Allan
--
(
-- On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:38 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
Intelligent design is a possibility - but there are many more,
including our universe being the waste products of one flushed down
its drain. We have problems with origin. Big Bang is vapourising to
a notion of two giant, flat membranes colliding to account for the
energy we witness in our universe. Our attitude to the inexplicable
is generally to create certainties, forget they are fiction and
enforce compliance through control fraud.
On Aug 18, 11:17 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nah!
>
> On Aug 18, 2:58 pm, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The following is an essay I would like to start a discussion on. It is
> > based on a YouTube video in my series of simplifying various topics. You
> > can see the video athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9YdYiqggsA
>
> > A summary of the idea is as follows:
>
> > - Energy and matter spontaneously formed without cause according to the
> > presently held quantum theory.
> > - Matter evolved to form stable atoms while Energy evolved to form
> > stable patterns.
> > - The stable patterns of energy evolved to form thoughts of all
> > possibilities.
> > - Thoughts evolved to intelligence.
> > - Intelligence evolved to manipulate atoms to form basic life.
> > - Basic life evolved to form complex life.
> > - Complex life evolved to form thinking life.
>
> > The text of the video is below.
>
> > God evolved to create life and allowed life to evolve into man.
>
> > Science and religion are like mass and energy or like life and death. They
> > are opposite sides of the same coin. While science proposes that life
> > evolved by random chance, religion claims that it was created by
> > intelligent design. Both points of view are driven by faith, a desire to
> > believe in either scientific theories or religious dogmas as currently
> > accepted and taught by recognized experts in their own narrow fields of
> > expertise.
>
> > Truth of knowledge, like beauty and like good and evil is in the eyes of
> > the beholder. While science focuses on how things work, religion wonders
> > about why things work the way they do. Just like you can not have good
> > without evil or death without life, both sides, science and religion,
> > complement each other giving theories and dogmas meaning that otherwise
> > remain meaningless.
>
> > Science considers things that can be detected and sensed by our senses and
> > analyzed by our brains. Religion on the other hand considers things that
> > can be felt with the heart. Atoms left to themselves and given enough time
> > can and will eventually form replicating molecules that like letters can be
> > used to code life. But having the letters fall into appropriate meaningful
> > patterns by random chance requires more time than is available in the 15
> > billion years since the beginning of the universe, even when the attempt to
> > make life is in carefully designed laboratories. Expecting life to form
> > from by random combinations of chemicals can be compared to expecting
> > monkeys who blindly type to write Shakespearean sonnets with deep meanings.
> > This is only conceivable and theoretically possible when given an infinite
> > amount of time. But reality has its bounds and infinity like perfection are
> > just theoretical boundaries that have places only in mathematics and
> > imaginations.
>
> > Science with its quantum theories shows that there is a hidden reality
> > allowing for energy and matter to spontaneously appear and disappear
> > without any cause. While matter, like a drop of water, is bounded and has
> > form, energy, like water vapor has no bounds or form. Matter moves with a
> > speed that can be measured and slowed down while energy like a thought is
> > not constrained by speed, time or space. While life can be rationally
> > conceived as evolving by chance and selectively fine tuned to its
> > complexity as shown in man, man`s soul and his intuitive powers remain
> > irrational to scientists.
>
> > Everything has a bit of truth to it. Scientists who refute the possibility
> > of a creator show just as much arrogance and ignorance as religious leaders
> > who refute gods of other religions. One of the main arguments against
> > evolution is the amount of time it needs. One of the main arguments against
> > creation by intelligent design is the circular question of who created the
> > creator.
>
> > Our choice to believe if life was a result of evolution or of intelligent
> > design does not exclude one opinion over the other but can be a mixture of
> > both. We can entertain the possibility that the intelligent designer was
> > either not intelligent enough or sufficiently intelligent to only seed
> > atoms and molecules with basic information to enable them to evolve further
> > on their own.
>
> > The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be circumnavigated
> > by the possibility that the original creator was not matter, but energy.
> > Just like thinking of anything is much faster and much easier than building
> > it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns could have evolved in a
> > random chance way and finely tuned by selective processes to reach
> > intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that patterns of atoms
> > and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.
>
> > Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they manipulated atoms
> > to desired patterns and forms to code the information required for life and
> > to allow them to evolve on their own to complex intelligent beings able to
> > wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where they came from, where
> > they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and purpose could then be
> > given to our fleeting moment of existence.
>
> > We all have freedoms and desires that allow us to have faith and to believe
> > in whatever we want to believe in. Only by believing in an intelligent
> > designer are we able to acknowledge and be humbly grateful for our lives
> > and appreciate its full meaning and purpose. By refusing to believe in a
> > creator and refuting an intelligent designer we remain arrogant and
> > ignorant ingrates who are left without any personal deep meaning and far
> > reaching purpose.
--
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário