Here are both positions as I see it:
Position #1 – A long time ago the universe expanded from something very tiny into all that we see today. Over time galaxies, and planets formed and started following a certain order for no reason. Then the right mix of stuff at the right time created a single celled organism. This evolved over time into the infinitely sophisticated world you see around you. That includes all trees, animals, insects, etc. Not to mention this order is sustained (morning, night, life continues, etc.)
OR
Position #2 – God exists and decided to create all of this including humans, animals, insects, etc. He made our planet just the right size and put in into motion at just the right distance and angle from the sun. We have laws of physics that He created that keep things in line.
I hold the latter position. Let us know yours and why you hold that position.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I think that there could be more positions than that. For example, I think a third position could be that God exists and he created the universe and all of the right variables for life to exist. Or, perhaps God exists, created the universe, and sort of shapes all of the creations behind the scenes.
As we’ve discussed before, evolution is a theory just like physics. Physics is only called a law, because that’s the word they used at the time. They wouldn’t be called the “laws of physics” if they were discovered today or at the same time as evolution.
My belief is #1 (if I have to choose between the two), and I don’t think your explanation of it does it justice. Using words like “somehow” and “something” is rather disingenuous. The theory of evolution is actually very well documented and we know how tiny lifeforms have evolved in to the variety of life we have today. I don’t think that believing in #1 necessarily means that you think God doesn’t exist… he could be behind the scenes watching over and making decisions.
Again, my favorite site to link to on here
:
http://notjustatheory.com/
(by the way, I’ve been traveling for work, so I have some more commenting to do on other threads, but I’ll get to it.)
March 7th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
@Andrew
I got rid of the “somehow” but kept something because I don’t know how else to describe the small matter from the beginning.
It is true that you could have different variations of that but I thought these would be the two basic ideologies that most would fall into.
The Big Bang could actually be the way it happened but I am advocating that God created it and I don’t believe it would be possible without God.
Has science ever been able to create life without first using life? If they can’t even do it intentionally then how could it happen by chance.
March 8th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
@Dave
Actually, scientists have been able to demonstrate how life was created:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
Whether God was behind it or not is a question of faith. There is no evidence pointing for or against the involvement of God. That’s a question we all have to answer on a personal level.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:43 am
@Andrew
They irrigated the solution (which may or may not be fair game) and as far as I can tell they still didn’t create life.
“Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made.”
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/#ixzz0hgdXDQYE
March 9th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
@Dave
True, the didn’t create life as we know it. But, they demonstrated that RNA enzymes could self-replicate in conditions that were hypothesized by scientists. This is a major hurdle in the race to create life in a lab.
According to evolution (i.e. scientific theory), life evolved over billions of years. So, basically it is quite difficult to create life artificially in a short time span especially when we are trying to do it without step-by-step instructions. But, the race is on and scientists think that they can do it this decade.
Journal citation:
Lincoln et al. Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme. Science, Jan 8, 2009; DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856
March 10th, 2010 at 8:46 am
I think if scientists can’t do it intentionally then it is even more improbable that it would happen accidentally even given billions of years.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:41 am
That sounds logical, but actually the problem is quite complicated. A few points: (1) scientists don’t know the exact conditions of Early earth (3.8 billion years ago), (2) scientists don’t have a record of the exact chemical reaction that spawned life, (3) scientists have been working on this problem seriously for less than a century, and (4) scientists have found fossilized remains of microbrial mats (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2000/00_79AR.html).
The race to create microorganisms from inanimate matter in a lab is on, but it’s easier said that done. Give them a chance. Just because it can’t be done now doesn’t mean that it won’t be done. For example, there were many theories on how to construct a flying machine before the first airplane was successful. And, even when it was successful it only went a few feet.
By the way, this is one reason why we need to fund scientific research, including NASA. By studying other planets (and our own–most of our oceans are unexplored), we can better understand our own. Most scientific research is funded by private organizations, who only care about their own interests. It’s not exactly easy to fund a project that has no immediate application other than understanding Earth’s biological history.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:48 am
True but I would assume they have more tools at their disposal now and don’t forget their efforts are purposeful. Stuff just blowing around is not.
If they can’t do it intentionally then I find it very unlikely that it would happen by accident. It sounds like you believe that anything is possible if you give it enough time (billions of years).
Say it takes 50 factors being just right to create life (assuming it can happen at all without God). It stands to reason that those 50 factors would have to happen within a short period of time. Otherwise the initial factors would change by the time the latter factors came about say 1000 years later. Not to mention each factor could be separated by 7 years or 150 years.
If you want to fund NASA that is your choice. I personally don’t think it should be a government function though. Make it a charity. If their isn’t enough funding well then the money is better spent somewhere else.
March 12th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I remember in a previous post the argument was laid out that Americans pay more for their healthcare but the US is also a great contributor to progress in healthcare through research. NASA has had a huge impact on our technological progress which has not only led to a greater understanding of the universe, but also had a huge number of practical applications:
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
In addition, NASA is a key source for medical and environmental research. Making it a charity would definitely be a step back for our country, and the world. The major problem I see is that Congress and the President decide NASA’s priorities and their funding (the former bugs me more).
What would a world be like without NASA? Well, we might not be having this conversation… computers, CDs, keyboards, and flat-panel TVs were all derived from NASA. In terms of medical applications, we can thank NASA for MRI, ultrasounds, automatic insulin pumps, a bone analyzer, an implantable heart aid, etc.
That said, does it seem like a good idea to turn it into a charity?
They do have more tools. They’re getting close and estimated they’ll create life from inanimate material in 10 years. This is, of course, synthetic life. Is that good enough for you
?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life was created from organic molecules (which are common in space). Basically (and this is kind of the dumbed down version), scientists are trying to get from those organic molecules to a nucleic acid (in the case above, RNA). In the experiment we have been discussing, they have synthesized an enzyme that has one property of life (self-replication). I’m confused at how you expect scientists to create life from non-life without doing it artificially? Are they supposed to go into the woods with their microscopes or something?
There’s also the point that the line between life and non-life is blurry. It seems like scientists are aiming toward a nucleotide that has many properties of life.
I also want to note that abiogenesis is not connected with evolution. They’re separate things. Evolution doesn’t detail how life was created by non-life. So, whether through abiogenesis or God, it doesn’t have an impact on the theory of evolution.
I do believe that a lot of things are possible with time. We’ve gone to the moon, invented the Internet/computers, GPS, and we’re at the point where we could even modify DNA to prevent diseases. It’s amazing, and there will continue to be many scientific advances in our lifetime. Hopefully a cure for a lot of the diseases plaguing our world and, of course, putting the brakes on climate change through more efficient energy production methods.
March 13th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
One more point:
Observation of other galaxies has shown that the organic molecules necessary for life are quite abundant.
For example, the Orion Nebula was recently shown to have them all.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/molecules-for-life/
So, it seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe…. especially since we’ve already found evidence on Mars.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I am sure that having NASA around has positive consequences to it. I still don’t think it should be a government function. You could make the same argument for war though. You are I are still against that (generally) even though innovations have come from it.
When the government takes resources and puts them somewhere they are taken from somewhere else. We don’t know what the free market would have done with the funds because they were taken and given to NASA.
“They do have more tools. They’re getting close and estimated they’ll create life from inanimate material in 10 years. This is, of course, synthetic life. Is that good enough for you
?”
It it still seems like they have a lot of things to figure out. “When these things are created, they’re going to be so weak, it’ll be a huge achievement if you can keep them alive for an hour in the lab,”.
If creating life in the lab is possible at all- remember this is a focused group of individuals using all the tools at their disposal with precision and trial and error and they can only hope to create something that lives for an hour in 3 to 10 years from now.
How much more improbable is it for a long term life sustaining cell to live long enough to reproduce without anyone creating it?
“I’m confused at how you expect scientists to create life from non-life without doing it artificially? Are they supposed to go into the woods with their microscopes or something?”
What do you mean by “artificially”? I don’t remember giving any such limitation.
I am talking more about the beginning and not really evolution. My point is the any beginning would not be possible without God.
The life challenge also needs to be real life. I guess my definition would be something that self replicates, eats, gets energy from food, creates waste and is self sustaining (meaning it produces new cells faster then it dies off).
“I do believe that a lot of things are possible with time. We’ve gone to the moon, invented the Internet/computers, GPS, and we’re at the point where we could even modify DNA to prevent diseases.”
What I meant was by it self. Not man made things. More to do with the beginning as well as evolution.
“Observation of other galaxies has shown that the organic molecules necessary for life are quite abundant.”
I see this as similar to piles of bricks on various planets means that it is likely to find homes built on other planets. In both cases you need a designer/builder.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Can’t disagree with that… but I would say that the intentions are different. With NASA, ESA, etc. on the ISS, you have research projects specifically aimed at advancing science.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/index.html
I would argue that the if space research was all private, you would only have research funded by large organizations… most likely, it would just be a lot of space tourism since most large organizations (e.g. Walmart) would have a have hard time finding a reason to do basic research.
…
Earlier you said that the scientists “irrigated the solution” and questioned whether it was fair game or not. That’s what I meant when I asked how they are supposed to do it without doing it artificially…
Welcome to the problem of trying to define life. Biologists have been trying to do this for 400 years. I think your criteria are ok… reproduction and getting energy from “food” (which could be anything from steak to carbon monoxide) are definitely in most definitions. Evolving through natural selection is also in most definitions.
When scientists create life (by that definition) in a lab, if it only lives for an hour but self-replicates within that hour, then what is the problem with that? Life will have been created that is self-sustaining under lab conditions.
I’ll accept the metaphor, but we’re talking chemistry not construction. Why do you need a designer/builder? In chemistry class, we all learned that two reactants can form a new substance. Organic chemistry (with organic compounds like found in space) is the same way. Reactions can take place without on their own if the reactants are there.
March 13th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I didn’t mean make space exploration private. I just meant allowing the free market to determine the best use of the funds verses giving it to NASA. If space exploration doesn’t happen then perhaps their are better things we can devote resources to.
You are right that their intentions are different though. I also don’t think it would be the first to go if I were in charge.
“Earlier you said that the scientists “irrigated the solution” and questioned whether it was fair game or not. That’s what I meant when I asked how they are supposed to do it without doing it artificially…”
I said that just because I didn’t know if any type of irrigation would occur naturally back in the day. I was originally thinking they shouldn’t be able to use things that were not present back then but I am now doubtful they can do it even with all the tools they can use.
“When scientists create life (by that definition) in a lab, if it only lives for an hour but self-replicates within that hour, then what is the problem with that?”
As long as the new cell does the same thing so that the new species doesn’t go extinct in 24 hours or something. I guess that would suffice and I would be impressed. But then they would have to explain how they did it and how that could have possibly happened without any intervention back in the beginning.
I think life is much more complex than two substances reacting to one another. Too complex to happen by accident.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
My point is that if we don’t directly fund NASA, then space exploration won’t happen. Anyway, NASA’s budget was 0.55% in 2009 and is 0.52% for 2010. It is 35% of the total spending on academic research in the US. Cutting NASA funding altogether or even making it donation based would be a huge blow.
Yes, scientists are trying to use organic molecules that they have found in space. Again, they say they can create “life” in a lab within 5-10 years. It’s fine to believe that they won’t do it, but one can’t deny that they are getting closer and closer based on recent discoveries.
Life is complex… that’s why scientists are working hard to create it in a lab. The list of Nobel Laureates in medicine may be a good reminder that we are constantly making new discoveries:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/
Scientific research isn’t just going to stop… but progress could definitely be slowed down if funding is cut.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Well it might be better spent by the free market. There are more important things then space exploration.
Again I am referring to an ideal federal government. Eliminating funding for NASA would probably be last on the list of things to change.
Getting “closer” to something that can’t be done is like being closer to the end of eternity.
I don’t think scientific research is within the role of the federal government.
Any scientific research that can improve people’s lives should be motivated by a free market. Ex. new drugs, safer plastics, affordable energy…
I guess I could understand having scientists funded by the state or city governments to perform specific functions related to protecting air and water quality. I haven’t fully thought this out though.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Yes, but in this case it appears they are getting closer to something that can be done.
Regarding scientific research, my point is that without federal funding we would mainly have research that is commercialized and aimed at specific results to help companies profit. We would not have basic research.
In other words, we would only have research driven by the markets. Basic research drives social and economic progress. There are many examples of this… In the medical field, X-Rays and MRI were both created from the results of basic research.
Basic research is also cheap. Have you ever seen a rich PhD student? The people working off government grants are dedicated, inspired, and providing a great return on investment for our tax dollars.
In summary, not funding basic research would be a giant blow to our nation and the world. As humans, we would be taking one giant step back and we would not see as many breakthrough discoveries because private companies would be using funds to sell more of their own products. No private company would have funded research on quantum mechanics several decades ago because they could never have forecasted it would lead to quantum computing–which will be the next great step for technology to come about because of basic research.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:40 am
It seems there are benefits to basic research. However my problem is it is not one of the specific functions delegated by the constitution.
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
It doesn’t say anything about funding scientists.
Furthermore it talks about taxes and says they can be collected only for the general defense and welfare of the people. I don’t think general research is covered by that definition.
Perhaps individual states could fund general research.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I would argue that funding scientific research falls under “welfare of the people”. After all, without science funding we would not have X-Rays or MRIs.
Here’s another, more practical, example:
Pharmaceutical company X makes drug Y to solve problem Z.
Pharmaceutical company A makes drug B to solve problem Z.
Pharmaceutical company X fund research with drug Y against a placebo and the research shows drug Y is more effective than the placebo. Pharmaceutical company A fund research with drug B against a placebo and the research shows drug B is more effective than the placebo. Neither company will fund a study to compare drugs Y and B because they fear their drug will be the least effective. It’s up to a third party to fund that research… who funds it? It’s for the “welfare of the people”, isn’t it?
While I generally agree we should abide by the Constitution, we have to remember that it was intended to be a living document. Our founding fathers did not even use the word “technology” for example. They used the phrase “useful arts” instead. Meanwhile, the intellectual property system has gotten out of control in the US, which has actually stifled innovation and not promoted it as that first quote intended. Our founding fathers lived and breathed scientific research. I think that they would agree today that we need to reform the patent system and fund research through taxes.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Man we have veered off of the original subject. Anyway, good argument. All general scientific research that is specifically meant to improve the overall welfare is okay by me. I don’t think NASA meets that criteria though.
I believe the constitution was meant to chain down the government.
March 20th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Well, it is an interesting subject and I think we understand each other’s point of view.
I think you’d probably only be against planet missions and astrophysics research. NASA’s Earth-related research is directed into practical areas like climate, water, energy and weather. NASA’s Heliophysics research is focused on the Sun, our magnetic field, and solar activity. Variability in all of those focus areas can lead to changes on Earth.
Planet and astrophysics missions are exploring the origins of our solar system and life. It’s easier to understand how life formed on Earth if you can potentially see it in action on a distant planet or, at the very least, obtain fossils. Those missions are the least applicable to our everyday life and the least guided (since sometimes we are surprised by what we find), but they are extremely interesting and important for improving scientific understanding.
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:21 am
I think that it is naive to assume that there can only be two positions of belief. As most sensible people know: there are very few things that are just black and white. Why not consider theistic evolution?
I would also like to comment on your introductory sentiments.
“The Bible is the Word of God and Jesus is our only true hope”
Besides the fact that your beliefs reflect that of a fundamentalist who has a literal interpretation of the bible, who are you to dictate the path to ‘salvation’? All of the stories in the bible are true, but only a few of them actually happened. No one religion is ‘right’, you just choose the religion that is most ‘right’ for you.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 am
@Vivienne
As far as the beginning of the universe I do not see how there could be another option. I am not referring to evolution here. We were either created by the Creator or it happened by chance.
My introductory statements are my beliefs. I am not dictating the path to salvation. It is written plainly in the Word.
“No one religion is ‘right’, you just choose the religion that is most ‘right’ for you.”
If one religion is from God and another is from men would not the one from God have authority? If they are all from men then why follow any of them?
“All of the stories in the bible are true, but only a few of them actually happened.”
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. I agree that Jesus told parables that didn’t actually happen. But I do believe He walked on water and rose from the dead.
Thanks for commenting.