's idea doesn't sound all that creative to me....

 

If he had plausible evidence to believe that he could fly it would be reasonable, otherwise I would be perfectly justified and proclaiming that he could not fly. I believe that one should act as if one's knowledge is true. Seems pretty reasonable.

I admit that what I believe to be a fact might not be true, not that it might not be a fact. It is currently a fact. However, I will speak in a way that is more to your liking: *ahem* From my individual phenomenological perspective and in accordance with the epistemology I personally feel to be sound and valid, I state in most utter confidience that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, extremely likely to remain so, and I and any other human being should act as though it is true, unless of course they have evidence to believe otherwise or don’t want to. I must now also admit that Mexico might not actually have ever existed. This game is so absurd! I love it!

In my own life, as I’m not a scientist, evolutionary psychology and evolutionary nutrition. They’re only available for people who accept evolution, though. Regardless, the statement applies to all knowledge. What YOU know will do good for you and allow you to do good for others. And even if knowledge isn't apparently useful at first it should still be sought after, as it can prove to be useful in the future. Basically, Knowledge + U =

We’re talking about science, I was using the definition of scientific fact, not the common one. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+fact . Just like when I say that evolution is a theory, I don’t mean that it’s speculative. An honest mistake I’m sure.

That’s very interesting! Which bible verse says that?

 

As I said, perhaps this sounds reasonable to you but if mankind had listened to you and your facts, mankind would still not be able to fly.

See now was that so hard?

I guess I spoke to soon.

Actually I preferred the simple; "I admit that what I believe to be a fact might not be true, not that it might not be a fact."

Mexico might not actually have ever existed? Why would you admit that? Mexico is not a theoretical country, you can visit if you wish and talk to people who have lived there, unlike Evolution.

They’re only available for people who accept evolution? :smilielol5: Yeah, right. What do you have to do, sign a written statement that you believe in evolution before they're available to you?

Not all knowledge is necessarily a good thing. There are a few things that I wish mankind didn't know so much about.

I wondered how science got away with some of the things that they call facts, they just changed the definition of what a fact is.

The Bible contains much information that was far ahead of its time. For example, the book of Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters. At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) and the Bible accurately says that the earth ‘hangs on nothing.’ (Job 26:7)

PS Also I'm still wondering, why you have diverted thread away from it's original OP?

 

On what evidence do you base the statement that surrounding nations did not know anything about such matters as hygienic practice. The Egyptians were adept at mummification. Who is to say that they did not possess preservation techniques that far exceeded the practices of Leviticus?

 

You know of course that hygienic practice and mummification/preservation techniques are two different things, don't you?

 

Is this your answer to the question?

You do know that chemistry is chemistry don't you.

 

Came into this one late but no I don't believe that we're all just bound to happen. Something or someone deffinently created life as we know it. Wether that is God, Tao, or whatever, it's still way to far out there to think we're just random bits of molecule thrown together.