Redshirt, I know full well that you were asking what may take was on the origin of life. It should have been evident that I do not know exactly how life got here, so my best strategy is to speculate on whether it is possible. I thought that you were implying that an outside force must have been responsible. Otherwise, why ask me the question? If you didn't want an "evaluation of God", what did you want? Besides, I cannot (and will not) "evaluate" something which does not exist. You're bending the English language here.

I'm not the oracle of wisdom on the origins of life. I'm just as much in the dark as the everyone else. Logic is not the only way to view the universe, but at the moment it is the best way, so all I can do is speculate. I take some offense to the insinuation that I'm "injecting religion into science". Just where do you get that idea from!!!  I oppose religion, with the greatest severity. If you cannot see this, then something troubling has occurred.

Also, I'd use some caution when making the "out of context" claim. I did not strip down your words to such an extent that your sentences lose meaning. I agree that context is important, but it is not that important. I've debated with christians and muslims many times, and the "cry to context" is one of their favourite refrains. Do not fall into the same trap as they have. The christians and muslims have used context to excuse all sorts of murderous verses. Not only that, but they ignore context at the times that it actually does matter! You'll only induce laughter from me if you claim I quoted you out of context. If you are going to type something using your computer, you must be prepared to defend it, and you must also be prepared to have your sentences chopped into pieces for examination. Maybe you could provide some examples of where I have "misinterpreted" your words.

You also seem to hint that I am lauding my subject specialisation over you. I would never do such a thing, and besides I principally believe that knowledge is to be shared and explained, not used to act as a superior. I mentioned my background to show you why perhaps I say some things that sound technical, and to illustrate that it is useful (if not imperative) to have scientific knowledge before you even begin to ask where we came from.

Finally, perhaps you could look right back to the beginning of the topic, where I told all what my intention was. I was hoping that someone woud seriously try to provide some evidence that there is a God, and refute the information in the links I provided. Of course, this does not mean I don't want to discuss other things, but when you asked for my take on how life got here, what was I to think? I obviously thought you were going ahead with the irreducible complexity charge, attempting to "prove" there's a God. I'm still fascinated to know exactly where you stand on the matter. Instead of asking a vague quaetion which nobody has the knowhow to answer, perhaps you could clarify your position for me.

As to my position, you must realise that I cannot prove that GOd does not exist, but I can illustrate that it's ludicrous to suggest it. How did life come from lifeless molecules? Who knows? I certainly don't. Dom doesn't. Richard Dawkins doesn't. So, why are you asking me?     

Hi Redshirt. Can I begin by saying that, despite what you say, I try not to criticise anyone's actual grammar, as that would be unkind, as we all have varying strengths. I assume you mean the structure of your sentences. I agree with several of the things you say, as I have a clearer (but still unclearish) idea of your view, so I will only address points I disagree with.


Fair enough here, but I still wouldn't say that I compare science and religion side by side. In my view they are unworthy of comparison. Science is not (believe it or not) our understanding of the universe, but a methodology for understanding it. Religion does not even have a methodology, except perhaps allowing the Bible to interpret itself, which is circular reasoning. The main reason I harp on about religion so much is because it has been thrust into the limelight recently, and because I believe it is a threat to reason and dangerous. Frankly, I'm perplexed about how something without substance has become so widespread, but I guess the reasons are historical.


I don't actually strictly believe that science will one day explain the universe, but it may one day happen. Yes, I said that science is not the only way to view the universe, but my point was that it is by far the best way. It is possible that in a few centuries it will be supplanted by a better way. One thing I know for certain: spirituality and mysticism are not good methods by which to explain the universe. I'd rather have no answers than all the wrong ones. Also, I cannot possibly be opposed to your view of the universe because I'm not sure what your view is. If you have the handle on the meaning of life, please, seriously, let me know right away.

Sure, science is a long way off, but at least it's moving in the right directiong, using a genuine epirical approach which for now is an excellent way to find real answers. Are there some things that science cannot explain? Your question makes science sound like a person in a white lab coat. Science is not any sort of personification, but a method of doing things. There is no reason to believe that the method fails for incredibly complex problems, and it has never failed even in very weird quantum theories which defy common sense. We have to learn to walk before we can run, so addressing questions of the unknown must be limited to the next rung on the ladder, not twleve steps up.


In all honesty most of my "ideas" on how complexity might have arisen out of simple molecules are in another thread (called Please Explain I think), so I thought it best not to repeat them here. I engage this idea mainly from a physics and entropy perspective. You might find it interesting to have a read, and it falls better into my subject area than a biological approach.


I don't think your knowledge is insufficent, but, perhaps, I did not understand your presentation. I'm not usually misunderstood in a post because I go to great pains to express myself clearly (that's why my posts can be annoyingly long). It's easy to be misunderstood online so I do lots of italics, stuff like that. But I would never attack someone for their use of English, as that would be unfair. I agree that it is possible to use intelligence to knoeck down other's arguments, but I can only ask you to trust me that I would never do that. I will always nod my head to hard proof and rigorous, watertight arguments. If I knock down arguments easily, it is because the arguments are weak, not because I am strong. The truth always stands up to test.


Science can never get close at all to the reality of an infinite God (by definition). However, it can get closer to finite truths, and each time we understand our place in cosmology we are uncovering more of the truth of our existence. Is this in a theological setting? I honestly don't know. But we should not assume by default that a being exists. I know that you say you choose to believe a promise, but I cannot do that unless I trust the source of that promise. I used to trust the bible, until I read it in detail. Even if that God exists, I do not want to worship him. Perhaps one day a benevolent God will reveal himself, in which case I will wholehearted;y put my trust in his promise. I will pm you my e-mail address shortly, and you are more than welcome to use it (it's also my IM address).