"Life" series on Discovery Channel

[robyn hill]

So regretably, I don't have Discovery Chanel at this time and can't watch the "Life" series that begins tonight. But even the advertisment for the series got me thinking. With all the life bursting forth on our planet, I am overwhelmed my its magnitude. There are, after all, so many creatures! But then I began to marvel more at the balancing act these creatures play a part of, and am amazed more so at how all creatures have a part in causing the earth's survival to progress as long as it has. Every creature is part of a web that depends on life above it and below it to sustain a constant life flow. We must have this variety of life for human life to continue. For example, we have life forms that consume the rot and decay on our planet. Without these organisms, decay would be prevalent and human life would cease to exist. Again, there appears to be a plan in motion on our planet. According to chance, wouldn't it be just as likely that this one organism (among millions needed for survival) would not have come into existence? If just this one specimen were not here, we would not be here either. Looking at this, and all the resources our planet contains to sustain life, it just doesn't seem logical that chance resulted "once again" in our survival. Just thinking out loud.

[Gman]

If we divorce God out of science or evolution for that matter, all we really have are "chance" events for the existence of life.. It is often preached here that creationism is based on the miraculous, however atheistic evolution (evolution devoid of God), is also based on the miraculous or miraculous chance based probabilities..

In other words, BOTH belief systems are faith based, BOTH require some sort of miracles to kick start the thing...

Which get's down to this... Choose your faith wisely...

[Kynaros]

Looking at this, and all the resources our planet contains to sustain life, it just doesn't seem logical that chance resulted "once again" in our survival.

The Drake Equation estimates that there might be 50 technological civilizations in this galaxy alone, so there's nothing illogical or even improbable about our existence. Take a look around you: we are the only planet with life for what is perhaps billions of light years. How many planets have there been where life didn't have the right conditions to survive, where ecological disasters did happen to destroy life and where things just in general did not work out? There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy - 99% of which likely have nothing but barren rocks and gas giants - a testament to how rare and precious life is.

Yet everything worked out on our planet, and we are here to marvel at it, which is great. I also have an appreciation for life, but I see no evidence that there's any sort of God pulling strings in the background. Instead, nature works by itself, and that I think, makes it much more amazing than it would be if we just chalked the whole thing up to some sort of God.

[zoegirl]

Kynaros,

Please read the Discussion Board Guidelines before continuing to post so that you understand whether this discussion board is right for you.

[DannyM]

Take a look around you: we are the only planet with life for what is perhaps billions of light years. How many planets have there been where life didn't have the right conditions to survive, where ecological disasters did happen to destroy life and where things just in general did not work out? There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy - 99% of which likely have nothing but barren rocks and gas giants - a testament to how rare and precious life is.

Yet everything worked out on our planet, and we are here to marvel at it, which is great. I also have an appreciation for life, but I see no evidence that there's any sort of God pulling strings in the background. Instead, nature works by itself, and that I think, makes it much more amazing than it would be if we just chalked the whole thing up to some sort of God.

And yet you put this down to what? chance? How much faith does it take to believe that there is Nothing behind this fine-tuned, improbable existence of ours? Are you happy to employ a naturalism of the gaps in order to avoid the rational conclusion that this cannot have occured by way of a fantastical accident?

[Kynaros]

Zoe - did I do something wrong?

And yet you put this down to what? chance? How much faith does it take to believe that there is Nothing behind this fine-tuned, improbable existence of ours? Are you happy to employ a naturalism of the gaps in order to avoid the rational conclusion that this cannot have occured by way of a fantastical accident?

I don't claim to know what is behind our existence. I don't know, and neither do you. While I think it would be nice if it was God, I simply don't see the evidence.

[zoegirl]

No, but it seems obvious that you are not here as a genuine seeker. While atheists are welcome, you must understand that the purpose of the discussion board is ultimately as a support for Christians and for seekers.

I simply wanted you to be aware of the discussion guidelines and our purpose.

[Gman]

Yet everything worked out on our planet, and we are here to marvel at it, which is great. I also have an appreciation for life, but I see no evidence that there's any sort of God pulling strings in the background. Instead, nature works by itself, and that I think, makes it much more amazing than it would be if we just chalked the whole thing up to some sort of God.

You see no evidence of God? Then please enlighten us how life came to be on this planet.. How does nature work by itself?

[robyn hill]

The Drake Equation estimates that there might be 50 technological civilizations in this galaxy alone, so there's nothing illogical or even improbable about our existence.

Totally agree with you!! According to evolution there should be AT LEAST 50 technological civilizations out there in this inconceiveably vast galaxy! In fact, according to Drake, there are at least 10,000 other civilizations in the Milky Way alone! When Drake made his equation, he was also speculating with radio waves, we have advanced tech now and i would think other life forms would also have possibly higer technology to detect communication. However, so far we have not found anything. With all of our technology, and the possible technology of other life forms ( possible technological singularity?), you would certainly think contact in some form would occur. Evolution fails for me here, as we have yet to find evidence for other life. This point only further supports my belief in God. Evolution should have provided other life forms and yet there have been none found. You might say, Well, we just haven't found the other life forms "yet", well I say that takes some faith on your part doesn't it. This, along with so many other logical reasons,reinforces my belief in God and his single plan for human beings here on earth. If life is discovered elsewhere then i will cross that bridge when i come to it. No such bridge yet, only some scientific speculation or faith at best.

[Kynaros]

I don't think it takes any faith on my part since I don't have a belief system based on the existence of aliens, only the acknowledgement that it is physically possible. Also it's not as simple as just "finding the life forms". The nearest star system is over 4 light years away. Even with the slim chance that Alpha Centauri supports life, it would take any spaceship today way more than 4 years. Even if we could travel at the speed of light, we'd deal with problems of time dilatation, such that when the spaceship reported back to Earth to talk about its findings, hundreds or thousands of years would have passed. Also, there are maybe 200 billion stars in this galaxy, so 10000 is a pathetically small number in comparison. Earth is an insignificant blip in the galaxy.

You see no evidence of God? Then please enlighten us how life came to be on this planet.. How does nature work by itself?

There are lots of theories out there such as multiverse, primordial soup, evolution, etc that all give a possible explanation that doesn't require God. However, a tough fact of life is that nobody has all the answers.

[Gman]

You see no evidence of God? Then please enlighten us how life came to be on this planet.. How does nature work by itself?

There are lots of theories out there such as multiverse, primordial soup, evolution, etc that all give a possible explanation that doesn't require God. However, a tough fact of life is that nobody has all the answers.

Evolution makes no claim that either denies or affirms the existence of a creator. It does not say that it doesn't require God. So you are wrong from that standpoint. And while nobody has all the answers, nothing is said to have 100% proof, you are just going to have to accept it on faith.

Which get's back to choose your faith wisely..

[Kynaros]

Evolution makes no claim that either denies or affirms the existence of a creator. It does not say that it doesn't require God. So you are wrong from that standpoint. And while nobody has all the answers, nothing is said to have 100% proof, you are just going to have to accept it on faith.

Which get's back to choose your faith wisely..

Let me say this again. There is nothing in evolution that requires the intervention of a God for the theory to work. Therefore no God is required. It's fine if you believe in a God, as long as you realize that he is redundant when it comes to explaining how life arose on this planet. There are perfectly good explanations out there that don't require a God.

Evolution is not a faith. Evolution is simply our sum knowledge of how the genetic change of a population over time works, large tracts of which are backed up by real physical evidence and can be used to extrapolate the past.

The only thing you have to choose is whether you want to give more weight to theories which are backed up by critical thinking and large tracts of physical evidence, or theories from dogma and superstition whose origin comes from an age of mass ignorance. The ancient primitive men back then did not know how the stars formed, what the elementary particles of matter were, or even that the Earth was round, yet I'm expected to believe that the parts they did get right was what happens after you die and whether or not there is a God?

[Gman]

Let me say this again. There is nothing in evolution that requires the intervention of a God for the theory to work. Therefore no God is required. It's fine if you believe in a God, as long as you realize that he is redundant when it comes to explaining how life arose on this planet. There are perfectly good explanations out there that don't require a God.

You appear to be confused... You appear to be injecting your philosophical beliefs into science and evolution... Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God. Specifically, it is neutral to God's existence.

But you are making a theological claim.. You stated, " Therefore no God is required." Again.. You are making atheistic claims, something that science or evolution does NOT address...

Clearer now?

Evolution is not a faith. Evolution is simply our sum knowledge of how the genetic change of a population over time works, large tracts of which are backed up by real physical evidence and can be used to extrapolate the past.

According to you it is faith based ... You stated earlier, "I don't claim to know what is behind our existence. I don't know, and neither do you." Looks like you have more faith in it than others here...

The only thing you have to choose is whether you want to give more weight to theories which are backed up by critical thinking and large tracts of physical evidence, or theories from dogma and superstition whose origin comes from an age of mass ignorance. The ancient primitive men back then did not know how the stars formed, what the elementary particles of matter were, or even that the Earth was round, yet I'm expected to believe that the parts they did get right was what happens after you die and whether or not there is a God?

Religious beliefs can be relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. Christianity did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of a religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify a religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this "so called" religious prediction.

[Kynaros]

You appear to be confused... You appear to be injecting your philosophical beliefs into science and evolution... Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God. Specifically, it is neutral to God's existence.

But you are making a theological claim.. You stated, " Therefore no God is required." Again.. You are making atheistic claims, something that science or evolution does NOT address...

Clearer now?

You still don't get it. I am not saying that God does not exist, or that evolution even talks about him, since that would make zero sense. I am only saying that he is not required for any of these theories to work. What is so hard to understand about that? Please present evidence to the contrary if you disagree. Sorry, but none of my chemistry or biology textbooks make any reference to God.

According to you it is faith based ... You stated earlier, "I don't claim to know what is behind our existence. I don't know, and neither do you." Looks like you have more faith in it than others here...

Sorry, but no. I simply admit that evolution is the best explanation we have. I never made any sort of commitments that it's 100% right. It's not faith because I do not have 100% confidence in it, and would ditch it the moment something better came up. Whereas Christians seem to know that their God is the right one and would never ditch him no matter what other kind of idea of God you proposed to them.

Religious beliefs can be relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. Christianity did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of a religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify a religious. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this "so called" religious prediction.

Yes, but science does not "prove" anything, and even our best theories could be proven false later. Science has not proven that the universe came out of nothing. In fact, that would violate the laws of thermodynamics, hence the need for multiverse theories or the like.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Hi Kynaros,
If you look at my past posts you will see that I am an agnostic.
As Gman is saying you are mixing your philosophy with science.

Let me say this again. There is nothing in evolution that requires the intervention of a God for the theory to work. Therefore no God is required. It's fine if you believe in a God, as long as you realize that he is redundant when it comes to explaining how life arose on this planet. There are perfectly good explanations out there that don't require a God.

Evolution does not explain how life arose on our planet. It only explains the diversity of life.
The conclusion "Therefore no God is required." is your's based on your beliefs, it is not a scientific one, and it seems you are implying therefore no God exists.
It is the same as saying there is nothing in the rules of gambling requiring the intervention of a government. Therefore no government is required, and therefore implying no government exists.

Evolution is not a faith. Evolution is simply our sum knowledge of how the genetic change of a population over time works, large tracts of which are backed up by real physical evidence and can be used to extrapolate the past.

This is correct, the theory now includes the field of genetics and also tackles how phenotypes are expressed in individuals.

The only thing you have to choose is whether you want to give more weight to theories which are backed up by critical thinking and large tracts of physical evidence, or theories from dogma and superstition whose origin comes from an age of mass ignorance. The ancient primitive men back then did not know how the stars formed, what the elementary particles of matter were, or even that the Earth was round, yet I'm expected to believe that the parts they did get right was what happens after you die and whether or not there is a God?

On this board you are not expected to believe anything. You are only required to respect the beliefs of the vast majority of the posters here. This is not the site to argue athiestic beliefs.