dystopic, have you read Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian? You might find it a good read, I think.
no, but it's on my list now. my list, though, would probably keep me reading for several lifetimes.
sushistrip, my friend, i'm afraid you have some very deep misconceptions about both the nature of science and the nature of the scientific knowledge you're referring to.
the big bang theory by the way......wut a load of crap, because first of all, how and where did the gases and mass that supposely exploded, come from?)
first of all, using god to explain the universe doesn't answer more questions than the big bang theory. what caused god to exist? if you just say, "he always has," you're not being any less presumptuous than a big bang theorist.
the big bang theory doesn't attempt to answer that question, though several versions of it have been extended to attempt to explain what was there before, and how it went from a tiny point of protomatter to our universe. also, the pre-big-bang universe, AFAIK, isn't thought to have been made of gasses that exploded. the physical laws that allow a gas to exist weren't yet in place.
now the universe (metaphoricaly of course) has each and every knob set to a specific settting, and if one SINGLE knob goes a tad out of sync, the whole thing is messed up
so there has to be SOME intelligence behind life and all............
2. The universe as we see it now is as much a result of those settings as it is a cause of those settings. You could change one setting, but another setting may well compensate, or even cause the one you just changed to reset. It may well be the case that there is only one possible setting for each knob.
also, some scientists consider it possible that parallel universes exist where those knobs are in fact on different settings (covered in the same SciAm article). there's an aspect of astronomical theory called selection. in this context what is means is that: if there are in fact many parallel universes with different physical constants or entirely different laws of physics, those universes can develop in ways wherein they will either continue existing or not. it's very similar to the "by means of natural selection" part of evolution.
from the article:
"Most, if not all, of the attributes set by symmetry breaking appear to be fine-turned. Changing their values by modest amounts would have reulted in aqualitatively different universe--one in which we probably would not exist. If proton swere 0.2 percent heavier, they could decay into neutrons, destablizing atoms. If the electromagnetic foprce were 4 percent weaker, there would be no hydrogen and no normal stars. If the weak interaction were much weaker, hydrogen would not exist; if it were much stronger, supernovae would fail to seed interstellar space with heavy elements. If the cosmological constant were much larger, the universe would have blwo itself apart before galaxies could form.
"Although the degree of tine-turning is still debated, these examples suggest that the existence of parallel universes with other values of the phsyical contants."
so to respond to your idea, we're perfectly tuned to the laws of our universe because we developed in that universe; if life developed in a universe with different physical laws, it'd likely be perfectly tuned to that universe's laws.
the chances of a LIVING thing being created from total chaos is astronomical
first of all there is an amazingly high combination of things that need to happen in a human body for it to work (im no doctor but know that much)
none of us can say there is an X% chance of life evolving in a particular place. however, recent studies have found that interstellar medium, once thought to be composed mostly of hydrogen, helium and dust, actually contains a plethora of organic molecules closely resembling basic proteins and amino acids. some have theorized that these substances were brought to earth in the frozen core of comets, and by means of natural selection some of those molecules chemcially transformed into the first RNA. through a long process of random chemical reactions in which the results of most reactions were meaningless, lifeless organic oozes, eventually the first precursors to human life developed. those molecules that resulted from these random reactions that did not have a chemical quality that helped them preserve and replicate themselves didn't turn into life; some of those molecules that did have the properties did turn into life.
if it's true that the basic building blocks of life on earth come from the interstellar medium that permeates the entire universe, more or less, then it seems to me not only possible that it'd happen elsewhere, and not only likely, but that (to my surprise) life elsewhere in the universe may well be surprisingly like life on earth (without the door-to-door proselytizers, hopefully).
another theory almost tighed to that is evolution (eccentially not a theory for the begining of life but the beginnig of humans)
evolution is a theory that is so easily proved wrong that its almost just plain sad that some ppl dedicate their lives to proving it right
its basic explanation is that we began as "bacteria" and slowly but surely started to grow funcional body parts such as arms and legs, ect..........
now this is almost instantly provin wrong in that the transition from a microscopic being to a complex life form without no previous "designs" (such as dna) to go off of would take so long that the being would simply die before it could make use of anything
therefore if everything is dead than ther is no more life
this is the most naive understanding of evolution i've ever heard.
1) we didn't "start" as bacteria (see above, we started as organic molecules). moreover, "we" each started as twinkles in our parents' eyes. they mated and mixed their genes, which in separate cases resulted in each one of us. we're genetically different than our parents, and if for some reason our genetic difference allows us to breed more often and produce children with a better chance of breeding, our unique traits will be passed along. my children aren't going to sponteneously develop four arms and the ability to breathe fire, unless those traits are somehow latent in my and my mate's own genes.
2) what makes you assume bacteria isn't a complex form of life? genetically speaking, humans aren't more complex than all other life on earth. some crustaceans have more chormosomes than we do, and we share 50% of our genetic makeup with bananas. this isn't to suggest that there more be something more to human beings to explain them; just as you can paint an infinite number of paintings from the 3 primary colors, an infinite variety of life can evolve from the 4 base nucleotides.
3) evolution is postively
not a theory about the origins of humans. Darwin developed the theory to explain the diversity of life. actually,
Darwin was trying to find explanations for apperant contradictions in religious thought. Darwin was actually a pretty religious guy, and IIRC at first he didn't even consider human beings on par with animals subject to the laws of natural selection.
4) evolution doesn't happen to an individual. the kind of mutation that affects inviduals usually are referred to as cancer. evolution ocurrs between generations (or in the case of asexually reproducting single-cell life forms, during cell mitosis when the DNA is especially subject to mutation; in the case of asexually reproducing multi-cellular life forms, the mutations typically affect the individual spores and such). major changes rarely occur from one generation to the next, and most of those are not advantageous (many result in stillborn or sterile offspring). bacteria didn't evolve into 4-limbed animals in a single generation. AFAIK evolutionary biologists point to "colonial" bacteria (varieties that "lump: themselves together into colonies) as the earliest precursors to multi-cellular life, was at first wasn't necessarily more complex than fungi or sponges (and probably much less complex).
i'm not about to take it upon myself to deliver an entire lecture on the nuances and specificities of evoultionary theory or any of this stuff. however, your understanding of scientific ideas is extremely poor. i don't really care what you believe, but if you're going to participate in a discussion, you should at least make an attempt to understand opposing view points on their own terms.
