Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[InformedIgnorance]

Abiogenesis is a speculative field of study, they dont know anything, but they speculate everything....my question is....where is the evidence....if every thing was so cut and dry, they should be able to duplicate every thing that happened in an effort to explain how every thing got to where it is today. They should be able to duplicate the exact conditions of the early earth that made it life permitting, and watch every thing happen. Thats what happened millions of years ago, right? So if they know so much, why cant they do it.

A wonderful answer to this point is the featured answer at Is it possible to simulate abiogenesis in a lab environment? - Yahoo!7 Answers by Smeghead

 

[Krok]

Wow, is this what it has come to??? :sarcastic

Please answer the question.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Abiogenesis is a speculative field of study, they dont know anything, but they speculate everything....my question is....where is the evidence....if every thing was so cut and dry, they should be able to duplicate every thing that happened in an effort to explain how every thing got to where it is today. They should be able to duplicate the exact conditions of the early earth that made it life permitting, and watch every thing happen. Thats what happened millions of years ago, right? So if they know so much, why cant they do it.

You obviously didn't read the page if you are asking for evidence.

Your statement about we needing to duplicate the process now is false. You cannot demonstrate a single thing from your Bible.

We know exactly how the sun works too, but we cannot make one in the lab. But there are people working on fusion methods. Eventually, we'll make life, and have fusion. that we don't ahve it now is nt a valid reason to believe either are false ideas.

You just don't grasp the science, oir don't want it to be true, so you run away from it thinking it's impossible. Im sorry if that's how you are. You're missing a lot.

 

[Krok]

Abiogenesis is a speculative field of study, they dont know anything, but they speculate everything....my question is....where is the evidence.....

Oh, here's some from the subject I studied.

The oldest rocks we've found on earth (around 4.3 billion years old) don't show signs of organic molecules. Rocks a bit younger show signs of complex organic molecules. Rocks a bit younger show fossils of what might have been unicellular organisms, might not have been. Life a bit younger than that (3.4 billion years old) show definite fossils of prokaryotes.

So, that's evidence that life as we know it developed over hundreds of millions of years. What's your physical evidence that life was poofed into existence?

 

[Krok]

....

Actually, it has been well explained.

All sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago. All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common eukaryotic ancestor.

Really, if you still keep on asking your questions, you really know way too little to understand it.

Oh, and Call_of_the_Wild, you seem to forget that human penises (and other animal's penises) are also compatible with the anus? Even dolphins sometimes do it that way, you know?

And, Call_of_the_Wild, I hope you also realise that in some species the males have penises, while the females don't have vaginas?

The Wild is not so straight forward as you seem to think it is.....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Let's not even get into marsupials.

Or sex-changing reptiles.

 

[beerisit]

How is it that the males reproductive system just happen to be compatible with the females??? Please answer this

Well you see it's like this, if they weren't you wouldn't be here. All of the males whose evolution resulted in non-compatible reproductive systems didn't procreate and that particular twig withered and died without a trace, I know that you will think I'm making this up, but amazingly the exact same thing happened to any female that diverged down a similar path. Just the same as if you were born without seminal vesicles your particular twig on the tree of life would just stop with you.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Some types of fish (Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels and others) change their gender too *nods* a bunch of females with no males around and one of em become a man.

Well you see it's like this, if they weren't you wouldn't be here. All of the males whose evolution resulted in non-compatible reproductive systems didn't procreate and that particular twig withered and died without a trace, I know that you will think I'm making this up, but amazingly the exact same thing happened to any female that diverged down a similar path. Just the same as if you were born without seminal vesicles your particular twig on the tree of life would just stop with you.

*Nods* Probably the easiest way to understand it

 

[lunakilo]

Sure, everyone on here has a degree in biology. How about just answering the questions that has been presented to you. If you know so much, why do you insist on providing links? Anyone can post a link, and posting a link doesn't mean that you have the knowledge on the subject, it just mean that you did a google search about the subject matter and posted it on here.....big deal.....answer the questions.

Everyone does not have a degree in biology, but most have been to school and have a basic knowledge of biology.

People have answered your questions, you just choose to say "the answer does not make sense to me, give me another one". That is not how it works.

When people run out of patience they tend to, as a last gesture of good will to post a linkt to you so that you can read the details yourself.
Have you ever tried to follow the links and read the contents?

 

[johnhanks]

This is not surprising, in fact it is very, very typical. Soon as a person that doesn't believe the nonsense that has being presented to him ask some very simple and legitimate questions, the person is accused of being ignorant..."oh you just dont understand biology".....or..."you just dont understand evolution". I am not speaking of things I dont understand, but of things that I do understand. And I do understand that humans, and all living and breathing things that I am aware of, sexual reproduction takes place within the body under certain conditions. Those certain conditions could not have been met if those things did not exist, so how was there any reproduction at all. Not to mention the fact that the other answer you "tried" to give assumed compatibility before the explanation of how they became compatible in the first place was answered.

You've had your nonsensical question answered as far as it can be; if you either don't like or can't understand the answer, that remains your problem.

Sure, everyone on here has a degree in biology. How about just answering the questions that has been presented to you. If you know so much, why do you insist on providing links? Anyone can post a link, and posting a link doesn't mean that you have the knowledge on the subject, it just mean that you did a google search about the subject matter and posted it on here.....big deal.....answer the questions.

Some of us here do have biology degrees, and have been very patient in explaining biological issues to you. What is increasingly clear is that you have no wish to have your questions answered, since they would then lose what you fondly imagine is their potency. Invincible Ignorance is the name of the game - why, if you started to understand what you're arguing about, you might actually have to take on board counter-arguments; and that would be disastrous.

 

[lunakilo]

How is it that the males reproductive system just happen to be compatible with the females??? Please answer this

The question has been answered more than once.

For example johnhanks gave you an answer:

This has been explained to you exhaustively several times in other threads, but you have so far shown not the first sign of understanding it. At risk of wasting precious time and forum space, I will have one more try.

1. The very earliest sexually reproducing organisms showed no male/female differentiation - the cells that fused in fertilisation were morphologically and functionally identical (isogamy, still seen in many contemporary protoctists).
2. Advantages accruing from division of labour led to differentiation between individuals producing small, motile gametes and those producing large, non-motile ones (first anisogamy, later heterogamy).
3. There therefore never was a stage when one sex's system had evolved and the other hadn't, as you fantasise above.

There are many intelligent twelve-year-olds who could have explained that to you. Any chance you'll get it this time?

And again

How is it that the males reproductive system just happen to be compatible with the females??? Please answer this

They didn't just happen to be compatible.
Why do you keep insisting on that?
Males didn't suddenly spring into existence with a penis attached running around looking for holes to stick in in (at least that is not how I think it happend )
If that had happened then they would have been very disapointed, and would not have been able to father anything.
Only the the beings with a reproductive system that was compatible with others of the same species would have been able to reproduce.

 

[lunakilo]

Wow, is this what it has come to??? :sarcastic

Apparently.

Please answer the question.
If you know what how to define life, I would love to hear it.
But you don't do you?

 

[McBell]

They didn't just happen to be compatible.
Why do you keep insisting on that?
Males didn't suddenly spring into existence with a penis attached running around looking for holes to stick in in (at least that is not how I think it happend )
If that had happened then they would have been very disapointed, and would not have been able to father anything.
Only the the beings with a reproductive system that was compatible with others of the same species would have been able to reproduce.

Seems to me that even if we take his "just appeared with a penis" idea and apply evolution to it (the idea, not the penis) you still end up with the fact that if said penis did not get into a hole that would cause pregnancy, said penis would have died out long long ago.

but since he just magically poofing penises, it stands to reason that vaginas would also be magically appearing.
Unless he is some sort of sexist.....


Now if some of the magically poofed penises ended up in compatible magically poofed vaginas, then voila...

 

[johnhanks]

How is it that the males reproductive system just happen to be compatible with the females??? Please answer this

The question has been answered more than once.

I think we have to accept that Call_of_the_Wild is never going to acknowledge that his magic question has been answered: the poor sap really seems to believe that it's unanswerable in terms of evolutionary theory, and the last thing he wants to do think his way out of that position.

To the rest of us CotW presents as a buffoon proudly parading his ignorance up and down the forum; in his own eyes I'm sure he's a plucky little David stinging the lumbering Goliath of orthodox biology with his shrewdly aimed missiles. No amount of argument or patiently explained biology is going to dent that self-image or that zealously guarded ignorance.

 

[jasonwill2]

It seems to me that since god is natural and not supernatural (at least in my model), then if he DID do anything, we really wouldn't notice.

It could also be that Leviathan [God] hates to prove himself to people and so when scientists come knocking and demand he do stuff he doesn't want to do it as it's a waste of time since, well you know, HE'S BUSY RUNNING THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND ALL.

Also perhaps Earth just isn't that important with like 20 billion some other planets with life on it. I suspect that god cares more about the universal scale than the extremely brief lives of one species on one planet out of so many other concerns in the Universe. As for the form of god that is on this earth physically (Satan) he seems to only come to those practicing magic, or those seeking him out, and he doesn't go to perform tricks for people. Meaning that the only interaction that God has with humans is on a personal and private level between god and practitioner, hardly these experiences can be used as proof when you have to be open to the powers that be in the first place to even know they are there, and at that most experiences are highly subjective and open to interpretation. Even worse, sometimes it's not really the gods that were there but just an idea of what you think they should be that was projected from your mind into your subjective perception of reality. It can be fickle interacting with gods.

 

[work in progress]

I think we have to accept that Call_of_the_Wild is never going to acknowledge that his magic question has been answered: the poor sap really seems to believe that it's unanswerable in terms of evolutionary theory, and the last thing he wants to do think his way out of that position.

To the rest of us CotW presents as a buffoon proudly parading his ignorance up and down the forum; in his own eyes I'm sure he's a plucky little David stinging the lumbering Goliath of orthodox biology with his shrewdly aimed missiles. No amount of argument or patiently explained biology is going to dent that self-image or that zealously guarded ignorance.

I came to that conclusion at least 20 pages ago, and when he started shifting subjects, it reminded me of some research that Chris Mooney has cited recently in a number of interviews that educated conservatives do not abandon bad ideas as readily as educated liberals will. This is likely why science has that liberal bias that conservatives have been anguishing about for decades! The uneducated conservatives are more likely to abandon wrong or at least weak concepts when presented with challenging contrary evidence. The educated conservative has learned just enough to seal off any contrary evidence, and turns in to "Baghdad Bob" denying the obvious right to the bitter end.

I've seen this many times trying to debate global warming-deniers who know a little about chemistry or statistics, and just keep spinning out critiques of scientific papers while the world goes to hell. When it comes to denying evolution...I'm more inclined to say: 'just believe whatever the hell you want, and make sure you never make use of new cancer drugs, anti-virals or any possible benefit that comes from the use of evolutionary principles.'

 

[jasonwill2]

I came to that conclusion at least 20 pages ago, and when he started shifting subjects, it reminded me of some research that Chris Mooney has cited recently in a number of interviews that educated conservatives do not abandon bad ideas as readily as educated liberals will. This is likely why science has that liberal bias that conservatives have been anguishing about for decades! The uneducated conservatives are more likely to abandon wrong or at least weak concepts when presented with challenging contrary evidence. The educated conservative has learned just enough to seal off any contrary evidence, and turns in to "Baghdad Bob" denying the obvious right to the bitter end.

I've seen this many times trying to debate global warming-deniers who know a little about chemistry or statistics, and just keep spinning out critiques of scientific papers while the world goes to hell. When it comes to denying evolution...I'm more inclined to say: 'just believe whatever the hell you want, and make sure you never make use of new cancer drugs, anti-virals or any possible benefit that comes from the use of evolutionary principles.'

I think that God laughs whenever people deny clear evidence. On one hand though the tendency for us to hold to certain beliefs is part of an evolutionary need not to find the truth, but to convince/bully others into thinking that we are right. If I recall correctly it somehow ensures stability in a group, and evolved out of a time when having group cohesion was more important since lions and stuff was out to get you while you were hunting mega-fauna.

As for global warming, I would say it has very disasterous consequences if people do not start paying attention, if the warm winds essentially stop coming up the Atlantic due to the salinity of the oceans being shifted by the insanely increasing rate of Ice-shelf calving and ice-cap melting, then farming will severely suffer, and there will be a shortage of food, not to mention many other concerns such as an increase in all kinds of nasty storms like Hurricanes.

Did you know that it has been discovered that water is getting deep under the ice-shelfs through holes and is acting as a conveyor belt for transfeering heat, making them calve even faster? saw a program on it on PBS but can't recall the details but essentially the more the water rises the faster the ice-shelves will calve

 

[lunakilo]

I think that God laughs whenever people deny clear evidence. On one hand though the tendency for us to hold to certain beliefs is part of an evolutionary need not to find the truth, but to convince/bully others into thinking that we are right. If I recall correctly it somehow ensures stability in a group, and evolved out of a time when having group cohesion was more important since lions and stuff was out to get you while you were hunting mega-fauna.

As for global warming, I would say it has very disasterous consequences if people do not start paying attention, if the warm winds essentially stop coming up the Atlantic due to the salinity of the oceans being shifted by the insanely increasing rate of Ice-shelf calving and ice-cap melting, then farming will severely suffer, and there will be a shortage of food, not to mention many other concerns such as an increase in all kinds of nasty storms like Hurricanes.

Did you know that it has been discovered that water is getting deep under the ice-shelfs through holes and is acting as a conveyor belt for transfeering heat, making them calve even faster? saw a program on it on PBS but can't recall the details but essentially the more the water rises the faster the ice-shelves will calve

That reminds me I just noticed an article about a new heat record in Greenland when I was checking the if I could make it home from work today before the rain started.
Maybe I should move to Greenland :beach:

Off topic you say... true, but this thread was derailed at least 30 pages ago

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The question has been answered more than once.

For example johnhanks gave you an answer:

First off, I already responded to his alleged "answer". Just because someone gives a answer doesn't mean that it was answered correctly. I guess you were impressed because his answered seemed so scientific, right? Well, I'm not impressed.

They didn't just happen to be compatible.
Why do you keep insisting on that?
Males didn't suddenly spring into existence with a penis attached running around looking for holes to stick in in (at least that is not how I think it happend )

I know, this is the same ole "it just didnt happen over night" answer. Of course, it took millions of years, right? Or was that billions of years? Its funny you mention a penis, because you and others on here believe that the males reproductive system started out "simple" (whatever that means), and over time, the male eventually evolved a penis, with a scrotum attached to it with two testicles. What came first, the penis, or the scrotum, the scrotum, or the testicles? Makes no sense.

Only the the beings with a reproductive system that was compatible with others of the same species would have been able to reproduce.

Of course, and only the automobile factories that were made to produce Mercedes would only be able to produce Mercedes. This is not answering the question, the question is, if you trace every thing back to its original origin, how do you get from non-compatibility to compatibility. We were discussing the Standard Model in previous post, how do you go from a singularity.....to intelligent life and large scale reproducing humans with bodily systems that perform specific functions. Its amazing to me what people will believe to negate the existence of God.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think we have to accept that Call_of_the_Wild is never going to acknowledge that his magic question has been answered: the poor sap really seems to believe that it's unanswerable in terms of evolutionary theory, and the last thing he wants to do think his way out of that position.

This has been explained to you exhaustively several times in other threads, but you have so far shown not the first sign of understanding it. At risk of wasting precious time and forum space, I will have one more try.

1. The very earliest sexually reproducing organisms showed no male/female differentiation - the cells that fused in fertilisation were morphologically and functionally identical (isogamy, still seen in many contemporary protoctists).
2. Advantages accruing from division of labour led to differentiation between individuals producing small, motile gametes and those producing large, non-motile ones (first anisogamy, later heterogamy).
3. There therefore never was a stage when one sex's system had evolved and the other hadn't, as you fantasise above.

I am still trying to figure out why you think this was a good answer. It just isn't a good answer. How did we get from reproducing without a body to reproduce in, to it being absolutely necessary for a human (or any living and breathing organism) to reproduce in a body?? But even if we put that aside, how do you go from this small scale reproduction (or whatever you want to call it, I dont believe it occurred anyway), to a male having a penis, testicles etc for reproduction, to a female having a vagina, ovaries, eggs, etc....At this large scale, if the males reproductive system was something that evolved over time, then the females system would have to evolve at the exact same rate, and there is just no way around it. There is no way for you to provide an answer as to how, even if every thing started on a small scale, for it to end up at a large scale without both the male and female systems changing at the exact same time and rate. No way. You are saying "it started like this...." But I am saying "It ended up like this...." so that "in-between time".....there was a change, how could this change have occurred if it didnt occur at the same time. Makes no sense. When you take away all of the fluff and feathers of the scientific wordplay that you people like to use, the question still remains.

To the rest of us CotW presents as a buffoon proudly parading his ignorance up and down the forum; in his own eyes I'm sure he's a plucky little David stinging the lumbering Goliath of orthodox biology with his shrewdly aimed missiles. No amount of argument or patiently explained biology is going to dent that self-image or that zealously guarded ignorance.

So compare my ignorance to yourself, someone that believes that nature, a blind, mindless, entity....an entity that cant think, see, or reason.....you believe that this entity gave every living and breathing thing, from a human to a cockroach, a reproductive system. You believe that it gave humans eyes to see, even though it didnt know we were gonna need eyes. Heck, it doesn't even know what eyes are, and yet, it gave us eyes. You believe that nature gave us ears to hear, even though it didn't know what it was doing. You believe that it gave us a tongue for taste. What a coincidence, our tongue is in our mouth....and food goes in our mouth....but food has taste, so nature gave us taste buds to taste food in our mouth. It could have put taste buds on our arms, or face, but food doesnt go there, so nature put the taste buds in our mouth, and it didnt even know it was doing it!!!!! Why put taste buds on our arms if what we taste goes in our mouths? That would be stupid. You believe that this mindless, blind entity gave us all of our internal organs, a heart to pump blood...because we need blood throughout our bodies, right? But how will the blood get to every part??? Hmmm....nature thought about it (which is funny, because it can't think)....and nature gave us a heart to do just that, to pump blood throughout our body, and it gave us veins for the blood to travel through??? It gave us a digestive system to take in and break down food.....even gave it a mechanism to remove waste from our body...

You believe that we have all of these things specified things, from an entity that doesn't have a mind, that cant see, that cant think, that cant reason...you believe this....but yet, im the ignorant one?? You believe that you can get that kind of order from something that doesn't have a mind, something that is blind, something that cant think??? But I am ignorant? Lol Yeah, ok