Breaking the Science Barrier

[Guest rattler]

There had to be a first cause for the matter in the universe. It had to come from somewhere and it's illogical to think that it just always existed. We call this prime cause God. Where did God come from? I don't know. Science won't tell me either.

Just my 2 cents. Handyman, you're not alone.

First published:

TJ 12(1):20–22

April 1998

by Jonathan Sarfati

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1

The universe has a beginning.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

And around it goes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

[Mitch Cronin]

The bigger problem that risks getting lost in all of that... is that there are a great many folks out there who are clearly ignorant of science, what we have learned from it, and it's future value.

Some of those folks wind up in powerful places.

That's frightening.

[Guest rattler]

Mitch seems that most in Canada side with you:

Canada http://www.catholic.org/international/inte...ry.php?id=24747

A recent Canadian Press-Decima Research Poll shows Canadians are divided on the role God played – or did not play – in the creation of humans.

Advertisement

But that does not mean the Intelligent Design controversy raging in the United States will come to Canada.

According to the poll released July 3, 26 percent of Canadians believe “that God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so,” while 34 percent said “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.” Another 29 percent say God “played no part.”

“These results reflect an essential Canadian tendency: we are pretty secular but pretty hesitant to embrace atheism,” said Decima Chief Executive Officer Bruce Anderson. “Our views on the role of science and spirituality lack consensus but these are not polarizing issues for the most part.”

but south of the 49th http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/F...w/evolution.htm

[Timothy]

Mitch - excellent point concerning ignorance of science by the masses.

I admit the Church is as guilty as anyone when it comes to raising money. The commercialism found in many churches is sad. I even find it in my own parrish.

However, the point I was trying to make is that what Dawkins is doing is not "science" and should not be construed as such.

In the final analysis we either believe in God through our faith, or we don't. The existence of God is not a question to be addressed by science.

[handyman]

Re making money by peddling ideas. My devil advocates role can not stop from pointing out the role of money raising in the name of religion. Everything from bingo, to tithes, to collection baskets at every service etc etc etc. Money does make the world go round.

Big religion is all about big money so to call down the other side because of fund raising, seems to be a bit one sided.

It's easy to paint all religions with a single stroke but it's also far from accurate. Many Church's abuse the collection of tithes but many also provide for the needy in their own community and abroad supporting missionaries.

Are non-religious people against this? The same people that would risk their lives for a bird or a tree but not support the feeding of people near and afar?

Bottom line, there are good people and extreme hypocrites on both sides of the fence.

[Mitch Cronin]

there are good people and extreme hypocrites on both sides of the fence.

Abso-flippin'-lutely!

...and the same response to you, Timothy for: "The existence of God is not a question to be addressed by science."

...didya hear 'bout all the planets they've managed to see 'round other stars now? ... it's only a matter of time before evidence of life elsewhere is seen somehow... I hope I live to see that day.

[J.O.]

Re making money by peddling ideas.  My devil advocates role can not stop from pointing out the role of money raising in the name of religion.  Everything from bingo,  to tithes,  to collection baskets at every service etc etc etc.  Money does make the world go round.

Big religion is all about big money so to call down the other side because of fund raising, seems to be a bit one sided. 

Exactly! BTW, rattler, if you'd call the billions of dollars worth of buildings, art works and rare publications in the Vatican "fund raising", then I would like you to prepare my next tax return for me. We'd both make out like gangbusters.

I realize that not all churches have the assets that the Vatican and some of the televangelists in the US have amassed. And many of those churches that are less "rich", are far more "rich" when it comes to the good they do in their own communities.

[Don Hudson]

Timothy;

What Richard Dawkins does is indeed science. He is clinically, scrupulously scientific. That he writes books and does videos has been dealt with in other posts but to be clear, he is a scientist, doing science first - then a writer. Paul Davies, Robyn Williams, (Australian science writers/broadcasters) do the same.

The existence of God is not a question to be addressed by science.

Actually, it is, just as investigation of other paranormal claims, ie, the existence of something that can't be seen or proven, is a question for scientific enquiry. Some very harmful things have been done in the name of things that can't be seen, heard, touched or proven. We ought to have learnt something in the past 2000+ years.

As a scientist, Dawkins asks a legitimate, fair question: Why is religion any more special or different than such claims?

Please bear in mind this isn't about personal faith in a personal god. One cannot know what goes on in another's mind and what's more, that is that person's business until it affects others in a harmful way.

Religious rules demands that we act on very serious human and moral issues based upon ideas which are completely devoid of any substantive evidence. It asks us to believe those who claim they are the "annointed" and call themselves priests, and who receive messages from god and who act upon those messages. Sarah Palin believes in an Armageddon. Isn't that a serious thing for a potential leader to believe in and isn't that worth asking questions about?

But religion asks us to do this on faith, without thinking, without examining, without considering consequences. That may have suited what people knew a thousand years ago but it most certainly doesn't suit people today. I play the pipe organ on a regular basis, (yes, I love sacred music as well as Bach and other composers for the organ) and I know that in the church I practise in the numbers are dwindling as the old folks die off - whatever religion is today, it isn't relevant and it merely shuts the door when challenged or uses yeah-buts as comebacks or simply grows angry when questioned. That is why I find the notion of "heresy", a religious term, so fascinating. I think people are looking far beyond religion for answers to the meaning of life and are finding religion a violent, intolerant and increasingly foreign place to dwell.

When someone asks everybody else to believe in something that is wholly undemonstrable, ephemeral and privately informed but nevertheless "real" and starts asking for money in order for one to enter the kingdom of heaven, for arms to fight non-believers with, that heals incurable diseases with a slap across the forehead, that teaches that blood transfusions are evil no matter how young or old, or that AIDS is god's punishment for homosexuality, it is time to ask some serious questions about those claims and to dispense with the traditional "hands-off" approach that such questions usually engender.

Because people follow on blind faith, religion has brought more harm, nor discontent and more tragedy than non-belief will ever bring because the latter is inherently passive. The mandates against birth-control are responsible for more millions of needless deaths through heterosexual AIDS - where is was religion's compassion and enlightenment in such a church ruling?

I think these are serious questions which religion must attend to. One cannot at once, embrace and tell others of a caring god and yet dismiss what has been done to others in the name of god, with a "yes, sometimes religion is not what we think it should be". Further, it is illogical that a loving, living god could account for what the world is and how it is made.

For over 2000 years, the answer is always, people of faith are trying to make things better but so are people who simply do the work without a thought towards a greater being. An absence of belief, (not atheism, which, after all, requires the existence of religion to be atheistic about), does not preclude one's profound and graceful behaviour in the face of a miraculous universe and all that this tiny home presents to life on and beneath it's surfaces. I think more than ever, people are taking a look around and asking some very serious, pertinent questions about what religion has done in the name of blind faith, and those questions deserve serious responses which cannot be answered by invoking personal faith alone.

I offer this with a personal respect as a fellow traveller - while these must not be pleasant questions, they are nevertheless legitimate in the dialog of the "long line".

[Croc Dundee]

It's easy to paint all religions with a single stroke but it's also far from accurate.  Many Church's abuse the collection of tithes but many also provide for the needy in their own community and abroad supporting missionaries. 

One thing, among many, that really ticks me about some religions are the role of missionaries. They market themselves as "do-gooders", helping the less fortunate, however their main objective is to save the savages from themselves and promote their own religion. They are the sales people of religion and do everything possible to convert peoples from all corners of the earth instead of leaving them alone and letting them believe what they want to believe. Many primitive cultures have been destroyed by these people, which is the exact opposite of what a compassionate, understanding and caring people should do. If you want to improve their lives, I am all for providing clean drinking water, shelter and food (the necesseties of life), but why try to change their beliefs?

[Timothy]

Don.

I have the utmost respect for your posts on matters related to aviation. You obviously have the experience and write very well on this topic. However, I cannot accept your position on religious matters.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. It is not meant as such. It's your opinions to which I object, not your person. We obviously have quite different opinions on religion and, as stated on a previous post, a person's belief in God is a matter of faith. Many have this faith which is manifested in various religions, not just the Christian religion which I profess. Others do not share the faith. It is also apparent that many atrocities have been committed through the ages in the name of religion. No one defends these atrocities and those who committed them will one day have to answer for them. There are good and bad in all walks of life and the religious life has its fair share of both.

Both Christians and Jews base their faith on the Bible which for over two thousand years has been considered to be the word of God. The Jewish people use the Old Testament whereas the Christians use both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible, however, cannot be read as a novel. Rather, it must be studied and the words put into the context in which it was written. Those who try to live according to the precepts found in the Bible have done much good in the world. Many hospitals in Canada were founded by religious orders of Catholic nuns, to name just one example.

We all have to follow the dictates of our own conscience. Mine was formed by my Catholic faith and the teachings of the Bible. It was that conscience that caused me to return to the US and enlist in the Army during the Viet Nam war rather than remain in Canada as a draft dodger. (I was here as a landed immigrant long before the draft came after me.) We need some standard by which to lead our lives. That presented to us by the "world" today is sadly lacking. My faith and that of most Christians is definitely not "blind".

Don - your views on religion are simply not accurate. Whether or not you have a belief in God is your business and I'm not trying to change that. God does not need me to defend Him and I am definitely not the best person to speak for him. However, I did have to reply to your post. I wish you well but I stand by my view that the existence of God is not a matter to be addressed by science (or by Richard Dawkins).

[Don Hudson]

Timothy;

I very much appreciate your reply to my post. I don't view your response as a personal "attack" - not at all...I thank you for taking the time to compose it. That said, a minor point if I may, and again I know this is not personal !, - "objecting to my views" may not be quite the way you meant it? "Objecting to views" would mean that there are "correct" and "incorrect", accurate and inaccurate views not just for oneself but for everybody, and that is for me one of many issues with religion that I have - an abiding inclusivity and exclusivity. I don't "object" to your views at all - I respect them as held and know that millions hold views in concert with your own.

Raised in a Baptist then Protestant home I understand the Old and New Testaments and keep a copy of the NIV at hand but I never could understand the church's ways and never found a home because I was, and still am unable to permit an unquestioning approach to that which religion has offered as a world view.

As I said in my response, personal views are not being discussed because they do not "implore" or force themselves on others and until they do, the issue is, for me, live and let live. It is religion itself, as institutionalized within society, that I wished to discuss. I didn't expect to change your views but wanted nevertheless to explore what I think are religion's very serious issues today. Again, my thanks and I in turn wish you well, Timothy.

[Canus Chinookus]

handyman;

Most of the argument you're making against evolutionary fact is a rehash of the argument from personal incredulity - that life itself, (cells, the atmosphere, DNA) is so complex that it couldn't have emerged on it's own and therefore needs a creator. The origin of life is NOT a big problem for evolutionists. We know how DNA began, just as we know how "the complicated organ of the eye" began. It's just not a scientific mystery - it's there for anyone with the desire to know and learn, and there is a very big downside to faith that I'll get to in a moment.

The complexity of the substances of life do not prove that there is a creator. They only prove that life, in all it's complexity, evolved.

In fact, given the existence of real monsters and not the imaginary kind of childhood dreams - Hitler, Amin, et al and the mess that is the human body and the fact that the human body is itself a veritable virus factory for life, and given the fact that it took over 3 billion years just to get to this messy stage of life of bad backs, uncontrolled cell reproduction, appendixes, blindness, disease, and a war-like nature, I don't think the term "intelligent" applies to the "design" at all !

In my view and the view of most, (except the majority of Americans who also believe in a literal devil and heaven as a physical place), the rest is done on blind and demonstrably ignorant faith. Ignorant, because all of what you claim to be "difficult to prove scientifically" has been dealt with decades ago and falls easily to hand for anyone with an open mind, some patience and some time to read.

Evolutionary facts do not deny a god. They just don't prove a god. Evolutionary facts relegate such statements as those you to which you refer, to the realm of faith - and as such are well outside the realm of knowledge about the universe. Many scientists, some famous, have a strong faith. Such faith means nothing, scientifically. It only means they have a strong faith. As such, we each may believe as we will, but don't try to make the magic leap from complexity to "god exists". We are well beyond that with present knowledge.

The notion of intelligent design, far from being a theory of how life began, is a quasi-religious political movement which has the intention of taking and retaining power for the religious right. That fact is as plain as both historical and present events demonstrate. The teaching of ID in U.S. schools, at least in enlightened regions, is correctly prohibited in science classes but that doesn't mean that the supporters of ID aren't lobbying school boards to teach ID as an "alternative scientific view" which it most certainly is not, despite what Sarah Palin says.

The Discovery Institute is the formal press agent in charge of marketing Intelligent Design, a variation intended to mask the notion's creationist sources and beginnings, mainly to the U.S., Australian and in some regions, the Canadian educational system. The site, very sophisticated in presentation, actually reads like a potpourri of political diatribes and squirrely logic similar to the stuff scientology, (which started out as a dare to Ron Hubbard that he couldn't create a new religion), dishes out and the crap handed out in "Awake" pamphlets - all this beside the point.

You deny you're related to trees?

It is scientific fact that we share over 98% of our genes with chimps, slightly less with pigs and horses, 50% with bananas and more than a few with pond scum.

Many ask the question, as if the question itself "proves" or at least hearkens to "god", "If god isn't in the genes, then what is the point of it all?" The question is a non-sequitur - the point of it all IS, what we make of it, and, at this present second in our very short history in the universe, we have the capacity to snuff it all out in an earth-heartbeat.

I said I'd discuss a serious, humanity-wide problem with faith in a benevolent creator. The notion of faith and the notion of "god" are, in fact, dangerous ones because it frees mankind to do as he will to the earth and god will fix it or at least save us, or at least save "special" people. What nonsense! We frighten ourselves silly into believing that "infidels" will be erradicated while "believers" will be saved. Religions of all kinds are full of this ignorant meme. This time, according to Sarah Palin's church anyway, believers will be save in Alaska. In a perverse way, we have "god" to thank for her failure to be elected.

Intelligent Design is as mendacious a theory as can be cooked up by a nefarious group who desire power, not believers. Scientific knowledge of how sex is determined (X,Y chromosomes, as we know...or do we all...?), indicates that the children of "virgin births" are, logically of course, female...ergo...

That doesn't mean Christ did not exist. It just means that scientific knowledge of today - what is real and predictable - clashes with and loses to ancient mythologies which still control much of what 47% of Americans think, if statistics are to be believed...

If we wish to remain within "received mythologies", that faith is a personal choice and I would never deny that there are many good, personal, human reasons for deciding thus.

But in terms of a species, and we are all members with the power to change things, (despite the fact that neoliberal thought is stealing our democracies from us), the sooner we ditch the notion that we are special and that by following religious leaders and their snakeoil we will somehow continue to flourish safely behind mythological skirts when all else is in ashes and ruins on our tiny home in the universe, the sooner we may begin to increase our chances of that very survival.

There you go, Handyman. I recommend that next time you do the rosary, instead of doing the station, just reread what Don has posted, maybe it'll sink in!

[Timothy]

Good morning Don. Your reply is much appreciated. It might be best to leave things where they stand with a feeling of mutual respect. If you ever get to Ottawa or Toronto it would be my pleasure to buy you a coffee or beer and resume the discussion.

Perhaps someone would like to start a thread about the problems with the A320 nosewheel.

[thinair]

Thank God for Evolution!

[Don Hudson]

Timothy;

If you ever get to Ottawa or Toronto it would be my pleasure to buy you a coffee or beer and resume the discussion.

I do and that would be great - will coordinate details next time I'm there.

best

Don

[DEFCON]

Mitch

In “fact”, evolution is an immature & developing science based on a “theory” proposed by Darwin. Darwin dedicated his life to the development of his theory. Bottom line, evolution is clearly, good science but remains nonetheless, a work in progress.

Dawkins, by analogy, isn't much different than the minister of a modern church. If you wish, you are free to "believe" in the "word of Dawkins"? Alternatively, one can step back and acknowledge; regardless of his musings, Dawkins remains incapable of presenting “scientific proof” to support his contention that God is the fictitious creation of the weak & mortal creature known as man. In other words, it’s Dawkins style to paint the God fearing man in “naïve” while remaining incapable of offering any credible substantiation relative to the “origin” of our conscious being?

If it’s your intention to suggest organized religion is frequently more than a little out of touch or date with the modern world, I would agree.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting, Dawkins, Sagan and others of like mind have or are offering absolute proof or truth of their “God’s grand theme”, I couldn’t disagree more.

[Maverick]

Thank God for Evolution!

I'm an atheist, swear to god!

Love it!

[DEFCON]

Don

"We know how DNA began"

We do?

[handyman]

Don

"We know how DNA began"

We do?

I had the same question but didn't bother to ask. These so called atheists read something from Dawkins etc and then use it as scientific evidence or proof. They will only know how wrong they are when it's too late.

Flame away you religious haters.

[Guest rattler]

Trust me, Agnostics don't hate those with strong religious beliefs but we do enjoy debating them in pursuit of what might be the truth. We also tend to believe those at either end of the religion stick (believers and atheists) have yet to prove their case.

[Mitch Cronin]

In “fact”, evolution is an immature & developing science based on a “theory” proposed by Darwin. Darwin dedicated his life to the development of his theory. Bottom line, evolution is clearly, good science but remains nonetheless, a work in progress.

Dawkins, by analogy, isn't much different than the minister of a modern church. If you wish, you are free to "believe" in the "word of Dawkins"? Alternatively, one can step back and acknowledge; regardless of his musings, Dawkins remains incapable of presenting “scientific proof” to support his contention that God is the fictitious creation of the weak & mortal creature known as man. In other words, it’s Dawkins style to paint the God fearing man in “naïve” while remaining incapable of offering any credible substantiation relative to the “origin” of our conscious being?

If it’s your intention to suggest organized religion is frequently more than a little out of touch or date with the modern world, I would agree.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting, Dawkins, Sagan and others of like mind have or are offering absolute proof or truth of their “God’s grand theme”, I couldn’t disagree more.

Defcon.... I've gotta tell you your credibility is wanting with me... I'm still learning, but since our last discussion I've been watching as many lectures as I can on quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and string theory, and so far, I haven't found even what could have confused you into saying that according to string theory your keyboard, or any other object, doesn't exist. "reference string theory and get back to me" remember that?

So now you'd have me believe evolution is an "immature and developing science"... Well, every science is "developing", but that doesn't mean nothing has been learned. Yes, science can't ever say anything is 100 percent proved, but that doesn't stop the rest of us from saying we know some things, like how an engine works, for example... Darwin's thing was "Natural Selection" wasn't it?... Isn't there much more to evolution than that?

So again you're trying to tell me a scientist is no different than a preacher... What can I say... I think if you really believe that, you mustn't have any idea what science is. The "word" (as you put it) of the scientist means little, it's his work (that will be reviewed by his peers) that either supports a thesis, or it doesn't. So far, by the way, no science has disproved evolution... all challenges have been met and passed. ... so don't hold your breath if you're waiting for it to be disproved.

You'll never find any good scientist telling you he has absolute proof of anything. That alone seperates them from preachers, doesn't it!?

I think Timothy is right: The existence of God is not a question to be addressed by science. However, unlike any church I'm aware of, those who don't believe in science still get to reap it's rewards.

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON:

Dawkins and hundreds of other writers discussing evolution are nowhere near "like preachers", first because what they say is always open to question and demonstration which they do not fail at satisfying in terms of enquiry. The accusation or assumption that when something isn't "complete" that it is faulty is bad science and worse thinking - it's a standard argument employed by believers in "intelligent" design to say that the eye must have been made "perfectly" the first time, to work. Well, anyone with glasses or partial blindness can put the lie to that claim - partial eyes work very well as we all know. So do imperfect theories which is much more than religious dogma can demonstrate.

In examining science and the origins of life, it is crucial to keep in mind that everything is said by an observer and that a "conduct of enquiry" has it's own pace and language hopefully which invites a larger community than those which embrace specialized languages. The language of spirituality does not and cannot account for observation, QED, so there can be, though not necessarily, a disconnect in world views. It depends upon how "the commons" is constructed and then kept going by appreciation and congeniality. These subjects clearly suffer from an inordinate sense of being threatened.

On "knowing" the origin of DNA, I am rightfully taken to task in what I said, in the sense that one cannot point to the beginning of DNA and it's predecessor RNA in the same way that one can point to the beginning of bacterial life itself, about 3.5 billion years ago. Fossil evidence for the earliest forms of such "life" exists in the Gunflint Iron Formation of Ontario and in the "Warrawoona Series on northwestern Australia for example. Such "life forms" were prokaryotic - no nucleus. Cells evolved much later and have nuclei and are called eukaryotes. Pretty elementary stuff.

Both complexity and the inability to make more than statistical assumptions of the character of physical law which governs the "behaviour of life" at the atom level, (Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Maynard etc) means that one cannot describe how DNA "came about on Day One" as one might describe how, say, a 747 "comes about". That does not mean that the project is a failure, (even as such failure may suspend curiosity and be taken anyway as "evidence of same).

A very good general discussion on this question may be viewed here, at the usual place. A far more detailed discussion on theories may be accessed here. Erwin Schrödinger published a summary of his "lectures delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institude for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin, February 1943, called "What is Life". Though difficult for non-phyics and non-mathematics students, it is celebrated even today as an important contribution to the question about the origin of life. There is a 50th Anniversary book called, "What is Life? the Next Fifty Years, issued in celebration of Schrödinger's 1944 book with contributions by many evolutionary biologists and scientists. It may be found here.

I apologize that this isn't a direct response but clearly, bandwidth and general interest would be issues for a forum format.

Such notions as:

- RNA formation began in with elementary proteins in prokaryotic "life", (bacteria),

- evolution from anerobic to aerobic cells in cyanobacteria,

- aerobic organisms which produced the poisonous gas oxygen,

- symbiosis producing eukaryotic cells by combining RNA from which subsequent complexity arose,

point to areas of exploration in responding to the question you asked. This isn't satisfactory at all I know, but for those who desire a follow-up, there are some areas of rewarding work.

[YYC I/C]

I had the same question but didn't bother to ask. These so called atheists read something from Dawkins etc and then use it as scientific evidence or proof. They will only know how wrong they are when it's too late.

I don't want to speak for Don but I would venture to bet he would identify himself as an agnostic and not an aetheist. Philosophically speaking, being aetheist requires blind faith as well.

I'm an aethesit leaning agnostic....some times referred to as Tooth-Fairy Agnostic. But certainly not aetheist.

Trust me, Agnostics don't hate those with strong religious beliefs but we do enjoy debating them in pursuit of what might be the truth. We also tend to believe those at either end of the religion stick (believers and atheists) have yet to prove their case.

Agreed Rattler.

[Say Again, Over!]

Whoa! I'm sick for 3 days and look what happens here!

It's funny how we all interpret the scientific data available to us isn't it? Because that's where it lies. Evolutionists claim to be purely scientific while ridiculing any religous idea as anti-science. On the other side of the spectrum, some scientists interpret the data differently and call the evolutionists "wishful thinkers".

When I look at the world around me, there's no question in my mind... God does exist!

Don, I looked at your description of early life on earth and it falls so short of answering the question. Here's just a short paragraph from the wiki page on "binary fission" the process by which prokaryotic cells "reproduce":

Binary fission begins with DNA replication. DNA replication starts from an origin of replication, which opens up into a replication bubble (note: prokaryotic DNA replication usually has only 1 origin of replication, whereas eukaryotes have multiple origins of replication). The replication bubble separates the DNA double strand, each strand acts as template for synthesis of a daughter strand by semiconservative replication, until the entire prokaryotic DNA is duplicated.

After this replicational process, cell growth occurs.

Each circular DNA strand then attaches to the cell membrane. The cell elongates, causing the two chromosomes to separate.

Cell division in bacteria is controlled by the septal ring, a collection of about a dozen proteins that collect around the site of division. There, they direct assembly of the division septum. The cell wall and plasma membrane starts growing transversely from near the middle of the dividing cell. This separates the parent cell into two nearly equal daughter cells, each having a nuclear body [1]

The cell membrane then invaginates (grows inwards) and splits the cell into two daughter cells, separated by a newly grown cell plate.

You're perfectly happy to believe this process all happened by chance. It couldn't have evolved to that since reproduction is essential to any form of evolution or natural selection. So this highly intricate, beautiful system to divide itself had to appear spontaneously in a cell and go from there. Do you realize how absurd that sounds to me?... and other believers?

You claim "Random Chance did it!" and you keep on looking into the beauty of it.

I claim "God did it!" and I, and believing scientists the world over, keep on looking into the beauty of it.

You see the evidence and claim it all happened by chance.

I see the evidence and say someone made this. Or at least designed it, right?

Why, because I believe in God, would I be accused of being anti-science? Would not your belief in "Random Chance" be the same thing? Doesn't "Random Chance" become your "god"?

Hey, "Random Chance did it!"

Food for thought. And sign me up for that coffee deal if you're ever in YUL. Heck, I'll go meet you and Timothy in YOW!

Respectfully,

Felix

As a P.S. I find it ironic, as a "pro-life" guy, to hear those prokaryotic cells from 3.5B years ago refered to as life when our own scientists can't agree on when a foetus composed of millions of more advanced cells is alive...

[Don Hudson]

Felix;

Post excised because the discussion needs to be far broader and collegial.