Florida license plates

[Plane]

Organic life is not like the parts of a watch.

In what way are they not?

[Rich]

>>The earth was formed from them. And before you ask, it was gravity that caused them to form a sphere.<<

Okay, the Earth was formed from them. I believe you. Where did the molecules come from?

[Plane]

>>The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth.<<

How did they get there?

The earth was formed from them. And before you ask, it was gravity that caused them to form a sphere.

>>Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids.<<

Why? Becuse they just do?

Yup. The beauty of chemical bonding.

Any answer can ultimately lead to another question.

Chemicals that fit together just happen to fit together so well that they fall into place as self replicateing machines.

Why should this seem unlikely at all?

 Machines that build themselves is a concept Human beings are trying to exploit , too bad we are finding this to be a difficult task.

[Plane]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=experts-where-did-viruses-come-fr

[Stray Pooch]

Well, no. Theism is POTENTIALLY logically provable. Like POTENTIALLY a rat cold be turned into a rodentdroid, or an army of soldiers could be formed using yo yos as weapons.

Potentially provable to some.  Already proven to others.  I know God exists and have proved it for myself.  Many have the same conviction.  But leaving that aside, as it cannot be demonstrated in a manner sufficient for the forum, potentially provable is logically superior to unprovable.  The former has hope of proof and the latter has none.  No appeal to logic can be made to support atheism.  Appeals can be made - and have been - to support theism.  Anshelm's Ontological Proof was one such appeal.  Descartes' analogy using the definition of a triangle is another. (I've forgoteen the specifics, but it was a pretty interesting argument).   Nothing approaching those arguments can be attempted by the Atheist because there is no premise that does not begin with proving a negative.  Atheism has no logical appeal and therefore must rely entirely on faith in the nonexistence of an unknown.  It is really no more rational a thought process than any theistic belief, however improbable. 

Atheists are reduced to demonstrating perceived contradictions in a particular doctrine - which would at best possibly disprove the doctrine - or simply insisting that something which cannot be proved cannot exist (which one might argue, paradoxically, means Atheism itself cannot exist).  The Atheist can make no strong argument for Atheism.  They must rely on the idea that belief in a diety without some sort of prove acceptable on THEIR terms is irrational.  That is entirely subjective.  The Agnostic can claim that, while anything is possible, no theistic argument has been proven to the point that it can be accepted.  No argument need be made to support such a claim.  Even if God revealed himself in his glory to the Agnostic, that Agnostic might claim, like Scrooge, that the evidence of his own senses might be suspect.  The Theist can claim, and I do, that they have received sufficient proof of God's existence to know it as a fact. 

I am reminded of a scene in "The King and I" where a young prince refuses to believe that a country could be larger than Siam, or that such a thing as snow exists.  Though it was beyond the capability of Anna to prove to the Siamese that snow existed, she knew that it was a fact.  The Prince was an A-snowist.  Anna was a snowist.  I am sure that there were others among the Siamese who were Agnostic on the subject of snow.  The strongest logical position was the Agnostic.  The weakest was a-snowistic.  It turns out that the snowists were right. 

[Amianthus]

Okay, the Earth was formed from them. I believe you. Where did the molecules come from?

Stellar nova.

[Xavier_Onassis]

For each and every one of the philosophical proof for the existence of God, there is a logical refutation of how this turns out not to be a conclusive proof after all. The Holy Mother Church spent centuries on this subject.

It boils down to belief. Either you believe, or you don't, or at least do not accept the belief structure given by some specific religion to be sufficiently convincing. But no one KNOWS for sure. Those who claim to know have simply succeeded in deluding themselves.

And of course, beliefs that (1) once a God created the Universe, (2) a God looks over mankind, summing up a total of point (he's keeping a list and doesn't need to check it twice, being a perfect being and all) he knows who's been naughty and knows who's been nice, (3) he communicates his instructions on extremely rare occasions with selected prophets, (4) he once had or always has had a son, who became a man for a rather short time, all are believable on an individual basis, since they deal with the nature of the Supreme Being as well as his existence. One can, I suppose, attribute the creation of the universe to natural causes and still believe in a Maximum Eternal Moral Authority.

One can even believe the Dystopian view that the Universe was created by an insane woman, which seems to make some logical sense. The most intersting of these seem to me to be the Church of Tina Chopp and the Church of the Subgenius. I think it is possible to believe in both Tina and Bob Dobbs simultaneously, just as one can be a good Buddhist and a good T'aoist simultaneously.

[Amianthus]

Chemicals that fit together just happen to fit together so well that they fall into place as self replicateing machines.

Yes, it has to do with the outer shell of electrons mostly.

It's a universal constant. If you want to know why the universe exists in this way so that it will happen in that manner, feel free to ascribe it to a creator or to the anthropic principle. Either explain it as well, and science cannot explain it (because it deals with existence, if any, prior to the creation of the universe; science can only explain the current universe).

[Lanya]

Interesting article:

Scientist at Work | Francisco J. Ayala
Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God

   
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: April 29, 2008

For a university professor, Francisco J. Ayala spends a lot of time on the road.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Chas Metivier

SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY Francisco J. Ayala says that belief in evolution does not necessarily rule out belief in God.

    "Let us permit science to enrich our understanding and appreciation of creation. But also let science permit us to still gaze up at the stars and feel the presence of God."

   

An evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, he speaks often at universities, in churches, for social groups and elsewhere, usually in defense of the theory of evolution and against the arguments of creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design.

Usually he preaches to the converted. But not always.

As challenges to the teaching of evolution continue to emerge, legislators debate measures equating the teaching of creationism with academic freedom and a new movie links Darwin to evils ranging from the suppression of free speech to the Holocaust, ?I get a lot of people who don?t know what to think,? Dr. Ayala said. ?Or they believe in intelligent design but they want to hear.?

Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution ?is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.?
[.............]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html?em&ex=1209700800&en=b8553f4d585213b4&ei=5087%0A

[Rich]

>>Stellar nova.<<

Where did it come from?

[Amianthus]

Where did it come from?

When a sun begins to run low on nuclear fuel for fusion, gravity causes a collapse at the core, which heats up the sun. This causes the sun to cook the heavier elements, and eventually to explode. Stellar processes are all run by gravity.

[Plane]

Chemicals that fit together just happen to fit together so well that they fall into place as self replicateing machines.

Yes, it has to do with the outer shell of electrons mostly.

It's a universal constant. If you want to know why the universe exists in this way so that it will happen in that manner, feel free to ascribe it to a creator or to the anthropic principle. Either explain it as well, and science cannot explain it (because it deals with existence, if any, prior to the creation of the universe; science can only explain the current universe).

I don't think that randomness explains the results we have equally well .

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that randomness explains the results we have equally well .
=============================================================
If you wish to compare a divinely created universe with one that happened by random action, just take one of each and compare them.

Since this is impossible, all opinions about what the universe we live in is, is simply speculation, as in, "I don't think that a mudder will win at the Derby this year".

Except you don't even have an almanac with rain statistics to base your opinions on.
 

[Amianthus]

I don't think that randomness explains the results we have equally well .

The anthropic principle is not "randomness."

[Xavier_Onassis]

The anthropic principle is not "randomness."

Perhaps it might be helpful to explain how this differs from randomness.