Fandom Forums

Fandom Forums (
-   Debates Section (
-   -   Science or God? (

Mal 03-09-2005 05:58 PM

Science or God?
Which do you believe in/trust/whatever and why? I personally believe in God because I've looked at the available evidence and feel it indicates a plan and a creator instead of chance and "organized chaos".

Edit: We are now mainly debating Creation and Evolution, so here is the new question:
Do you believe in God (Creation) or Science (Evolution), is responsible for the formation of the universe and the beginning of life? Why do you believe one over the other?

toma24135 03-09-2005 06:22 PM

what evidence do you have that supports the idea of a creator?
And why do you believe that scientific evidence "indicates a plan"

Mal 03-09-2005 06:37 PM

I find it hard to belive that matter came from nothing (except for the possiblility of a pre-existing mass of energy, but where'd that come from?), and even if that was possible, for life to come unliving matter? You can't create something from nothing. And if a simple life form was able to somehow be created, how could it have evolved? Seeing as how evolution implies the development of previously non-existant information, were did this genetic information come from?

For God, however, no laws the He created apply to Him. He isn't bound by time, space, gravity or anything. He was never created, He always has existed, and He always will exist.

toma24135 03-09-2005 07:13 PM

Well truthfully scientists don't know how exactly everything came to exist, there are some theories that say if one adds up all the matter and energy in the universe you get zero so the universe could have come from nothing, although that is just a theory and not proven yet.

now onto fact. Life coming from non-life. In the 1950 a experiment was preformed (which has been reproduced many times) called the Miller/Urey Experiment. In this experiment they basically took non organic molecules CH4 (methane), NH3 (ammonia) H2 (hydrogen) and H2O (water) and put them under similar conditions that the earth was under around 4 billion years ago. They also created electrical sparks in the container to simulate lightning. After a few weeks this setup produced organic compounds, including some amino acids. Now this is over the matter of a one week, if this experiment was allowed to go on for longer it is possible that even more organic compounds could have come from it.

So now we have organic compounds, well we obviously arn't at cellular life yet, so what now. Well basically what is needed next is a molecule that can self replicate using the materials in its environment. It is theorized that the first molecule to do this (note just because this part is theory tht doesn't mean that all of evolution is a theory) was RNA or something very similar to it. The first RNA molecule being made by the random chemical interactions.

OK, so now we have a self replicating molecule, (I won't go into how we believe the first cells were made, because its not important in this context) so we want to know how it can become more complicated and evolve. This is where random mutation comes into play. Lets say that due to a chemical reaction something happens to our rna that makes it less likely to survive, while another rna molecule has a chemical reaction that helps it. (note there will also be many changes that don't do much of anything). Well obviously the one with the benefit will survive over the one with the disadvantage. So we start a trend where beneficial mutations help the molecule survive and as these mutations occur it gets more and more complicated and so on. Remember this is happening over a period of billions of years, so sure the chances of all this happening are small, but its over a very long time.

So that is the basic theory of how life came to exist. Now yes I did call this theory, because there is no way that one can know for sure how the very first molecule and cell were formed. Although the ideas of evolution (ie change through random mutation, and survival of the fittest) are proven facts and there is a huge amount of fossil and genetic evidence that can show evolution over a course of millions of years. This means that we know that life on earth has been evolving, and the theory for the start of life that I talked about in the beginning is a theory that has evidence and follows along with evolution which we know to be true.

Mal 03-09-2005 08:39 PM

Funny you should mention the Miller/Urey experiment. The atmosphere that Miller used to simulate the "early earth" atmosphere was a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapour. Modern scientists now believe that the earth's atmosphere was actually made mostly of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapour. Infact, it was in the 1970s that Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was already declaring that the Miller/Urey theory of the early atmosphere "has been abandoned". under those conditions you would get nothing similar to amino acids. Modern text books cover this up by saying "You still get organic molecules". However, these "organic molecules" are things like Cyanide and Formaldehyde. If you are unfamiliar with what Formaldehyde does, I think you should know that it is so toxic that it's fumes alone fry proteins and kill embryos. Doesn't sound like life-friendly stuff to me.

Even if amino acids are formed, you then have to get the exact number of the correct amino acids to link in the correct from to link up to form a protein molecule. After that, you'd need dozens of protein molecules (again, in the correct sequence) to form a living cell. This may sound rather simple but the odds against it are astronomical. Imagine putting a sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. Then put in a living cell and poke a hole in it so it's contents leak into the solution. You now have all the molecules you need to make life, right? You've already accomplished more than Miller did. Only, the thing is, you can't make a living cell. The cell is now dead and it's like trying to make a rock fall up all the way to the moon.

Furthermore, even if you are able to get life, never does any mutation of any kind ever provide a living organism with any more information. For example, imagine there is a type of beetle (with wings) living in a certain area. This area becomes uninhabitable so the beetle population moves, one half more inland, the other to a small island off the coast. Let's say that, after years of mutation, the island population of beetles no longer has their wings because whenever they tried to fly, they were blown out to sea by the strong winds. Due to this, only the beetles with missing or deformed wings survived to breed. On the other hand, the inland population retains their wings. So, the island beetle's adapted to their surroundings, but they gained no extra genetic information.

toma24135 03-09-2005 10:06 PM

first of all cyanide and formaldehyde are not the only things that were created and also are not poisonions to all life. For example cynaide is a neuro toxin, do you really think that a neuro toxin would affect things like bacteria. I am not sure exactly how formaldehyde is poisonous although "fry proteins" doesn't sound very technical and I doubt it could destroy all proteins and i don't think bacteria would care about embryos. Also yes it is true that there was alot of carbon monoxide in the air back then, but the gasses they had in the container were in the atmosphere back then. the point of the experiment was to proove that these molecules could be created in conditions that would be found. Adding more gasses would have made it take longer, and the scientists didn't want to wait a billion years or so for these thigns to form.

Also as for the cell argeument. Scientists arn't saying it all happened in one event. A very simple molecule formed first, and then it changed and became more complicated. As for making a cell itself, ie. the idea of membranes inside of membranes. the method for which this is believed to have happened isn't very complicated. Cell membranes are made up mostly of a bunch of molecules (forgot their name) which have a hydrophobic and a hydrophillic end. if these molecules are allowd to sit in water they will form a sphere with the hydrophobic end inside. One can actually se this happen and it doesn't take very long.

your salt example doesn't actually mean anything, sorry.

As for the beetle, yes they adapted, through mutation. Their genes mutated so that they would no longer grow wings. Your idea of treating genetic code as information for making stuff that has to be "learned" is flawed. For example if you created a computer program that would randomly create letters eventually you would get patterns that would be words and maybe even a sentence. Lets say that after a period of time the computer says "the pen is red". Just by chance. and there is a red pen. The computer didn't learn anything, although it is correct.

That may have been a bad analogy although my point is this. it is not like the flies ancestors (before wings developed) had to "know" how to make wings for their species to evolve to create them. Random mutations with small changes created something like for example some of their legs flattened. Then further mutations made the flat area bigger and moved the leg up and it eventually became wings, although the main point is that every mutation on the way to becomming wings benifited the flies a little bit (prehaps they could jump farther). Now of course I don't know if flies legs actually turned into wings in this manner, this is just an example.

The truth is that all scientific facts at the very least make sense because they are based on logic and evidence. The only way that one could disprove something that is considered to be fact is for them to supply evidence that proves it to be incorrect. Now I don't know everything so who knows maybe you will be able to trick me, but even if i can't answer somethign you say that doesn't make science wrong. (just a note for the future of this conversation)

Also a personal side note, just if you are curious. If I could choose between religion and what science says. as in my decision would determine what is actually true. I would choose religion.

DarkAztek 03-10-2005 06:59 PM

Science is something a person can place trust in, no matter what... Religion is different. It's called faith for a reason... It cannot really be proved or anything.

Mal 03-10-2005 08:51 PM

Science is indeed something that can be trusted for the most part, I just don't agree with the entire theory of evolution. Faith is a word that I like a lot more than "religion", and I agree entirely that the existance of God is imposible to prove or disprove, I merely find it to be more believable.

Sorry for being unable to reply to your post toma24135, but I am short on time at the moment.

Tom 03-10-2005 09:30 PM

Science, me=atheist

godzilla-j 03-10-2005 10:11 PM

science i guess because with science u can prove wats real and not . i uess thATS y id rather use science

willy101 03-10-2005 10:14 PM

i would have to say god cuz theres sumthings that science doesnt answer oso god was probably created to make ppl feel secure or so they say i dun believ dat tho

LightDreamer 03-10-2005 10:27 PM


Quoting DarkAztec. Ever heard of blind faith? ;)

toma24135 03-10-2005 11:07 PM

It is indeed true that science currently can't explain everything, although it would be silly to simply believe in religion simply because the statement "god did it because he can do anything" can account for any observation. Now I am not implying that is your only reason for believing in god, although you have to admit, that explination doesn't give us much.

SylentChaos 03-11-2005 09:48 AM

I go with science, really, since toma just posted a super essay about it....

DarkAztek 03-11-2005 04:53 PM


Science is indeed something that can be trusted for the most part, I just don't agree with the entire theory of evolution. Faith is a word that I like a lot more than "religion", and I agree entirely that the existance of God is imposible to prove or disprove, I merely find it to be more believable.
Religion is a form of social control created by and for society in order to rationalize an impossibly large and uncomprehensible universe. Whether or not a superior being created the universe out of nothing cannot ever be determinded. Because of this lack of anything that could explain any single bit of what we so desperately desire, we can conclude that there is no God... At least for some people. "I think, therefore I am." Something exists because we perceive it to exist. Many people cannot perceive God (in fact, I believe this is MOST people). Some can and therefore God exists because of their faith.


Ever heard of blind faith?
Ever look up the definition of what you just said?


i would have to say god cuz theres sumthings that science doesnt answer oso god was probably created to make ppl feel secure or so they say i dun believ dat tho
Name something that science cannot explain without a shred of proof towards any theory.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.