Will We Know How Life Began
Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist author, wrote that he believes science will on day solve the origin of he universe. If this happens science will have destroyed most religions of the world.
We have not discovered where the universe came from but scientists are hopeful we might one day discover it's origin. This will lead to understanding where or how the first kind of life began.
They have identified four billion years old rocks. This kind of rock, they surmise, could have been penetrated by water and by doing so may have started a chemical change. There are many chemical changes that are taking place in real time--perhaps it happened billions of year ago.
Having said that, all scientists will admit today they do not know yet exactly how the first version of life began. To admit this does not mean the default opinions of Christians is a correct explanation. They often deride scientists and atheists by saying the since the origin of life is not yet known it means that what the wealthy goat herders in the Bible wrote 5,000 years ago is true. This, of course, is that God created the universe.
If there ultimately is a determination that some event, life water penetrating rocks, gives rise to a form of life that does not explain where the rocks and water came from. That is another question we may someday be able to answer. And, different answers may come from different branches of science.
One thing I'm quite certain of, however, is that most of the answers from science will more likely be true than most answers from religion.
Gloria Steinem, an 84-year-old busybody, once opined on her dual-theory of evolution and creation. Yes, she said man evolved from primordial ooze. Women were created by God.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the Senate Judiciary hearings, I think she may want to recast her theory.
By the way, if a pre-historic man had experienced a day living in our society, he would probably think that science had reached its pinnacle. Science is severely limited unless evolution is taking us in to a stage where every child is addicted simultaneously to XBox, cell phones and sex. In that case, we have stopped evolving.
Matt, "...if pre-historic man had experienced a day living in our society, he would probably think science had reached its pinnacle."
ReplyDeleteYes, probably so. The thing is, does it matter where we came from? Are we somehow better off knowing where the universe came from or where we came from? It seems to me the reason for us being preoccupied with these questions is that religions claim that know stuff the rest of us don't know. So, the rest of us have to prove that, no, religion's version of history is B.S. These arguments use billions of dollars but do not cure the common cold--or--provide housing for people under bridges. I wish religion would stop making these claims so everyone else did not feel obligated to respond.
Religion, religion, religion. A race horse is fitted with blinders so that it can focus on the track and not on the competition. People should not be like race horses.
DeleteReligion aside, mankind yearns to answer the questions, "Why am I here?", "What is my purpose in life?", and "What is there for me after I die?"
The somewhat famous North Dakota singer sang a song "Is that all there is?" She might as well been a philosopher pondering her place in the universe.
Yes, it does matter where we came from. Medical scientists can treat us better if they know our genetic make-up, often tied up in our history. Did you ever answer a medical survey asking things like, "Did any of your immediate family members have a heart condition?" Sen. Elizabeth Warren has answered that question quite clumsily and to her detriment.
Those that believe the earth is 6000 years old live in a fantasy, deny the existence of scientific knowledge. Those that believe there is no God, i.e. "know" there is no God deny the many historical and religious artifacts. Faith can't be proven scientifically. And science can't prove the existence of love, affection or belief. Science and faith often exist in 2 different realms.
You are preoccupied with religion but mock it using the hammer of science. Yet, I rarely read anything of any scientific merit in your blog. Why is that? Is it because science can't disprove religion or spirituality? Is it because you have a hatred for religion based on a past experience? Is religion without its hypocrites and you despise hypocrites? Yet, science has its charlatans, fakers and those with opposite scientific theories.
Please list the scientific projects which are state-funded that are used "... to prove that, no, religion's version of history is B.S. These arguments use billions of dollars ..." I don't know of a single such project. Then the question is, who is full of B.S.?
I think that Jon may be "put off" by mankind's preoccupation with origins by the current popularity of the Big Bang theory. He says he hasn't paid any attention to it, mostly, it would seem, because it opens the door to a creationism of sorts. That despite the fact that it is a theory that is gaining traction among astrophysicists/astronomers. BTW the Big Bang was initially proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest-scientist. I suppose that makes it a "religious" proposition that can be ruled out tout court.
DeleteMatt re..mankind yearning for answers to 'who am I,' 'why am I here'
ReplyDeleteI agree humans want to know this. That does not by itself mean it is important.
I was talking about the origin of the universe and the source of the very earliest forms of life. For your own purposes you made it sound like I was talking about the medical history of parents and grandparents. The latter is, of course, important.
Religion's version of the creation is BS--the correct answer to the origin of the universe is we don't know, at least not yet. We may know someday. There is scientific proof we don't know. It comes from the fact that science does not know. As you note, there is scientific fact the world is more than 6,000 years old. There is not science determination that a single fertilized cell is a human being as you so often say. The latter comes only from religion. It is religious BS.
Re. " ...a single fertilized cell"... Here we go again. A fertilized cell is not a "single cell". After fertilization, (penetration of the egg by the sperm cell), (At that point, a chemical process prevents other sperm cells from entering. the process starts IMMEDIATELY. leading to division. After about eight hours the first division happens, and it's off to the races.
DeleteThe mantra of a "single fertilized cell" is false, bad science, and conveniently deceptive. Look it up.
@ "a single fertilized cell..." Correction; A fertilized egg cell contains more than one cell. Starting out with two cells after eight hours, and multiplying fast after that.
DeleteThat humans want to know the answers to "who am I? and "Why am I here?" are probably 2 of the most important questions in all of mankind, and, yes, by themselves, they are very important. Philosophers, theologians and common men have pondered those questions throughout time. Much time, effort and money have gone in to those 2 answers.
DeleteAs for the moment of conception, when an egg from a woman meets with and joins with the sperm of a man, a new person exists. Science proves this. DNA is unique. I refuse to argue proven science with someone who denies the existence of scientific proof. Why bother?!? Your definition of life is a political one, ever changing and at odds with science.
The theme for the 2019 March for Life in D.C. is "Pro-Life is Pro-Science".
ReplyDeletehttps://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/19/march-life-2019-celebrate-pro-life-movements-ties-science/
The arrested demonstrators from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and Antifa will surely counter with "Science is as dead as your baby!"
"Pro-Life is Pro-Science"
ReplyDeleteThis is great news. Now pro-life people can support birth control and sex education, the things that actually reduce the number of abortions. Perhaps provide funding for prenatal care that reduces the number of miscarriages, birth defects, and high risk pregnancies. Support for research in identifying and treating over sized and overactive amygdalas during early fetal development could make this a far better world.
Anonymous @ 9:44 "That is great news. Now pro-life people can support birth control and sex education, the things that actually reduce the number of abortions."
DeleteThat would be helpful. But, no, they will not do anything to actually reduce the number of abortions. They want to be seen picketing abortion clinics. The purpose is to be seen praying in public, not reducing abortions.
How about the couple's health insurance covering the pregnancy?
DeleteHello Matt, Your exchanges with old Jon are really amusing. that said, a comment re a debating tactic that I am sure that you have noticed, too. He, of course, likes to dodge a rhetorical thrust by mocking his opponent. More than that, however, he is a reductionist par excellent. Pro-life picketers just want to be seen praying in public; Scriptural authors just wanted to "control" others; everything is material; people are motivated solely by the desire for power over others: Scripture was written by goat herders, i.e. by superstitious ignoramuses. so on and so on. What a dreary worldview, is it not?
Delete