God created humans in their present form.

College Confidential Community
161

<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059782089-post1.html%5D#1%5B/url%5D"&gt;quote&lt;/a> God created humans in their present form.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thought experiment:</p>

<p>Step 1) Take on in your mind a belief in a 'God' you currently don't believe in - like Amun[/url</a>], [url=<a href="http://www.mythome.org/hawaiig.html%5DAkua%5B/url">http://www.mythome.org/hawaiig.html]Akua[/url</a>], [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinteotl%5DCenteotl%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinteotl]Centeotl[/url</a>], [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus%5DZeus%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus]Zeus[/url</a>] or [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster%5DThe">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster]The</a> Flying Spaghetti Monster - and make your best argument against that entity. </p>

<p>Do not proceed to Step 2 until you've thoroughly completed Step 1.</p>

<p>Step 2) If you have a belief in a deity, apply the argument developed in Step 1 to the deity you believe in.</p>

<p>More food for thought: </p>

<p>The</a> Perimeter of Ignorance
A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge by Neil deGrasse Tyson:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Writing in centuries past, many scientists felt compelled to wax poetic about cosmic mysteries and God's handiwork. Perhaps one should not be surprised at this: most scientists back then, as well as many scientists today, identify themselves as spiritually devout.</p>

<p>But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention...

[/quote]
</p>

162

<p>Regardless, no one is choosing to believe in a God because we are staring into a "ocean of our own ignorance", rather we are believing in something not logically explainable because faith allows us to do so.</p>

163

<p>
[quote]
i can "predict" that i'll die in july 2070-if it happens, it's coincidence (i am certainly not a psychic, and neither was Clemens)

[/quote]
So, is it also coincidence if you predict that you'll be alive tomorrow and - gasp - you are?!</p>

<p>Someone said they could reasonably predict that they would be alive tomorrow. You said "no one can predict their death," which is a completely different subject (life != death).</p>

<p>I made a funny that you did not realize was one (whether or not it was funny is a horse of a different color, but I do believe it is most clearly a joke). Then I decided to run with it since it was a perfectly valid negation of your point. "Predict" does not imply any measure of certitude or any paranormal abilities. The fact is, "The Langhorne", as his friends call him, did predict his own death. You were the only one to start rambling about psychics. I never said anything about psychics, you did - please do not make things up to try to make me appear foolish ("lulz, u tried to say that Sammy was a psychic!"). It's called a "straw man," when you make something up, attribute it to someone, and attack that in place of their actual argument.</p>

164

<p>shut up people :)</p>

165

<p>Evolution is of course something that I can't argue against. However, thought of a life being created randomly from molecules without intervention amuses me.</p>

166

<p>No Wai! Intelligent Dezign Iz Reel!</p>

<p>Godidit! Jez Lyk Da Buybull Sez!</p>

<p>Richard Dawkins Is Da Devill!</p>

167

<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059786884-post165.html%5D#165%5B/url%5D"&gt;quote&lt;/a> Evolution is of course something that I can't argue against. However, thought of a life being created randomly from molecules without intervention amuses me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Consider this line of research being conducted:</p>

<p>Discover</a> Magazine (Nov. 1995): First Cell:</p>

<p>
[quote]
To most who search for life's origins, genes are everything. But as David Deamer keeps reminding them, without a container for those genes, there can be no life. by Carl Zimmer</p>

<p>Part of the definition of life, says David Deamer, is that it is in a place.</p>

<p>Deamer is not uttering a koan in a Zen monastery. He’s sitting next to a microscope in a biology laboratory at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Deamer is a hard-core biophysicist, but still there is a monkish quality to him...</p>

<p>...It doesn’t hurt to have such a cosmic view of things in Deamer’s chosen field of study: the origin of life. Deamer is unusual even among the few dozen researchers in his field, and not just in his discography. For most of the others, explaining the origin of life means explaining the origin of the genetic code: How did DNA arise from chemical reactions on the early Earth? How did the original building blocks of today’s genetic code assemble themselves into crudely self-reproducing units? Were the first life-forms based not on double-stranded DNA but on single-stranded RNA? </p>

<p>For the past 18 years, though, Deamer has been gently reminding his colleagues that these questions define only part of the puzzle of life. DNA does not float loosely through the oceans. Life is constrained in a place--or, to be more specific, within a boundary. Life is chemical interaction, and for that interaction to occur, life’s molecules must be close to one another. Without a physical boundary of some sort, without a skin, a bark, or a cell membrane, an organism is nothing more than a diffusing blur of molecules. To explain how the first creature came to be, you have to explain how its innards got to be distinguished from its surroundings. In other words, you’ve got to explain how the first single- celled creature got encapsulated in a cell. </p>

<p>Over the years Deamer has persistently been teasing out some answers to this thorny question. Now he has reached a milestone. Under conditions something like those on the early Earth, he can create something like a cell: an enzyme-carrying bubble that draws in nutrients from its surroundings and crafts them into genetic material. Call it a quasi cell-- and say that Deamer has created quasi life...

[/quote]
</p>

168

<p>Not to mention that saying that life is simply too complicated to have sprung up on its own is an appeal to intuition, a classic hallmark of a flawed argument. In other words, it sounds good - a scenario where DNA randomly starts accumulating to form life doesn't spring rapidly to the imagination. But as anybody who has studied science on an elementary level knows, you simply can't expect most of the physical world to intuitively make sense. </p>

<p>Great citation, StitchInTime</p>

169

<p>First, as a very religious person I find this thread very offensive and should not be allowed on CC. Second, many of you have said that religious individuals are very “close minded,” but on the contrary I view you as somewhat “close minded.” You are so caught up in your logic and reasoning that you cannot envision that some things in this world may not be comprehensible to the human mind.</p>

170

<p>I'm also a very religious person.....how is this thread offensive?</p>

171

<p>If you were so offended by this thread, why did you bring it back? It's been dead for 3 days.</p>

172

<p>haha, i agree.</p>

173

<p>I'm sorry. The thread isn't offensive, but the people considering all religious individuals to be unintelligent is.</p>

174

<p>Second, many of you have said that religious individuals are very “close minded,” but on the contrary I view you as somewhat “close minded.”</p>

<p>The scientific method (the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge--Wikipedia) is central to this issue; you accept this method or not.</p>

<p>The problem occurs when the scientific method produces results that contradict the beliefs of a religion; evolution is the common example in this country.</p>

<p>Both "sides" are closed-minded, I think. One side is closed-minded to allowing religion to contradict what science has shown (to believers in the scientific method, at least) to be true; the other side is closed-minded to anything that contradicts the religion. One side bases its beliefs on investigations and experiments; the other side bases its beliefs on (typically) old books. Both sides hand down their beliefs from one generation to the next.</p>

<p>Is that fairly stated?</p>

175

<p>human beings will always be closed-minded. if not, we wouldn't have war...and we know that's never going to happen.</p>

176

<p>
[quote]
If you were so offended by this thread, why did you bring it back? It's been dead for 3 days.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you read the bible you'd know that being dead for three days isn't always final.</p>

177

<p>^LMAO ... honestly</p>

178

<p>hahahaha</p>

<p>haha</p>

179

<p>My opinion, coming from someone who attends a Catholic college-prep private school.</p>

<p>We evolved. </p>

<p>@ vossron
"the other side bases its beliefs on (typically) old books."</p>

<p>nah, thats just the hardcore conservatives. </p>

<p>Anyone who has taken a course on Bible study knows that the Old Testament stories are explanations designed for simple, uneducated people; that it isn't supposed to be read literally or used as a historical reference, and that the reader should be focusing on the message the writer is trying to tell. </p>

<p>For example, Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2, so those stories can't be taken for historical significance. The story of the Tower of Babel was used as an explanation for the different languages of the earth. Of course, this isn't true. Isolate a group of people from birth, and they'll develop a form of communication. The ages of people were used to signify their importance in their time. The oldest anyone of that age could have lived to was about 40. Numbers were important to the Old Testament writers, for they had religious significance (such as 40 years = generation, 40 days = time of cleansing, etc.) And, if people still went by the Laws of Leviticus, every person who cuts their hair or wears clothing made of different material would be sentenced to death.</p>

<p>The Old Testament should be read to find meaning, not as a historical reference. </p>

<p>This is why I have an A+ in Scripture class :)</p>

180

<p>someday i'm going to read the bible, and understand what the hell everyone is talking about =) </p>

<p>i wouldn't mind being exposed to the christian stuff, but since my parents are pretty much atheists, i don't ever understand any of the stuff people talk about when they're quoting the bible.</p>

<p>lol.</p>