81–90 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does mean that. However, he is "all powerful" where it matters - to accomplish his own will, which is consistent with his character.
If he is controlled by "his nature", then it isn't HIS will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm really not sure what you mean by this. If you assume the major groups of life evolved from common ancestors, the fossil record doesn't offer a lot of help to fill in the early details (i.e. transitional types). Also, you have the problem of the origin of the first single-cell organism. > You don't see a distinction between life on another planet and supernatural phenomena...? My point is that insisting on it be…
>> what is the difference between an unknown alien life form and God as the origin of life, other than different starting assumptions? for one, we do know that there _are_ life forms.
I wouldn't trust anything from that website. That scientific journal sounds sketchy, too
It is at least, according to Elsevier, peer reviewed. * https://www.elsevier.com/journals/progress-in-biophysics-and...
I, for one, welcome our new cephalopod overlords.
Just my own perspective: as one who believes God is responsible for the origin, complexity, and diversity of life, this article makes me chuckle. The theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the major taxa of life really paints us into a corner from which it is difficult to wiggle out. In my opinion, the panspermia/alien origin hypothesis (and its persistence as an explanation in some respected circles)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he is controlled by "his nature", then it isn't HIS will.
But it is his will to remain self-consistent, i.e. he cannot change and has no desire to do so. God is entirely different from us in that there is no contradiction anywhere in his person, nature, or work.
Here is what I would like to understand: If there is any truth to the theory that Octopuses indeed evolved in outer space and were delivered to our planet via a cosmic payload, how is it that they happened to have the same kind of protein-based, DNA-based genetics like we have? Isn't it too much of a stretch to imagine that an alien evolved under similar conditions with similar genetic foundation like life evolved in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science tries its best to discover the correct explanation for phenomena, and accepts gaps in knowledge as a natural consequence of the ongoing nature of its pursuit of the truth. You are welcome to believe what you want, but you must understand that accepting faith-based explanations with zero supporting evidence is a fundamentally different sort of thing. Of course you think you have the answers, and that people st…
I'm not arguing with the scientific method, or the power of looking for natural explanations through experimentation. It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang…
Why speculate in the absence of real knowledge? Maybe some questions simply cannot be answered? Maybe some answers are simply beyond our reach for now? Faced with these gaps, If I'm going to get metaphysical, I'd sooner reach inwards than outwards.
> My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions.
Pretty vague, and I disagree in any case, I think—there seems to be a great difference between the two. One is based on phenomena we have directly observed (comets, life on Earth, etc.), and the other is not.
> Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.)
If you presuppose that "He" exists and work backwards from there, sure. Otherwise no, I don't think so. Willing to read more, if you write it.
The eventual babelfish trained using unsupervised alignment may make things like bird->human or octopus->human possible(or mycellial mass, if it turns out to be intelligent). I have a suspicion that in the future human-centric mono-species intelligence and consciousness assumptions will be tested, and the outcome may be similar to discovering other galaxies in terms of the impact on humanity's collective psyche.
I like the thought of humanity discovering other forms of consciousness, whole dimensions we never expected or imagined.
Complete sidebar: octopuses/squid are on my short list of "things in American diet I don't eat because they are too smart" (pigs being the other).
Due to the acidification of the ocean, there's an overpopulation of squid in the seas. It would actually be beneficial if people started eating more of them, because they're predators of other fish species that we ourselves are already overfishing. Note: I'm not an environmentalist, it is just something I noticed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is at least, according to Elsevier, peer reviewed. * https://www.elsevier.com/journals/progress-in-biophysics-and...
Every pseudo-scientific journal claims to be peer reviewed.
* https://www.bioc.cam.ac.uk/research/uto/blundell
* https://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/team/denis-noble
* http://www.herzzentrum.de/englisch/departments-sections/inst...