Creation vs. Evolution; what do you choose?

[Boleslaw]

I was reading Lev Shestov's Athens and Jerusalem and came across this interesting point made in regards to issues about evolution and religion:

"If one had proven to the Apostle with all the required evidence, like "two times two makes four," that man is descended from the ape, neither proofs nor evidence would have convinced him. He would perhaps have repeated Dostoevsky's words, "but what does it matter to me?" Probably, however, he would have recalled the Bible: "...as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee." In other words, if you believe that you are of God, you are of God; if you believe that you come from an ape, you come from an ape: "the righteous shall live by faith.""

http://shestov.by.ru/aaj/aj3_8.html

This is a very interesting line of thought. So let's say the evidence is completely irrelevant to the issue; what truely matters is what one chooses to believe. In such a situation, what would you choose: to be created in God's image, or to be the descendant of the ape?

[Starr]

If it is at all possible that there is a higher "divine" power at work in evolution, the ideas do not need to conflict. I do not disbelieve there is a higher power at work in any regard.

Of course I would want to choose to believe I was created in some supreme being's image, but who would want to choose the other alternative?:p

Longinus, explain.

[Aule]

The idea that the Creator of the universe looks like a human being is probably the most idiotic and arrogant thing ever imagined. Even Islam rejects it. So what if humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor? I personally have no problem with the idea.

[klipgeit]

So what if humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor? I personally have no problem with the idea.

I am so glad you corrected the idea we have evolved from apes,we are not.
We had a common ancestor.
I would say that God(whoever-whatever) evolved from our imagination right through te ages.
In 100 years from now his image will be adjusted to our idea of how a God should look and act.

[shanemac]

Theories A and B are available.

A: An invisible ghost in the sky made the universe in 6 days (out of what we're not told). The evidence for this is a few scrolls and stories that were written by a tribe of wandering jews 2,000 years ago.

B: The Universe began from a reaction that has been proven feasible by theoretical physics. Then after billions of years, biological material formed when the conditions favoured the creation of organic chemicals, and life evolved through a well researched and scientifically proven mechanism.

Hmmmm... tough choice.

[Vindex]

Depends the rhp belief is a strange mixing of a man grafted image with priestly dictates onto the ether, where the ancients originally understood that the flesh and blood Gods had created them. And where kin to them.

[Geist]

Are you making this some kind of aesthetic choice? That more or less boils down what religion is.

[Macrobius]

'Evolution' is a rather complex term, embrace at least three distinct notions: (1) [evolution proper] the incidence of gene frequencies within a species changes, in response to environmental pressure and 'selection'; (2) [transformism] animal and plant species can convert one into another, through the accrual of small genetic mutations; (3) [descent of man] man is an animal, no different from any other, and all animals including man descend by species radiation from a single life form.

No one objects to the first -- religious persons say that God's Providence [a term borrowed from Stoicism, and not particularly Christian], or rational [logos] foreknowledge and craftsmanship [demiurge] with respect to the end or purpose of the universe, resulted in animals with a sufficient latent capability to adapt. This is called the oikonomos or Dispensation, Divine Mercy -- the opposite notion being Divine Justice, or strictness (akribeia). It should be very clear that ones' position on the cause of the phenomenon is entirely a metaphysical or religious preference.

Transformism is a hypothesis, not an observable fact. It depends largely on a tendentious retread of the concept of 'species' in Biology, combined with a logical mistake -- a failure to understand the difference between description and definition. Again, this was well understood by the ancients, and expounded at the end of the classical period by Porphyry and Boethius.

The claim that man is an animal is a proposition of psychology ('soul-science'). The claim is that mans psyche consists solely of instinctive passions geared for 'survival', not any higher functions at all, that separate man from the animals.

If you believe you are *just* an animal -- and I mean really believe, not pretend or argue as if you believed -- and if you really believe your purpose in life is 'survival' and that to do that you must kill things and especially persons who 'compete' with you (especially those least like you, and that trivially), in order for your young to survive -- then I say you worship Death. You are not human, and not civilised. There is no reason for me not to gas you and toss your body on a trash heap. And you agree with me.

[Helios Panoptes]

If you believe you are *just* an animal -- and I mean really believe, not pretend or argue as if you believed -- and if you really believe your purpose in life is 'survival' and that to do that you must kill things and especially persons who 'compete' with you (especially those least like you, and that trivially), in order for your young to survive -- then I say you worship Death. You are not human, and not civilised. There is no reason for me not to gas you and toss your body on a trash heap. And you agree with me.

First, according to evolutionary theory, organisms are constituted as they are because this constitution allowed their ancestors to reproduce successfully, relative to competitors. It hardly follows that therefore the sole purpose one might have is reproduction. This position is so absurd that no sane person could hold it. Typing this message isn't helping me to reproduce, is it? My one question refutes the view that you are attributing to evolutionary theory. No one is that stupid. Second, evolutionary theory doesn't tell us that we have to kill competitors. There are other means of conflict resolution, including compromise. You're putting an unfair spin on things that isn't helping your case. I've noticed that persons on opposing sides of this issue cannot resist the temptation to make blatant caricatures of the opponent's position.

[Ratatoskur]

My solipsistic forays into my surroundings would indicate that we are not the end result of the boredom of a narcissistic omnipower, but that of apes; atomic weaponry and postmodern art being the logical and darwinian conclusion of poo flinging.

Unless of course slayer is the messiah; god hates us all and has a profoundly cynical sense of humour.

[Longinus]

Longinus, explain.

I am satisfied with the simple truth and don't feel the need to comfort my self with enhanced 'truth' and flattering lies.

There's nothing truly uplifting in false auto-suggestion that you are created in god's image. Quite contrary, I would not feel pride or comfort if I felt that I owe my existence to some other, superior entity. There's nothing truly shameful about acknowledging your own animal descent. It can only help you to understand the true nature of yourself and your true place in nature.

[harjit]

There is a difference in which I believe, versus which I would choose to be the case. I wonder if that's bad.

[Macrobius]

First, according to evolutionary theory, organisms are constituted as they are because this constitution allowed their ancestors to reproduce successfully, relative to competitors. It hardly follows that therefore the sole purpose one might have is reproduction. This position is so absurd that no sane person could hold it. Typing this message isn't helping me to reproduce, is it? My one question refutes the view that you are attributing to evolutionary theory. No one is that stupid. Second, evolutionary theory doesn't tell us that we have to kill competitors. There are other means of conflict resolution, including compromise. You're putting an unfair spin on things that isn't helping your case. I've noticed that persons on opposing sides of this issue cannot resist the temptation to make blatant caricatures of the opponent's position.

Quoting Mouravieff:

Peter the Great's prophecy is now being fulfilled before our eyes (**): on the 25th October 1962, on the Isle of Kos, Hippocrates' native land, King Constantine II, King of Greece, laid the foundation stone of the International Palace of Medicine, where medical Olympiads will take place, and where the Hippocratic Prize for medical research will be awarded.

Important in the history of human culture, this event gives us a chance to grasp the deeper meaning of History, which is profoundly logical if we try to view it on the scale of the Lord, Master of Evolution, for Whom one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. This perspective can be grasped by the minds of superior beings like Alexander, Peter [the Great], and by others as well.


(**) Here is the text of the prophecy by the Russian Caesar:


'We place the seat of the ancient sciences in Greece. They were then established in Italy [Magna Graeca, under Pythagoras], from where they spread to all parts of Europe. It is now our turn, if you are willing to support my plans by uniting study to obedience.

'The arts further circulate in the world like blood in the human body; perhaps they will establish their empire among us before going back to their ancient country, Greece.


So, you see, the higher things have a rhythm too, that is controlled by God. Medicine, even. However, there are two other prophetic words, these by St John of Maximovitch, of Shanghai and San Francisco, and for our own time:


What began in Russia, will end in America.


Also, it is said, in early December 1962 he fell, and being helped up by a woman of his parish, whispered:


Anti-Christ is born.


All things run to their end, both Good -- and Evil.

[shanemac]

There is a difference in which I believe, versus which I would choose to be the case. I wonder if that's bad.

Seems like you've got that dilemma on the issue of racism too.

[Ahknaton]

Suppose you owned a violin that you believed to be a Stradivarius. It was beautifully made, felt just right when you played it and had the most beautiful sound you'd ever heard. You are adamant that you would never sell it, so its resale value is irrelevant. One day you discover it actually wasn't a Stradivarius, but was made in a factory in China. Why should you value it any less? It's the same violin you had before after all.

[Angler]

I am satisfied with the simple truth and don't feel the need to comfort my self with enhanced 'truth' and flattering lies.

There's nothing truly uplifting in false auto-suggestion that you are created in god's image. Quite contrary, I would not feel pride or comfort if I felt that I owe my existence to some other, superior entity. There's nothing truly shameful about acknowledging your own animal descent. It can only help you to understand the true nature of yourself and your true place in nature.Extremely well said.

[Sean]

Of course I would want to choose to believe I was created in some supreme being's image, but who would want to choose the other alternative?:p

If it were just a choice, then I would choose the alternative. I would prefer to believe that the universe operates under a strict set of laws, and that man is capable of comprehending them. I would prefer that over the notion that life and the universe will always be an impenetrable mystery.

[Boleslaw]

I would prefer that over the notion that life and the universe will always be an impenetrable mystery.

Yes that's basically the point. One's choice in the matter reveals what kind of person you really are.

As Shestov put the choice another way(alluding to the Garden of Eden); one must choose between the Tree of knowledge or the Tree of Life. Evolution is part of the former, Creation part of the latter.

And Shestov goes onto describe some of the fundamental differences between the two approaches:

"The Psalmist could cry to God, but the man qui sola ratione ducitur (who is led by reason alone) knows well that it is absolutely useless to cry to God from the depths. If you have fallen into an abyss, try to get out of it as best you can, but forget what the Bible has told us throughout the centuries - that there is somewhere, "in heaven," a supreme and omnipotent being who is interested in your fate, who can help you, and who is ready to do so. Your fate depends entirely on the conditions in which chance has placed you. It is possible, in some measure, to adapt yourself to these conditions. You may, for example, prolong your earthly existence by working to earn your bread or by taking it away from others. But it is a question only of prolongation, for it is not given anyone to escape death. An ineluctabie eternal truth says: "Everything that has a beginning has also an end." The man of the Bible was unwilling to accept this truth; it did not succeed in "persuading" him."

http://shestov.by.ru/aaj/aj_2.html


If you choose one option, you freely submit to the impersonal laws of necessity - who don't give a damn about you one bit. But everything about the universe is knowable and understandable.

If you choose the other, then you place yourself before a personal God who does care about you; but is an endless mystery. And with this God, all is possible.

And let's not forget that with this God, you are given free will over your fate. Wheras with Evolution, your fate is largely determined for you by your genes. With faith, one can more freely accept or reject God or anything for that matter. With logic(or rather logic alone), one's line of thinking is already determined for you. A man of faith need not reject logic in toto, he just can't be restrained by it - he is what Chesterton called a "complete thinker".

So the argument could be made that those who freely choose evolution over creation are intellectually lazy cowards.

[klipgeit]

I believe that Creationism and Evolution are the same thing seen from different angles. Evolution is guided by boundaries (natural selection) which are put there by nature; nature is considered by the Church as the manifestation of God's will.
Interesting.
I,still, struggle with the problem :"Do we have a brain because we think or do we think because we have a brain.
I think that a Creationist wants to bypass responsibility for their actions,whereas
an Evolutionist is on his way to open the ultimate door "The God in him" ie making life in a test tube using the building blocks.
He is an intellectual master piece,by shoving God out the back door and accepting knowledge above eternal life.

[Macrobius]

... a speech on Immortality. After his presidential bids, and accostumed to delivering 4 hours of speeches a day, in the era before radio or TV, Bryan became a speaker Chautauqua circuit for many years.

Here, courtesy of Edison corp., is a recording:

http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/mp3s/6000/6051/cusb-cyl6051d.mp3 (MP3 2-4 MB)

For those not intimately familiar with American geography, the 'Little Egypt' region of Illinois is so called because Cairo, Illinois, is located where the Ohio and Mississippi rivers form a delta. Bryan was born there, so his reference to Cairo is an autobiographical one.

Other topics: http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?query=william+jennings+bryan&queryType=%40attr+1%3D1

[Dodge Viper]

The Supreme consciousness creates, and the mind (individual consciousness) projects evolution.

[Sean]

Yes that's basically the point. One's choice in the matter reveals what kind of person you really are.

And what does that reveal about people? I'm sorry for being skeptical, but there are lots of different types of people on both sides. I think that you're making sweeping generalizations about large amounts of people that are unwarranted.

If you choose one option, you freely submit to the impersonal laws of necessity - who don't give a damn about you one bit. But everything about the universe is knowable and understandable.

If you choose the other, then you place yourself before a personal God who does care about you; but is an endless mystery. And with this God, all is possible.

But isn't truth an important thing for Christians too? The Christian must believe that the truth of God must be true regardless of what anyone thinks, and this is something he shares with the rationalist. Likewise, the Christian aught not to believe that truth is relative--and this concerns matters of fact, as well as those of religion and morality.

And let's not forget that with this God, you are given free will over your fate. Wheras with Evolution, your fate is largely determined for you by your genes. With faith, one can more freely accept or reject God or anything for that matter. With logic(or rather logic alone), one's line of thinking is already determined for you.

Just because my choosing to not sit up is determined, it doesn't follow that I can't choose otherwise. I could sit up right now if I wanted to. Likewise, if someone has the ability and the desire, then he will be able to change his lifestyle--whether or not he's determined to do is beside the point. This is compatibalism.

A man of faith need not reject logic in toto, he just can't be restrained by it - he is what Chesterton called a "complete thinker".

It can be asked that if one accepts logic and reason, then what's to stop him from questioning religion, or anything for that matter? Again, how can you keep certain aspects of life restricted from it, and not others? Who's to choose which ones are off-limits and which ones aren't?

So the argument could be made that those who freely choose evolution over creation are intellectually lazy cowards.

Why? I can't help but take this statement as an ad hominim attack. Besides, from a strictly intellectual standpoint, rationalists are far greater because they exercise rationality to a far greater degree. We may say that they're missing something that is crucial for being human, but that isn't an intellectual defect. It's criticizing them for being too intellectual.

[Boleslaw]

Another fine example of Sean engaging in the fine art of missing the point.

And what does that reveal about people? I'm sorry for being skeptical, but there are lots of different types of people on both sides. I think that you're making sweeping generalizations about large amounts of people that are unwarranted.

No shit sherlock that there's different types of people on both sides of the argument; I've stated this numerous times before in the Evolution vs. Creation debate.

The hyperbole argument here is designed so one has to choose between the two ultimate decisions: evolution or creation. It's a classic Kierkegaardian Either/Or dilemma.

The rest is just your standard nit-picking which only serves to show how much you failed to understand the main point behind this discussion.

[Sean]

Another fine example of Sean engaging in the fine art of missing the point.

And another fine example of Boleslaw engaging in the fine art of refusing to defend and clarify his position when it's put up to logical scrutiny.

No shit sherlock that there's different types of people on both sides of the argument; I've stated this numerous times before in the Evolution vs. Creation debate.

The hyperbole argument here is designed so one has to choose between the two ultimate decisions: evolution or creation. It's a classic Kierkegaardian Either/Or dilemma.

I am asking you what it is that is revealed about people who make such a choice. Simply saying that one's choice to choose X reveals his tendency to choose X tells us nothing.

Again, you said:

"One's choice in the matter reveals what kind of person you really are."

What kind of people tend to choose evolution, and what kind of people tend to choose creation?

[Boleslaw]

And another fine example of Boleslaw engaging in the fine art of refusing to defend and clarify his position when it's put up to logical scrutiny.

Considering that almost all the issues you seek to engage me on are those that occur beyond the realm of logic, it further proves that you obviously don't understand the point even being made here.



I am asking you what it is that is revealed about people who make such a choice. Simply saying that one's choice to choose X reveals his tendency to choose X tells us nothing.

I actually did explain to some extent what one's choice actually means and I even cited Shestov's explaination of what one choice means. Not suprisingly, you failed completely to even address any of this in your "responses".

You basically missed the entire point that was right in front of your face.

[Ahknaton]

Let's ask another question:

Suppose that God exists, but that for reasons that are unintelligible to our puny mortal minds, He brought the Universe into being specifically in order to create some other aspect of nature other than us: nebulas for example. Suppose the beauty of nebulas are the pinnacle of Creation, and humans evolved through purely naturalistic evolutionary processes as a side-effect of the material conditions required to create nebulas. Even so, God has decided in His infinite wisdom to take an interest in us, grant us life after death in Heaven (if we're good) and to decree a set of absolute morals.

In other words, you get all the practical benefits of a reality in which Creationism is true, except for the knowledge that you were created with a divine purpose in God's image. Would you still prefer that one rather than the other was true?

[Raskolnikov]

I don't see why these two viewpoints have to be contradictory. I believe a God like force/being who does not interfere in mortals lives or world created the universe and its laws, including evolution.

[dimitrije]

What is older egg or a chicken, eternal mystery?
One of the questions that bother mankind since the day we start to use brain but still we are not able to give precise answer, nor we will do in the near future.
To me personally Darwin theory is acceptable but then again there are so much illogical arguments in his theory .

[klipgeit]

What is older egg or a chicken, eternal mystery?
One of the questions that bother mankind since the day we start to use brain but still we are not able to give precise answer, nor we will do in the near future.
To me personally Darwin theory is acceptable but then again there are so much illogical arguments in his theory .

egg or chicken
http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion/chickenegg.html

To solve this, one may say:"Did Adam and Eve had a bellybutton.??????
Certainly not according to the creation story,but Abel and Cain had .:rofl:

[klipgeit]

Let's ask another question:

Suppose that God exists, but that for reasons that are unintelligible to our puny mortal minds, He brought the Universe into being specifically in order to create some other aspect of nature other than us: nebulas for example. Suppose the beauty of nebulas are the pinnacle of Creation, and humans evolved through purely naturalistic evolutionary processes as a side-effect of the material conditions required to create nebulas. Even so, God has decided in His infinite wisdom to take an interest in us, grant us life after death in Heaven (if we're good) and to decree a set of absolute morals.

In other words, you get all the practical benefits of a reality in which Creationism is true, except for the knowledge that you were created with a divine purpose in God's image. Would you still prefer that one rather than the other was true?

This is heavy
Divine purpose????
Imagine you are one sperm in a sea of 2.000.000 chasing the one egg available.Either you are divinely directed as the only sperm to fertilize the egg or you happen to be the strongest swimmer.
I believe it is the latter.
I assume(not good) that a nebula has no thinking capacity,but humans have.
Would He give a bit of his brain to US.
Doubt it,He is to egoistical for that.(See the story of the tree and the fruit)

We ,human beings,are able to go back into the deep past to find the "big bang"
So far we have been unable to unravel what was before the big bang or what(who) initiated the big bang.
If you call that God,than I can not fault you.

[littlewhitelies]

Anyone who believes in Creationism belongs in the Dark Ages.

[Corrupt]

Suppose you owned a violin that you believed to be a Stradivarius. It was beautifully made, felt just right when you played it and had the most beautiful sound you'd ever heard. You are adamant that you would never sell it, so its resale value is irrelevant. One day you discover it actually wasn't a Stradivarius, but was made in a factory in China. Why should you value it any less? It's the same violin you had before after all.


Because it's not the violin you believed you had.

In believing it was a Strad you endowed it with certain qualities; on learning that it was not a Strad, you are forced to acknowledge it does not possess those qualities.

You needn't value it much less, but it's almost impossible not to value it any less.

A similar effect occurs when a child learns that his parents are not his biological parents.

[DonkeyKong]

To be created in God's image? OR To be the natural descendant of apes?

Why not both? That's how I see it.

[delete]

To be created in God's image? OR To be the natural descendant of apes?

Why not both? That's how I see it.

Humans are apes, as Klipgeit likes to point out. This is a fact wether we are created or not.

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

as Hitler took his interpretation of his Darwinism to the utmost perversion, to me this question does not appear as important. In the USA it is, as the puritans built up this states and "religion" is treated as very important, such as "no religious test should ever be requested" is guaranteed within the constitution law. .. there are many discussions and films over there, so much I know.. In the EU they have abandoned the paragraph to base the future EU-constitution on the heritage of a Christian heritage..

I like the idea, that a Australian Aboriginal woman has the same psychological dream patterns like every average North American woman. That has the conclusion, that human beings are - unlike for example 19.th century`s theories like of Rudolf Steiner for example - one species and one same "human race" and racism is made by only fundamentalists, who are scared to somehow disappear.. And the fact, that apes, each in its sort have completely different DNA structure and are not at all a "family" of any significant coherence, just the contrary.

[Vessper]

To be the natural descendant of apes. It's quite sad, indeed, but is still the truth. I find religion important since is one of the things to preserve our values, but I just can't believe that we were created or that there is a god out there.

[KerguelenExileDissident]

I see no problem why man cannot be a product of the common ancestor we share with apes and in the image of god.

As for creationism, it is pure nonsense and actutally goes against the bible (if you study things like the mist creations say watered the ground is false, "mist" is a mistranslation it actutally meants spirit or spirit in refrence to god.

As for evolution it is a theory, useful to some extent and can help explain things to a point.

In fact I think this issue is more complicated than Evolution vs Creationist.

I see no real conflict between Evolution and Bible. My personal opinion.

[Petyr Baelish]

If it is at all possible that there is a higher "divine" power at work in evolution, the ideas do not need to conflict. I do not disbelieve there is a higher power at work in any regard.

The problem with this idea of a "high power" being at work in evolution is that it's superfluous. It's a bit like saying "I know that my stove heats my food using electricity, but God is also involved in ordering the electrons around to produce current in some preternatural fashion."

[Petyr Baelish]

I see no problem why man cannot be a product of the common ancestor we share with apes and in the image of god.

How's that? Did God also evolve from some prior lifeform? Australojesus chistensis perhaps?

I see no real conflict between Evolution and Bible. My personal opinion.

Likely because you don't really understand either or both. Or you might be one of the millions of Christians whose powers of cognitive dissonance can resolve any outright contradiction between the Bible and reality into seamless harmony.

Without Adam and Eve these is no original sin, and without original sin, there is no fall from grace, or need for God to sacrifice himself to himself in order to allow himself to change how the humans he created get into his heaven.

[KerguelenExileDissident]

On a real basic level, religion and science are two different things. Science is subject to human rational and logical understanding. Religion is beyond rational understanding. Therefore one cannot claim simply one religion is right or wrong or whether or not a given religion is rational or not because religion is beyond understanding and faith is based on human assumption. On a real basic level you need faith to rely on things in the physical world and faith in god or metaphysical aspects takes this further.

I am well aware of the Christian, "cognitive dissonance," issue if you will as in the past I have wrestled with it and I see no major conflict with it.

One of the major Enlightenment old beliefs is the extreme logic and rationism of humanity. Empiricists often employ the real basic argument unconciously that human thought can understand the universe in it's entirety - until one understands quantum physics one realizes this is false. Humans can only understand what their minds are capable of just like a dog sees the world through it's eyes so do humans.


The bible is meant to give a religious perspective NOT a scientific perspective. Reiterating what many Theistic Evolutionists believe is basically the idea is god creates man from the ground, which basically is true in evolution because all life comes from non-living material on Earth. It is interesting that bible order follows to some degree the pattern of development of the planet, creation of the planet, creatures in the sea, then plants, animals and then man. God creates man through evolution - creating Adam and Eve and then Genesis picks up from there. I could explain this furthur but the main concept is what im trying to get at here.



Theistic Evolution is extremely popular in both Scientific community (most are Christians) and evolution is popular in non-fundamentalist churches mainline faiths.

[mladikov]

On this subject I'd like to add that the concept of (or certain understandings of) theistic evolution parallels in some sense the Orthodox Christian idea of theosis, or god-becoming. That is to say, the idea that the more we conform to Christ by reifying His message through our thoughts and actions the closer we come to realizing true, genuine union with the divine nature. Since the majority (iirc) of the Fathers (both Latin and Orthodox) regarded our creation in God's likeness as a reference to our ability to reason and make moral judgments it is possible, to my mind, that our 'creation' by God is in fact an ongoing struggle to reconcile our human nature to the divine nature, and that human evolution is a reflection of this struggle.

[Tellurocrat]

To correct the original post a bit, we are not natural descendants from apes - we are apes.

[Tellurocrat]

How can God come to Earth? That would make God non-Godlike. :dance2:

[Kostya Novoselov]

As the ultimate Unknown, the Universe is God.

It is this God that powered the always capricious metamorphosis from primordial soup to human.

And soon it will be working on human plus.

[WillieBrennan]

It is this God that powered the always capricious metamorphosis from primordial soup to human.


A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 1085 liters. At 10-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.

link (http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html)


Mama Mia! Daz a lotsa zuppa!

[Tellurocrat]

God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Why does god have to be a spirit that no one can see?
That quality alone would make God not different from an alien being that can be defeated.

[Transcendentally Challenged]

God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Why does god have to be a spirit that no one can see?

God creatued nature, but he himself isn't physical, since otherwise nature would preceed God.

Easy, wasn't it?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

As the ultimate Unknown, the Universe is God.
But the universe is the Known; constantly knowable.

But it's nice that you have a God now, even if 'He' is a transitory one you're going to have to say badbye to. I mean, it's a great start.
It is this God that powered the always capricious metamorphosis from primordial soup to human.
What. Are you saying God is the universe, or that God "powers" the universe? The later view (the one in your sentence above) is the basic religious view. It's just that God gets to be the "unknown" rather than your patently 'known.'
And soon it will be working on human plus.
Now you're a prophet in your new religion. Cool.

Keep working on it.

[artrokil]

I like beer! http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4151/30285560.gif