Intelligent life in the Universe?

[BornOnce]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It would be fascinating to study the psychology of another intelligent species. Would they have an odd sense of reverence towards their species? Would they think they are obviously the supreme species? Would they have developed a creation story? Believe in a god or supernatural power? Be as prone to depression as humans?

 

[Elpenor]

Well, I would personally define Creator in this case as an intelligence that guides or directs something to occur rather than having the faith that "time and chance" are good enough to explain such a problem as the beginnings of all that we know.

I believe that Creator was the God spoken of in the Bible.

I won't get into a religious flame war on this topic, but this is what I believe.

I have come to this conclusion as a result of personally reading what the Bible has to say, critically analyzing what I've been told throughout my education, and never taking anything at face value just because someone told me to believe one thing or another.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive and I personally believe in both. I just find many are willing to disregard the scientific method in favor of disproving religious thought.

...

 

[MB333999]

It would be fascinating to study the psychology of another intelligent species. Would they have an odd sense of reverence towards their species? Would they think they are obviously the supreme species? Would they have developed a creation story? Believe in a god or supernatural power? Be as prone to depression as humans?

If they were actually intelligent,

No to all your questions.

 

[bamtuba]

...

😱



🙂

As far as what you bolded, where's the problem? Some people who are normally very scientifically-minded throw out all reason and grasp for anything and everything they can to "prove" there is no design to something that appears to have it. "Time and chance" building a house, fully furnished with electricity and amenities, makes no sense. But hey, I guess it IS statistically possible given enough time...

The logical thing to assume (until proven otherwise) is that someone built it. But over billions of years we have yet to find houses (which, btw are much less complex than living beings) just sitting in forests just waiting for some lucky person to come inhabit them.

But if we did find such houses, the "scientific" way of dealing with that subject would NEVER be to assume "there is no builder," but rather, who built this, how did they build it, and why? I've yet to hear of an archeaologist finding an "ancient civilization" and claiming that "over the course of billions of years, this structure clearly formed under heat and pressure to become a structure underneath the sand..."

But I digress in response to a very strange and very ambiguous post.

As far as the relevance to the topic, it is extremely relevant to the question of whether or not one believes there is life in other places in our universe. If we find ANY type of life elsewhere, well that would certainly through a wrench in the works, now wouldn't it. But it hasn't happened yet...

Maybe it will? Guess we'll just have to wait and find out.

 

[Longshanks]

Yes, amino acids are possible to create from scratch. However, how do you incorporate DNA and RNA into creating protein?

The translational mechanism itself involves a form of enzyme that was created from DNA template itself.

You are forgetting that it has been shown that RNA can be self catalytic. And still we are discovering new RNA in cells that have catalytic activity, thus suggesting the evolutionary hypothesis that life began with RNA and can sustain itself with RNA, in that original primitive state. RNA doesn't need an enzyme: snRNA being the most recent example.

Also, how did the plasma membrane came about?

Now you need to some how form lipids, but once you have lipids they naturally form micelles and given the right amount and composition they will form membranes simply due to surface energy. Then, if there exists RNA, including rRNA and tRNA then you can begin to embed proteins in membranes and not only then create semi-permeable membranes but selectively semi-permeable membranes.

 

[The Enchanter]

bamtuba, I feel bad for you and all other creationists who plan on becoming physicians. You'll have to believe that God created smallpox and malaria and bubonic plague and HIV and every other horrifying infectious disease when he could have simply chosen to not create them. It is difficult to reconcile a good, just and caring God with one who constantly invents new and terrible ways to kill people. It's also baffling why God would continue to create new strains of drug resistant bacteria, simply to thwart mankind's efforts to eradicate our God-given diseases. And don't give me that pap about how microevolution exists but macroevolution is a lie - the only difference is in time scale.

Just remember, there was a time when the vast majority of humans thought that the cause of infectious disease was supernatural. While nobody could understand or explain a natural cause, we're fortunate that we eventually had scientists who refused to accept magical thinking. In every instance in history, when a society leans on supernatural thinking, it regresses into a pitiful state and where science and reason shine their light, society is elevated.

Explaining everything we don't yet understand by saying "God must have done it" is counterproductive to the progress of humanity. It is an attempt to extinguish the light of scientific inquiry and is the intellectual coward's way out.

 

[redsquareblack]

Yes, but other experiments showed that nothing could happen as well

True, but negative trials under certain conditions don't necessarily rule out that line of thinking. Negative trials are almost a given by chance alone.

But given a random DNA strand 100 nucleotides in length, with is short by any standard, to find a specific sequence of DNA that long, assuming we could test each sequence in 10^-13 seconds it would take (4^100 or 1.6x10^60) Number of possibilities) / (10^13 possibilities tested per sec) = 1.6x10^47 seconds. And with the age of the universe estimated at 12 billions years (~10^20 seconds) you can see where the predicament comes in.

1.6x10^47 seconds >> 10^20 seconds,

But i agree with small things can add up to larger advances, but numbers don't lie.

That's not a very good way of looking at it. You're looking at it linearly, which isn't the only way of tackling the problem. I agree that if you try each combination one at a time, it's likely to take quite some time before you stumble across the "right" one.

But let's just suppose, for the moment, that at any given time, in the prehistoric oceans of the Earth, there were billions and billions of little polynucleotides floating about. Why, then you've reduced the amount of time it would take by several orders of magnitude.

Granted, it's just a thought experiment, but it goes to show how very many parallel trials can accomplish the same thing in a shorter period of time than very many sequential trials.

 

[redsquareblack]

😱



🙂

As far as what you bolded, where's the problem? Some people who are normally very scientifically-minded throw out all reason and grasp for anything and everything they can to "prove" there is no design to something that appears to have it. "Time and chance" building a house, fully furnished with electricity and amenities, makes no sense. But hey, I guess it IS statistically possible given enough time...

This is disingenuous, bamtuba, and you know it. Because something is complex and "appears" to be designed is not empirical evidence that it was designed. By the way, I like your take on the "tornado through the junkyard building a 747" creationist canard.

You've commented before that there's "scientific" evidence of design, depending upon how you interpret the existing evidence. I responded by telling you that's not how science works, and I'll say it again. Mind you, I'm not saying you're unscientific because you disagree with scientific consensus, or for any personal reason. I'm calling you out as unscientific not because you question the scientific consensus, but how you do it.

You're not directly addressing the body of scientific evidence to assert your position, but rather erecting strawmen, and cherry-picking your data. That's not science, bam, that's denialism. It's the same tactics utilized by creationists, intelligent design proponents, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, &c., &c.

It's nothing new.

The logical thing to assume (until proven otherwise) is that someone built it. But over billions of years we have yet to find houses (which, btw are much less complex than living beings) just sitting in forests just waiting for some lucky person to come inhabit them.

You really think this is a sound argument, don't you? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural selection actually means. Do you even realize that it's not about "random chance"? If you actually understand what you're criticizing, you'd realize this is a pretty silly argument to make.

But if we did find such houses, the "scientific" way of dealing with that subject would NEVER be to assume "there is no builder," but rather, who built this, how did they build it, and why? I've yet to hear of an archeaologist finding an "ancient civilization" and claiming that "over the course of billions of years, this structure clearly formed under heat and pressure to become a structure underneath the sand..."

Someone has been watching a bit too much Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.

As far as the relevance to the topic, it is extremely relevant to the question of whether or not one believes there is life in other places in our universe. If we find ANY type of life elsewhere, well that would certainly through a wrench in the works, now wouldn't it. But it hasn't happened yet...

Maybe it will? Guess we'll just have to wait and find out.

Yeah, that would be the think that pokes the holes in your arguments.🙄

 

[rockymhs]

You are forgetting that it has been shown that RNA can be self catalytic. And still we are discovering new RNA in cells that have catalytic activity, thus suggesting the evolutionary hypothesis that life began with RNA and can sustain itself with RNA, in that original primitive state. RNA doesn't need an enzyme: snRNA being the most recent example.



Now you need to some how form lipids, but once you have lipids they naturally form micelles and given the right amount and composition they will form membranes simply due to surface energy. Then, if there exists RNA, including rRNA and tRNA then you can begin to embed proteins in membranes and not only then create semi-permeable membranes but selectively semi-permeable membranes.

You still have not answered my true question.

I already know about self-catalytic RNA. However, that does not give any insight to how RNA was able to utilize its templates to form enzymes that are involved in translational process. Having the ability of catalytic mechanism does not necessarily mean having the template to be processed and transformed into protein. These two are two completely different processes.

As for plasma membrane, it is true that lipids will form a kind of membrane by itself, but I am asking how RNA came about incorporating template for membrane lipids. Surely plasma membrane in your cells do not come out of nowhere, but it is synthesized by the cells using DNA template. Again, being RNA with catalytic ability does not necessarily mean that the template for such purpose is related to producing an enzyme capable of producing plasma membrane lipids that we observe today.

I agree that there is this self catalytic RNA, but it holds no information regarding the link between RNA, DNA, and protein. Having the template capable of self-catalyzation as snRNA has nothing to do with having the template for translational mechanism to recognize and turn it into a functioning protein.

 

[redsquareblack]

You still have not answered my true question.

I already know about self-catalytic RNA. However, that does not give any insight to how RNA was able to utilize its templates to form enzymes that are involved in translational process. Having the ability of catalytic mechanism does not necessarily mean having the template to be processed and transformed into protein. These two are two completely different processes.

As for plasma membrane, it is true that lipids will form a kind of membrane by itself, but I am asking how RNA came about incorporating template for membrane lipids. Surely plasma membrane in your cells do not come out of nowhere, but it is synthesized by the cells using DNA template. Again, being RNA with catalytic ability does not necessarily mean that the template for such purpose is related to producing an enzyme capable of producing plasma membrane lipids that we observe today.

I agree that there is this self catalytic RNA, but it holds no information regarding the link between RNA, DNA, and protein. Having the template capable of self-catalyzation as snRNA has nothing to do with having the template for translational mechanism to recognize and turn it into a functioning protein.

Well, let's just get one thing out in the open. There isn't really much (AFAIK) in the way of an established mechanism by which abiogenesis occurred.

But raising unanswered questions about it doesn't invalidate an idea or field of science. Rest assured these are active areas of research that may or may not prove fruitful.

 

[bamtuba]

bamtuba, I feel bad for you and all other creationists who plan on becoming physicians. You'll have to believe that God created smallpox and malaria and bubonic plague and HIV and every other horrifying infectious disease when he could have simply chosen to not create them. It is difficult to reconcile a good, just and caring God with one who constantly invents new and terrible ways to kill people. It's also baffling why God would continue to create new strains of drug resistant bacteria, simply to thwart mankind's efforts to eradicate our God-given diseases. And don't give me that pap about how microevolution exists but macroevolution is a lie - the only difference is in time scale.

Just remember, there was a time when the vast majority of humans thought that the cause of infectious disease was supernatural. While nobody could understand or explain a natural cause, we're fortunate that we eventually had scientists who refused to accept magical thinking. In every instance in history, when a society leans on supernatural thinking, it regresses into a pitiful state and where science and reason shine their light, society is elevated.

Explaining everything we don't yet understand by saying "God must have done it" is counterproductive to the progress of humanity. It is an attempt to extinguish the light of scientific inquiry and is the intellectual coward's way out.

Wow. Putting your stereotypes of what I believe on me does not a)make it true nor does it b) refute anything I have addressed. You have shown your own bias here and tried to attack arguments I have not even made. It is clear from what you have written that you neither understand the God to which I have referred nor my posts to this point.

No further response needed.

This is disingenuous, bamtuba, and you know it. Do I? Quite the (false) assumption you have made. Because something is complex and "appears" to be designed is not empirical evidence that it was designed. Never said it was. But it certainly would be silly to attack the intelligence of someone who thought it does, not wouldn't it? Might even appear that you have an agenda. But that wouldn't be very "scientific" the thought process that just "throws away" what is considered inconvenient. By the way, I like your take on the "tornado through the junkyard building a 747" creationist canard. Never used this one. Nice allusion to something I never said.

You've commented before that there's "scientific" evidence of design, depending upon how you interpret the existing evidence. I responded by telling you that's not how science works, and I'll say it again. And yet you have not told me exactly how it is science does work. School yard at best. Mind you, I'm not saying you're unscientific because you disagree with scientific consensus, or for any personal reason. Good. I agree with you and would even say you likely have what you believe to be good or right at heart. I'm calling you out as unscientific not because you question the scientific consensus, but how you do it. Okay. I look forward to seeing where this is going.

You're not directly addressing the body of scientific evidence to assert your position, but rather erecting strawmen, and cherry-picking your data. Nice use of every "buzzword" on the market today. What data? I was having a discussion regarding the world view from which I look at ALL data I have ever been presented or seen at any point in my life journey. That's not science, bam, that's denialism. False. Good science PROVES something false or provides reasonable evidence. Throwing out a Creator just because you disagree is denialism at its finest. You have shown this quite well.It's the same tactics utilized by creationists, intelligent design proponents, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, &c., &c. Great. Character attack. Nice equating me with "deniers of the holocaust." Way to be offensive. 👍

It's nothing new. Neither are your arguments and lack of ability to prove that things did not need a Creator.

You really think this is a sound argument, don't you? Um, why are you asking questions you don't want answers to?You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural selection actually means. Never mentioned ANYTHING about natural selection. Again, I'm loving the allusions to things we never discussed.Do you even realize that it's not about "random chance"? I know a lot of things. But you don't know me, obviously.If you actually understand what you're criticizing, you'd realize this is a pretty silly argument to make. Not really.

Someone has been watching a bit too much Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.
Nice. You don't know me, but you sure are quick to judge what I watch. False. I have never seen Kirk Cameron outside of a couple of TV sitcom performances. And who is Ray Comfort? I'll ask you, have you ever actually read the Bible to which I have referred? Or are you just one of those people who went to class and ate up what the professor spewed assuming it to be right because you were paying for the right to be there?

Yeah, that would be the think that pokes the holes in your arguments.🙄 Yeah, it might. But I've seen nothing that has to this point anyway. Please explain.

I responded in bold to your post.

Two things I'll politely ask/point out:

1)Don't assume you all know me.

2)Character killing and stereotyping people does not make you right. This is not third grade. Be productive with your arguments or don't make them.

I, again, would be happy to respond to PM's regarding actual beliefs, but since posting on SDN gets you the attention you seek I doubt I'll hear from anyone. I mean, if you really wanted to know something (and not just assume/judge) you would ask, right?

Oh well.

 

[FallenHero]

here is the answer to the thread:
[YOUTUBE]MlikCebQSlY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[rockaction]

bamtuba, wow.

just butting in to say one thing - the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the existence of your creator god thing. you have to use naturalistic materialism if you want to be scientific - that means you come up with a mechanism that can be tested.

I suggest you also read Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris if you're serious about critically looking at your religion.

or read Coming to Peace with Science, Language of God, or any other theistic evolution book and you'll read the opinions of brilliant religious people who cringe at the thought of you giving the religious a bad name.

I'm sorry to say it bamtuba, but you are not very scientifically literate. I don't think you were a science major in college, so I can't really blame you for not being as immersed in evolutionary theory if you've only taken med school pre-reqs. in today's culture, it's very easy for religious people to feel compelled to automatically take the side opposing evolution because they do not understand evolution very well and see it as a threat.

but I highly suggest you check out those theistic evolution books because they can help you harmonize your faith and the facts of science so you don't continue running off Ray Comfort fallacies.

 

[Cybii]

here is the answer to the thread:
[YOUTUBE]MlikCebQSlY[/YOUTUBE]

Drake's equation is too hypothetical and relying on too many variables we don't know the true values for to be considered "an answer" to this thread. Notice how N equalled 10 once, then a million the next time? What if just one of the variables were zero? N would be zero. What if there is an infinite amount of another?

 

[Cybii]

Uh...I wouldn't count on having a reasonable estimate for that any time soon. Considering we can't predict weather accurately for more than a couple days, it would be damn near impossible to get any useful predictions out of a far, far more complicated system. It's probably a chaotic process anyway.

The Drake Equation isn't exactly what I would call "reliable." The variables involved are basically placeholders for quantities we have no way of knowing yet.

Totally agree. I was just giving him an answer that the equation already existed. 🙂

 

[Iso4ane]

True, but negative trials under certain conditions don't necessarily rule out that line of thinking. Negative trials are almost a given by chance alone.



That's not a very good way of looking at it. You're looking at it linearly, which isn't the only way of tackling the problem. I agree that if you try each combination one at a time, it's likely to take quite some time before you stumble across the "right" one.

But let's just suppose, for the moment, that at any given time, in the prehistoric oceans of the Earth, there were billions and billions of little polynucleotides floating about. Why, then you've reduced the amount of time it would take by several orders of magnitude.

Granted, it's just a thought experiment, but it goes to show how very many parallel trials can accomplish the same thing in a shorter period of time than very many sequential trials.

Even if you had a billion billion 10 nucleotide molecules you would still need 12 million years to find the right one, NOw if you take a simple genome like say one from a virus that has a little of 5,000 nucleotides, and the time it take to search to find the right polynucleotide as you increase the length is exponential. (Oh and mitochrodria, the first "organisms" have 16569 necleotides in it's genome)

And if look at my previous calculations and use the same process for 5,000 amino acids.

4^5000 = (~ 1x10^1.1x10^9) /(10^13) = ~ 1x10^(1100000000) seconds >>>>> 10^20 seconds (The age of the universe.) And thats is just for a virus with 10 genes.

You would need billions and billion and billions and billions .... (you get the point) moles (6.022x10^23) molecules to find it in a reasonable amount of time. Oh Btw, the 10^-13 seconds, is based of how fast a molecular bond can rotate/vibrate around the axis.

 

[guyski79]

Even if you had a billion billion 10 nucleotide molecules you would still need 12 million years to find the right one, NOw if you take a simple genome like say one from a virus that has a little of 5,000 nucleotides, and the time it take to search to find the right polynucleotide as you increase the length is exponential. (Oh and mitochrodria, the first "organisms" have 16569 necleotides in it's genome)

And if look at my previous calculations and use the same process for 5,000 amino acids.

4^5000 = (~ 1x10^1.1x10^9) /(10^13) = ~ 1x10^(1100000000) seconds >>>>> 10^20 seconds (The age of the universe.) And thats is just for a virus with 10 genes.

You would need billions and billion and billions and billions .... (you get the point) moles (6.022x10^23) molecules to find it in a reasonable amount of time. Oh Btw, the 10^-13 seconds, is based of how fast a molecular bond can rotate/vibrate around the axis.

Right, but redsquareblack said, that's not how the probability calculation works for this.

Here's a different example.

Let's say you have a chimp at a typewriter. For simplicity's sake, let's say the typewriter only has the alphabet and a space bar.

The chimp types 1 key per second.

How long will it take him to randomly type: "TO BE OR NOT TO BE"?

There are 18 keys he must press in succession correctly. So, just like your calculation, his odds of getting the right combination are (1/27)^18.

That would mean it would take 1.8x10^18 years for the chimp to get the correct combination.

But let's change the parameters a bit. Instead of typing out the entire 18 character sequence and checking to see if it's correct, the chimp changes one letter at a time until that letter is correct.

This is more analogous to how a biological selectional pressures work. Once the right letter (or gene, trait, etc.) is correctly in place (has a selectional advantage), it stays there. You don't scrap the system and start over when one subsequent thing goes wrong.

Under the new parameters (27 seconds to get the first character right, 27 seconds to get the second, etc.), the chimp will correctly type "TO BE OR NOT TO BE" in a little over 8 minutes, which is much different than 1.8x10^18 years.

It's a crude example, but I think it proves my point. If you look at it this way, evolution by chance is no longer statistically out of the question.

 

[redsquareblack]

Even if you had a billion billion 10 nucleotide molecules you would still need 12 million years to find the right one, NOw if you take a simple genome like say one from a virus that has a little of 5,000 nucleotides, and the time it take to search to find the right polynucleotide as you increase the length is exponential. (Oh and mitochrodria, the first "organisms" have 16569 necleotides in it's genome)

Nope. Look, let's take a 100-nucleotide polynucleotide to start, okay?

The chances of having any 100-nucleotide polynucleotide is, assuming it's not palindromic, 2^100 (not 4^100, as there are two ways we could get the same sequence, no?)

So, 2^100/10^13 = 1.27 X 10^17.

That's pretty manageable, especially considering it is reasonable to assume there were an awful lot of polynucleotides generated simultaneously, and given plenty o' time.

But here's the thing. You can't just plug in the numbers for a mitochondrial genome and say "See? Q.E.D., bitch, couldn't happen." That's because no one is proposing that the mitochondrial genome, or anything comparable, just appeared out of thin air.

Progressively complex polynucleotides were constructed from slightly less complex precursors. It's akin to saying that the chances of a chimpanzee randomly typing War and Peace in its entirety is vanishingly small. But the chances of a chimpanzee finishing War and Peace given the entire thing minus two letters are much better. Given enough time and enough typewriters, I wager it's an absolute certainty, and that's even with the number keys.

 

[guyski79]

Nope. Look, let's take a 100-nucleotide polynucleotide to start, okay?

The chances of having any 100-nucleotide polynucleotide is, assuming it's not palindromic, 2^100 (not 4^100, as there are two ways we could get the same sequence, no?)

So, 2^100/10^13 = 1.27 X 10^17.

That's pretty manageable, especially considering it is reasonable to assume there were an awful lot of polynucleotides generated simultaneously, and given plenty o' time.

But here's the thing. You can't just plug in the numbers for a mitochondrial genome and say "See? Q.E.D., bitch, couldn't happen." That's because no one is proposing that the mitochondrial genome, or anything comparable, just appeared out of thin air.

Progressively complex polynucleotides were constructed from slightly less complex precursors. It's akin to saying that the chances of a chimpanzee randomly typing War and Peace in its entirety is vanishingly small. But the chances of a chimpanzee finishing War and Peace given the entire thing minus two letters are much better. Given enough time and enough typewriters, I wager it's an absolute certainty, and that's even with the number keys.

👍

Yes, reinforces my point exactly.

 

[redsquareblack]

👍

Yes, reinforces my point exactly.

Yes, however yours was far more eloquent than was mine. Alas!

 

[Iso4ane]

Nope. Look, let's take a 100-nucleotide polynucleotide to start, okay?

The chances of having any 100-nucleotide polynucleotide is, assuming it's not palindromic, 2^100 (not 4^100, as there are two ways we could get the same sequence, no?)

So, 2^100/10^13 = 1.27 X 10^17.

No it supposed to be 4^100. and 1.27 X 10^17 seconds is still greater than the age of the universe.

Mucleotides are directional there is only one way to get a specific sequence, and that is just looking at a single strand, since the first nucleotide are thought to be single-stranded.

Progressively complex polynucleotides were constructed from slightly less complex precursors. It's akin to saying that the chances of a chimpanzee randomly typing War and Peace in its entirety is vanishingly small. But the chances of a chimpanzee finishing War and Peace given the entire thing minus two letters are much better. Given enough time and enough typewriters, I wager it's an absolute certainty, and that's even with the number keys.

True, but with a short polypeptide what selection pressure is there. There is no reason, at that point in time where a certain sequence of nucleotides would be favor over another. And although it's easy to get the last two letters of the book, how did you get the rest in the first place. And back then there is not really a self checking system. So even If a chimp wanted to write TO BE OR NOT TO BE, it lets say it got lucky and got the first 7 letters/spaces right it would not be able to differentiate between TO BE OO and TO BE OR, once it tying in the next letter, and once you screw up you would have to start over, from the beginning.

 

[guyski79]

No it supposed to be 4^100. and 1.27 X 10^17 seconds is still greater than the age of the universe.

Mucleotides are directional there is only one way to get a specific sequence, and that is just looking at a single strand, since the first nucleotide are thought to be single-stranded.



True, but with a short polypeptide what selection pressure is there. There is no reason, at that point in time where a certain sequence of nucleotides would be favor over another. And although it's easy to get the last two letters of the book, how did you get the rest in the first place. And back then there is not really a self checking system. So even If a chimp wanted to write TO BE OR NOT TO BE, it lets say it got lucky and got the first 7 letters/spaces right it would not be able to differentiate between TO BE OO and TO BE OR, once it tying in the next letter, and once you screw up you would have to start over, from the beginning.

No, he wouldn't. The chimp wouldn't scrap the trial and start over completely, just as biology wouldn't scrap an entire genome when a single base pair didn't work out so well. That's not how natural selection works.

Natural selection "chooses" what the correct combination of genes and traits are. In the chimp example, we can say for simplicity's sake and to complete the analogy that he knows when a good letter has been chosen. In biology, the "correct" gene sequences or traits are known because the organisms that displayed the "incorrect" ones died off.

In the chimp example, if you'd like something more concretely analogous to a biological selectional pressure, then let's say that many chimps are now typing randomly in a room and there is a proof-reader inspecting their work.

Once the proof-reader (selectional pressure) sees that a chimp has typed the first letter correctly, the proof-reader picks up that copy and scraps the incorrect attempts by the other chimps (natural selection has chosen against those other copies, and they are not included in replication and reproduction).

The proof-reader then redistributes the partially finished (and partially correct copy) for the other chimps to add onto. This is much more analogous to how evolution happens across generations, and again, now you can see how it's stasticially possible, even probable, for life to have evolved purely by chance.

And just to reiterate what redsquareblack said, you don't have just one organism or one nucleotide sequence being shuffled randomly. There are many different organisms and sequences being randomly generated at the same time.

In regard to selectional pressure: once you get some complex molecule or self-replicating RNA strand, they are competing against each other for access to limited resources. That's a selectional pressure from the beginning.

 

[redsquareblack]

No it supposed to be 4^100. and 1.27 X 10^17 seconds is still greater than the age of the universe.

Yes, but that's only if you're trying each possibility one at a time. Divided across even one million polynucleotides generated randomly at that rate, it's only 3800 years.

Mucleotides are directional there is only one way to get a specific sequence, and that is just looking at a single strand, since the first nucleotide are thought to be single-stranded.

Fair enough.

True, but with a short polypeptide what selection pressure is there.

Temperature? pH? Ion concentration?

Could select for more GC-rich sequences, among other things, in the case of strands that are self-complementary in some regions. Or perhaps certain sequences are just a bit better at self-replication than others. Maybe faster, or maybe more accurate. Who knows?

Besides, no one is saying we have a complete picture. But the fact that there isn't a complete theory here is not evidence that the entire line of thought is incorrect.

There is no reason, at that point in time where a certain sequence of nucleotides would be favor over another. And although it's easy to get the last two letters of the book, how did you get the rest in the first place. And back then there is not really a self checking system. So even If a chimp wanted to write TO BE OR NOT TO BE, it lets say it got lucky and got the first 7 letters/spaces right it would not be able to differentiate between TO BE OO and TO BE OR, once it tying in the next letter, and once you screw up you would have to start over, from the beginning.

That's why variation exists. After all, no one is saying that the chimpanzees/typewriters thing is an exact analogy.

 

[teenmachinery1]

more to the op:

i think there's intelligent life out there. Only because the universe is so freaking huge.

Also, I would have to venture that they're way smarter than us.

We're soo.... stupid. (scroll up for evidence)

that's all.

 

[Iso4ane]

Yes, but that's only if you're trying each possibility one at a time. Divided across even one million polynucleotides generated randomly at that rate, it's only 3800 years.


Temperature? pH? Ion concentration?
Could select for more GC-rich sequences, among other things, in the case of strands that are self-complementary in some regions. Or perhaps certain sequences are just a bit better at self-replication than others. Maybe faster, or maybe more accurate. Who knows?

Fair enough, and most of of the conditions you mention are selection pressures that affect Double stranded sequences:

GC content, Ion concentration (Or better Ionic-Strength), and pH are all factors that can affect the melting temp of a double stranded nucleotides, an/or complementary regions. Oh, btw I think that the melting of two strands of nucleotide sequences is a cooperative process, so either the whole things is double stranded or none of it is.

To my knowledge we haven't found any nucleotide sequence that are truly self-replicating.

 

[bamtuba]

bamtuba, wow. Rockaction, ditto.

just butting in to say one thing - the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the existence of your creator god thing. I have nothing to prove to you. I was merely stating my belief in relation to the original topic after someone (Moonglow, I believe) asked me to define "Creator." Everything past that is merely in response to rediculous attacks, both personal and otherwise made by a group of people who believe just as strongly as I that they "have things figured out." you have to use naturalistic materialism if you want to be scientific - that means you come up with a mechanism that can be tested. Really? thanks for clearing that up. Now which part or whole of any of the "evidence" proving that life can form on it's own would you like to use to prove that it is possible without an intervening intelligent form? Nothing you say? Interesting. Let me know when there is some proof for the hypothesis that some have protrayed as fact and then we'll talk about burden.

I suggest you also read Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris if you're serious about critically looking at your religion. I suggest people stop believing blindly what they are told by their friends and read up on the actual sources to which they refer, in my case, the Bible.

or read Coming to Peace with Science, Language of God, or any other theistic evolution book and you'll read the opinions of brilliant religious people who cringe at the thought of you giving the religious a bad name. Wow. I'm so sorry that I have single handedly, or otherwise given religion a bad name. I mean really, you all come at it with such an open mind. 🙄

I'm sorry to say it bamtuba, but you are not very scientifically literate. You don't know me but I find it interesting that you are so willing to resort (ONCE AGAIN guys) to character killing. Nice. Real mature too, but you must have the market cornered on scientific thought. I don't think you were a science major in college thank God, literally. I would likely not have had so much success this cycle with applications if I were., so I can't really blame you for not being as immersed in evolutionary theory if you've only taken med school pre-reqs But one problem with your theory there: I am a published researcher who has been immersed in science more than most in four year degree programs. You know very little about me, so don't assume. It makes an @** out of you and me.. in today's culture, it's very easy for religious people to feel compelled to automatically take the side opposing evolution because they do not understand evolution very well and see it as a threat.Nice. Character killing and denigration. Take the high road my friend. Very good.

but I highly suggest you check out those theistic evolution books because they can help you harmonize your faith and the facts of science so you don't continue running off Ray Comfort fallacies. I don't know who he is nor have I any idea of what you are talking. But, I will be impressed when you (or anyone involved in this stupid, childish argument) bring evidence to the table of 1)life elsewhere, 2)life being spontaneously created, or 3)anything not puked on you by your professorship

Again, I'll respond within the post.

And this is all. Guys, I gotta tell ya, if you treat your patients (whether to their face or otherwise) with the same level of intolerance and ignorance in regard to religious thought as you have in this thread, you are going to have some fun alienating most people who aren't "as smart and open-minded as you🙄."

If anyone has anything else to add, rather than adding to the misery of those having to read this awful series of tirades back and forth, please respond via PM. It's just the right thing to do.

 

[DocMcCoy]

I believe in God and science. So does Dr. Ken Miller at Brown, and he is a lot smarter than all of us😀

 

[redsquareblack]

I believe in God and science. So does Dr. Ken Miller at Brown, and he is a lot smarter than all of us😀

And that's perfectly fine. He (and you), at least, recognizes that his faith is, well, faith, and doesn't need to pretend that there's "scientific evidence" for a creator/interior designer.

 

[redsquareblack]

To my knowledge we haven't found any nucleotide sequence that are truly self-replicating.

Science 27 February 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5918, pp. 1229 - 1232
DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856


Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce*
An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system.

 

[Zona Pellucida]

Again, I'll respond within the post.

And this is all. Guys, I gotta tell ya, if you treat your patients (whether to their face or otherwise) with the same level of intolerance and ignorance in regard to religious thought as you have in this thread, you are going to have some fun alienating most people who aren't "as smart and open-minded as you🙄."

If anyone has anything else to add, rather than adding to the misery of those having to read this awful series of tirades back and forth, please respond via PM. It's just the right thing to do.

Sorry you are getting targeted in this thread. You have your views. Others have theirs. Arguing on an internet message board is not going to change either side. I'm glad that there is this division. Diversity only fuels conversation and keeps both sides thinking about the other and trying to understand other's view points. 👍

 

[Global Warming]

Life may exist elsewhere, but we most likely have never been "visited" by any of these aliens. Simply calculate the closest "potential planet" and then plug that into D = RT. Without having to get into the details of relativity, tell me how long it would take for an object to travel that distance, assuming the speed of light (which is itself impossible).

Now you're probably saying...wow that makes sense! The drunk guy that lives in a trailer that SWEARS to have been abducted 4 times is probably out of his mind. 👍

EDIT: Let me add one more thing, God put everything here and we are the only ones in the universe

EDIT x2: Because he's the almighty high power of the universe and is solely responsible for all miracles such as my baby niece's smile! God himself has been to the ends of the universe b/c only he can travel beyond the speed of light and you cannot question his authority b/c simply...he's been there. Thank god for enlightening human beings w/ science, but it sucks that

SCIENCE = FAKE

Us rational people need this silly thing call evidence/support...we must be more crazy than the drunk guy living in a trailer. I know, the aliens must have abducted us into their spaceship and gave us these false ideas.

Now the big question is, how can science and religion coexist?

 

[Zona Pellucida]

Abductions = Sleep Paralysis.

 

[strummin]

bamtuba, I feel bad for you and all other creationists who plan on becoming physicians. You'll have to believe that God created smallpox and malaria and bubonic plague and HIV and every other horrifying infectious disease when he could have simply chosen to not create them. It is difficult to reconcile a good, just and caring God with one who constantly invents new and terrible ways to kill people. It's also baffling why God would continue to create new strains of drug resistant bacteria, simply to thwart mankind's efforts to eradicate our God-given diseases. And don't give me that pap about how microevolution exists but macroevolution is a lie - the only difference is in time scale.

Yeah, I've noticed how God has been in such a bad mood recently. Drought, famine, hurricanes, poverty, diseases, hunger all across the world etc. etc. You know what, I think I've figured it out. God must be a sadist. Yup, that must be it. God is a sadist.

 

[chman]

Abductions = Sleep Paralysis.

I have had this before, not the abduction part, but the paralysis. It is one of the weirdest feelings I have ever experienced. It has happened about twice to me, I would wake up but not be able to move my body or open my eyes all the way for about thirty seconds. I have heard that some people have it for a lot longer than that.

 

[Zona Pellucida]

I have had this before, not the abduction part, but the paralysis. It is one of the weirdest feelings I have ever experienced. It has happened about twice to me, I would wake up but not be able to move my body or open my eyes all the way for about thirty seconds. I have heard that some people have it for a lot longer than that.

I have had this too. It used to happen to me ALL THE TIME in high school. Mostly at home on the couch when I fell asleep when not planning to. This also happened in the middle of my Global class and it was the scariest thing ever.

I was having dreams, but mentally awake during them and could understand I was dreaming. I would then try to move my limbs/body but they would not respond. It felt like I was trapped in my body and it would terrify me each time. Hasn't happened in years now though... Thankfully it would only happen for about 1 minute.. but it feels like an eternity when your body is not physically responding to your brain.

 

[searun]

I have had this too. It used to happen to me ALL THE TIME in high school. Mostly at home on the couch when I fell asleep when not planning to. This also happened in the middle of my Global class and it was the scariest thing ever.

I was having dreams, but mentally awake during them and could understand I was dreaming. I would then try to move my limbs/body but they would not respond. It felt like I was trapped in my body and it would terrify me each time. Hasn't happened in years now though... Thankfully it would only happen for about 1 minute.. but it feels like an eternity when your body is not physically responding to your brain.

I have been reading about sleep because my father has sleep apnea. Apparently, during the normal sleep cycle, muscle paralysis occurs naturally. It is part of the process. Every night our muscles are paralyzed briefly (not breathing, for obvious reasons). So you guys probably woke up during the paralysis. I think this occurs during the dream state. So you were probably in transition between the dream state and waking up.

 

[Zona Pellucida]

I have been reading about sleep because my father has sleep apnea. Apparently, during the normal sleep cycle, muscle paralysis occurs naturally. It is part of the process. Every night our muscles are paralyzed briefly (not breathing, for obvious reasons). So you guys probably woke up during the paralysis. I think this occurs during the dream state. So you were probably in transition between the dream state and waking up.

Yes I've heard of this as well when we briefly learned about sleep in class. It's just a very odd and uncomfortable feeling.

 

[chman]

I have been reading about sleep because my father has sleep apnea. Apparently, during the normal sleep cycle, muscle paralysis occurs naturally. It is part of the process. Every night our muscles are paralyzed briefly (not breathing, for obvious reasons). So you guys probably woke up during the paralysis. I think this occurs during the dream state. So you were probably in transition between the dream state and waking up.

This is pretty much how my doctor explained it. He said that your body is pretty much in paralysis when you are in a deep sleep. So sometimes people wake up mentally before their body has a chance to wake up as well, resulting in what we are talking about. Some think it is caused by stress or being overly tired.

 

[strummin]

I have had this too. It used to happen to me ALL THE TIME in high school. Mostly at home on the couch when I fell asleep when not planning to. This also happened in the middle of my Global class and it was the scariest thing ever.

I was having dreams, but mentally awake during them and could understand I was dreaming. I would then try to move my limbs/body but they would not respond. It felt like I was trapped in my body and it would terrify me each time. Hasn't happened in years now though... Thankfully it would only happen for about 1 minute.. but it feels like an eternity when your body is not physically responding to your brain.

Yes, it happens to many people - according to my psychology instructor. It has happened to me at least twice - once, it was for about one or two minutes and I honestly thought I was dead... and that this was after-life. And then I started trying to figure out how I died.. I was like "well I was fairly healthy.. and I'm young.. did someone poison me?"

 

[Iso4ane]

Science 27 February 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5918, pp. 1229 - 1232
DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856


Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce*
An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system.

Oops, my bad, must have missed this paper, It is a good read though.

 

[MDub1]

I'm not going to put down anyone's honest convictions here, but I will say that to universally reject all religion based on your meager 20+ years of experience is incredibly arrogant and ignorant.

You want scientific proof that God exists? I would say it's all around us, but you would simply interpret the same findings differently. And that's one of the basic problems of science, there is always bias by the person interpreting the results of the experiment. For example: if Urey and Miller were religious people who believed that God guided the creative process they might have interpreted their results a bit differently. They might have stated that the lack of enantiomeric purity was proof that life couldn't have started spontaneously without guidance. That's why religion can never be proven by science. It's a knowledge that has to come from a different source. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive but are actually two different ways of finding truth. I consider the Bible's account of the creation to be an explanation of the "what" and science is attempting to answer the "how". I have nothing to fear from science as I welcome truth from whatever source it comes from. I also have nothing to fear from true religion because I welcome truth that comes from a divine source as well.

Yeah, I've noticed how God has been in such a bad mood recently. Drought, famine, hurricanes, poverty, diseases, hunger all across the world etc. etc. You know what, I think I've figured it out. God must be a sadist. Yup, that must be it. God is a sadist.

I have heard this concern many times and I must admit a first glance it seems pretty compelling. How can a loving God allow so much suffering? The basic problem is that we're looking at 1 inch of a Van-Gogh painting and declaring that there must be no painter because what we see doesn't seem to make sense. Take a step back. When you look at the big picture and realize that this life is only a small portion of our eternal existence and that God is concerned with our eternal happiness, you begin to see that death is only a small part of our existence and is truly only sad for those who are left behind (and then only transiently so).

I must say that I agree with what Bamtuba is saying about people being pretty un-scientific about religion. In science if you don't understand it, you study it further. It seems for many that when it comes to religion, if they don't understand it, they discard it as worthless. Think where science itself would be today with that attitude.

I know for myself that God exists, and I know that anyone who honestly seeks to find out for themselves will know as well. At the very least, I hope that you all will at least keep an open mind and realize that 20 (or even 80) years of experience is not enough to pronounce absolutes on anything. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but please don't ridicule something simply because you don't understand it.

 

[Zona Pellucida]

Yes, it happens to many people - according to my psychology instructor. It has happened to me at least twice - once, it was for about one or two minutes and I honestly thought I was dead... and that this was after-life. And then I started trying to figure out how I died.. I was like "well I was fairly healthy.. and I'm young.. did someone poison me?"

 

[teenmachinery1]

.

 

[searun]

I'm not going to put down anyone's honest convictions here, but I will say that to universally reject all religion based on your meager 20+ years of experience is incredibly arrogant and ignorant.

You want scientific proof that God exists? I would say it's all around us, but you would simply interpret the same findings differently. And that's one of the basic problems of science, there is always bias by the person interpreting the results of the experiment. For example: if Urey and Miller were religious people who believed that God guided the creative process they might have interpreted their results a bit differently. They might have stated that the lack of enantiomeric purity was proof that life couldn't have started spontaneously without guidance. That's why religion can never be proven by science. It's a knowledge that has to come from a different source. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive but are actually two different ways of finding truth. I consider the Bible's account of the creation to be an explanation of the "what" and science is attempting to answer the "how". I have nothing to fear from science as I welcome truth from whatever source it comes from. I also have nothing to fear from true religion because I welcome truth that comes from a divine source as well.



I have heard this concern many times and I must admit a first glance it seems pretty compelling. How can a loving God allow so much suffering? The basic problem is that we're looking at 1 inch of a Van-Gogh painting and declaring that there must be no painter because what we see doesn't seem to make sense. Take a step back. When you look at the big picture and realize that this life is only a small portion of our eternal existence and that God is concerned with our eternal happiness, you begin to see that death is only a small part of our existence and is truly only sad for those who are left behind (and then only transiently so).

I must say that I agree with what Bamtuba is saying about people being pretty un-scientific about religion. In science if you don't understand it, you study it further. It seems for many that when it comes to religion, if they don't understand it, they discard it as worthless. Think where science itself would be today with that attitude.

I know for myself that God exists, and I know that anyone who honestly seeks to find out for themselves will know as well. At the very least, I hope that you all will at least keep an open mind and realize that 20 (or even 80) years of experience is not enough to pronounce absolutes on anything. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but please don't ridicule something simply because you don't understand it.

Hopefully, you will not get attacked for being from Utah.

 

[MDub1]

Haha, yeah we'll see what happens. Sorry if that was a bit heavy-handed, I just don't like it when people get slammed for their beliefs. Anyway, back to the original question, I definitely believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

 

[ThinkTooMuch]

Water at 400 degrees would be in its gaseous state though. The theories of life relative to water focus on water in its liquid state. Even if it is near boiling, it is possible that life may exist. For instance, there are theories postulating that life may exist on Saturn's moon Titan, near the geysers at the bottom of its bodies of water, where the water can reach very hot temperatures.

i guess this guy never heard of the effects of pressure on boiling point. talk about being Earth centric. lol

btw those of you who think you are "scientists" or of science but at the same time reject any possibility of a God are not being of science. Science is NEUTRAL on the existence of God. Taking a position on the matter is an act of faith, not science.

 

[teenmachinery1]

I'm not going to put down anyone's honest convictions here, but I will say that to universally reject all religion based on your meager 20+ years of experience is incredibly arrogant and ignorant.

I'm not going to put down anyone's honest convictions here, but I will say that to universally reject Yabune, Yacatecuhtli, Yahweh (God of the Abrahamic Tradition), Yaksha, Yaluk, Yama, Yama-no-kami, Yamato, Yang Jing, Yangombi, Yan-lo, Yansan, Yao-shi, Yemaja, Yen-lo-wang, Yi-Ti, Yoni, Yuan-shi tian-zong, Yu-huang, Yuki-Onna, Yum Caax, Yu-qiang, etc... based on your meager 20+ years of experiences is incredibly arrogant and ignorant.

You want scientific proof that God exists? I would say it's all around us, but you would simply interpret the same findings differently. And that's one of the basic problems of science, there is always bias by the person interpreting the results of the experiment. For example: if Urey and Miller were religious people who believed that God guided the creative process they might have interpreted their results a bit differently. They might have stated that the lack of enantiomeric purity was proof that life couldn't have started spontaneously without guidance. That's why religion can never be proven by science. It's a knowledge that has to come from a different source. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive but are actually two different ways of finding truth. I consider the Bible's account of the creation to be an explanation of the "what" and science is attempting to answer the "how". I have nothing to fear from science as I welcome truth from whatever source it comes from. I also have nothing to fear from true religion because I welcome truth that comes from a divine source as well.

You want scientific proof that Jesus loves us? I would say it's all around us, but you would simply interpret the same findings differently. And that's one of the basic problems of science, there is always bias by the person interpreting the results of the experiment. For example: “Insert asininity here” … That's why religion can never be proven by science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive but are actually two different ways of finding truth. I consider the Bible's account(s) of the creation to be an explanation of the "what(s)" and science is attempting to answer the "how". (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/contra_list.html) I have nothing to fear from science as I welcome truth from whatever source it comes from. I also have nothing to fear from true(true?) religion because I welcome truth that comes from Athena as well.

I have heard this concern many times and I must admit a first glance it seems pretty compelling. How can a loving God allow so much suffering? The basic problem is that we're looking at 1 inch of a Van-Gogh painting and declaring that there must be no painter because what we see doesn't seem to make sense. Take a step back. When you look at the big picture and realize that this life is only a small portion of our eternal existence and that God is concerned with our eternal happiness, you begin to see that death is only a small part of our existence and is truly only sad for those who are left behind (and then only transiently so).

I have heard this concern many times and I must admit a first glance it seems pretty compelling. How can a loving God allow genocide, the holocaust, congenital TB, HIV/AIDS, homosexuality in nature, the appendix, fascism, nuclear explosions, rape, slavery, injustice, etc.. ? The basic problem is that we're looking at 1 inch of a Van-Gogh painting and declaring that there must be no painter because the appendix doesn't seem to make sense. Take a step back from reality. When you look at the big picture and begin wish-thinking that this life is only a small portion of our eternal existence and that Allah is concerned with our eternal happiness, you begin to see that death is only a small part of our existence and is truly only sad for those who are left behind (and then only transiently so).

I must say that I agree with what Bamtuba is saying about people being pretty un-scientific about religion. In science if you don't understand it, you study it further. It seems for many that when it comes to religion, if they don't understand it, they discard it as worthless. Think where science itself would be today with that attitude.

I must say that I agree with what Bamtuba is saying about people being pretty un-scientific about religion. In science if you don't understand it, you study it further. It seems for many that when it comes to David Koresh’s teachings or humoralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism), if they don't understand it, they discard it as worthless. Think where religion itself would be today with that attitude.

I know for myself that God exists, and I know that anyone who honestly seeks to find out for themselves will know as well. At the very least, I hope that you all will at least keep an open mind and realize that 20 (or even 80) years of experience is not enough to pronounce absolutes on anything. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but please don't ridicule something simply because you don't understand it.

I know for myself that the Loch Ness Monster exists, and I know that anyone who honestly seeks to find out for themselves will know as well. At the very least, I hope that you all will at least keep an open mind and realize that 20 (or even 80) years of experience is not enough to pronounce absolutes on anything. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but please don't ridicule vicarious redemption simply because you don't understand it

 

[teenmachinery1]

Hopefully, you will not get attacked for being from Utah, which is where my girlfriend is from. I am not a Morman, but I sure love my girl.

mormon

 

[strummin]

I have heard this concern many times and I must admit a first glance it seems pretty compelling. How can a loving God allow so much suffering? The basic problem is that we're looking at 1 inch of a Van-Gogh painting and declaring that there must be no painter because what we see doesn't seem to make sense. Take a step back. When you look at the big picture and realize that this life is only a small portion of our eternal existence and that God is concerned with our eternal happiness, you begin to see that death is only a small part of our existence and is truly only sad for those who are left behind (and then only transiently so).

Actually, when I look at the big picture I don't realize anything. You've made an assumption that there is a God and that there is another life. There is not a shred of scientifically acceptable evidence that supports that there is another life - and therefore I don't believe in an after-life. You want to believe there is an after-life? Sure, go ahead. You have every right to do so. But don't try to imply that it's apparent - it's not.

And even if God is concerned with our eternal happiness, that does not explain why He allows so much suffering and cruelty to continue in this world. Your argument is just another mechanism by which religion controls people. In India, they used to tell the untouchables that they deserved their horrible living conditions... and they used your same argument - they used to tell untouchables that their lives are part of "a bigger picture" - and that they should just accept the horrible conditions they live in so that, once they come back in another life, they will be in a better position. Other religions have exploited this too.

I don't understand how certain you are that there is a God. No one knows that there is a God. Not even the most religious man on Earth knows there's a God. Yes, many people have convinced themselves that there is a God - but no one knows that there's a God. You don't. I don't. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God.

Edit: I've learnt from previous "discussions" that it's almost useless debating with devoutly religious people. It's just that they will try to justify everything, but will never question their own beliefs. Religious people employ a very unscientific way of dealing with things. They don't test a hypothesis - like scientists are supposed to do. They attempt to prove a hypothesis that they have already decided it's true. When you show a good scientist data that clearly contradicts a certain hypothesis, that scientist will accept. When you show a religious person data that clearly contradicts his/her beliefs, he/she just comes up with more justifications and pseudo-explanations that sometimes make absolutely no sense. This is why I believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. (Just like when I question devout Christians about clearly misogynistic passages in the Bible, they come up with all kinds of excuses and justifications.. but they will never question the validity of the Bible - they will never ask themselves.. why did God allow these verses like these in the Bible in the first place? Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God? I'd think God would be smart enough to not put verses that can be clearly interpreted as misogynistic in the first place...)

 

[ThinkTooMuch]

Everyone reads this please. Then discuss.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html