'god' versus 'genes'

  • Thread starter Kaspah_2k
  • Start date

Who created us?

  • God created us!!!

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • We just appeared.

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • We have always been here.

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • It was a banana that created us.

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Total voters
    14
  • #1
12
0
hay all,
what are your views on 'god vs genes'?

its just the more we follow science the more we move away from god.

the reason im asking is because i wanna know if there are still physicists out there who still believe in god.

i think that there never was a god in respect of the way religous people view him/her.

firstly, the main conception is that god made us in his image.

now through the docterine of the genome. we now know that we share about 60% of our genes with houseflies and around 45% with bananas.

so if a banana wants to talk to god, he comes in the form of a banana. yeah

now although i dont believe in a god as such. i do believe that there is a force out there which created our universe. i may be a man (unlikely), an invisible entity,a force we cant concieve.......or it may just be a banana


so what do you fellow scientific dudes (and dudettes) believe created our existense.

dont worry,this isnt some essay material or a culmination of different scientific/religous comparisons.

im just bored and i thought it would be fun to hear some of your personal thoughts.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
1,481
0
What's wrong with the idea that God created the gene, DNA, with built in instructions to evolve toward more complex life forms.
 
  • #3
3,762
2
This is a bit too religious, Kaspah. Physicsforums doesn't harbor religious threads.

Perhaps discussions of evolution, such as the one going on in the Biology forum, might interest you, though.
 
  • #4
3,762
2
Oh, and, welcom to the PFs, Kaspah. We're glad to have you, and hope you will continue participating :smile:.
 
  • #5
13
0
The more we learn about the wonders and complexities of the universe, the stronger I feel about the existance of God. That's why I voted that God created us.
 
  • #6
3,762
2
Originally posted by Raven
The more we learn about the wonders and complexities of the universe, the stronger I feel about the existance of God. That's why I voted that God created us.
Well, while the thread still exists...why is this? Why does the beauty of the Universe cause you to believe it was created? Just a question, I'm not stating my opinion on the matter.
 
  • #7
218
0
I can give many reasons why a bannana created us but would any reason be reason enough?
 
  • #8
87
0
Originally posted by Royce
What's wrong with the idea that God created the gene, DNA, with built in instructions to evolve toward more complex life forms.
The fact that to believe in Devine Design or Creationism, you have to explicitly assume the hypothetical existence of a deity.

Other questions arise such as "what created God", "What created the creator of God", etc. etc. etc.

Primarily, the thing I find least appealing about "God created DNA" (and other supernatural explanations) is the fact that explaining things in terms of "god" effectively explains nothing.
 
  • #9
87
0
Originally posted by Kaspah_2k
so what do you fellow scientific dudes (and dudettes) believe created our existense.
First, Origins of the Universe:
Here's the short answer (much hand-waving follows):

First, the Planck length. Max Planck discovered that there was a number (a very very very small number) which was effectively the smallest thing you could have. Expressed as distance, the Planck length is the smallest distance you can measure, like the limit of resolution of your ruler. Expressed as energy, it's the smallest bit of energy (the so-called quantum). Expressed as time, it is the smallest bit of time you can measure. (Remember that time and distance are functions of each other, so the smallest distance and the smallest time are related).

Then Stephen Hawking discovered that underneath this limit, all sorts of hanky panky was going on. For instance, sometimes particles (like say an electron) will just appear out of nothing, for no reason at all. So the old adage that something cannot come from nothing is false: it happens a gazillion times a second.

Of course, you are wondering, why don't we notice this? Well, its because the universe is as bad as a bank: you can't take money out without putting money in. So when that electron just pops into being, an anti-electron is also created. And here's the kicker: the two of them wander around a bit, and then collide. Well you know what happens when a particle and an anti-particle collide: they both go woosh! And the energy they create from their explosion is exactly the same amount of energy it took to create them... so everything balances out!

But wait, you say. Wouldn't we notice all this wooshing? The answer is, all of this takes place under the Planck limit. So no, we don't notice it. You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell. You don't see the stillness, just the motion. The Planck limit is like that: you can't see well enough to see the individual actions, just the net result.

So... imagine the universe when there was no matter in it. No distance, either (and hence no time but that's a different issue). Nothing at all. So along comes some innocent particle, pops into being just like they always do, but wait: there is no distance. Well you know what happens when you stuff 20 lbls of potatos into a 5lb bag, right. No distance means that the first particle had infinite density. Infinite density means infinte mass, which means infinite energy. And stuffing infinite energy into a tiny point means kaboom!

And there's your Big Bang. Out of nothing. Of course, now that we have distance, we don't have infinite energy anymore. So all those little guys popping in and out don't matter so much. But they still serve to evaporate black holes, so we're grateful they're around.
Second, Origins of Life:
Living things as we know them are made of organic materials. In many instances, the organic materials are organized as chains of amino acids to form proteins. Proteins are "the building blocks of life," and amino acids are "the building blocks of proteins."

In a series of famous experiments by Miller and Urey (and others), organic materials (water, ammonia, hydrogen and methane) were put into a container and were subjected to electrical arcs (to simulate lightning). In a very short time (less than a week), amino acids and other organic compounds appeared in the container. There was no human creator, no designer... these things just formed under ordinary conditions.

If the same forces are at work for billions of years, the formation of life becomes probable. Not just possible, but highly probable.
(Source: JREF Messageboard Thread)


After the formation of life, you have quite a bit of Natural Selection and Evolution that gradually gives rise to humans. (I can go into lots and lots more detail if anyone needs me to do so.)
 
  • #10
12
0
do you want to suck on me banana??

science/religion


from Mentat-
This is a bit too religious, Kaspah. Physicsforums doesn't harbor religious threads.
Do you know about ANY history of science mentat. If it wasnt for religion, we wouldnt even have things like clocks, philosophy or even science.

You have to remember that it was the religious priests of the 17th,18th and 19th century that developed what was to become physics. (although they didnt all mean it)

Even though i dont believe in religion myself i still respect the work that religion has done to create our world the way it is just now.

now dont start writing about wars and sh!t that were caused by religion because any subject ALWAYS has good and bad sides. it all depends on whether the good outweighed the bad for that subject and i can definetely say that religion has done the world better but now we know all we can know from religion. its time for us as a worldly community to move on from there and get to the real world.



Religion is only a stepping stone in a road to know exactly what we are -
 
  • #11
3,762
2
Originally posted by Yahweh
The fact that to believe in Devine Design or Creationism, you have to explicitly assume the hypothetical existence of a deity.

Other questions arise such as "what created God", "What created the creator of God", etc. etc. etc.

Primarily, the thing I find least appealing about "God created DNA" (and other supernatural explanations) is the fact that explaining things in terms of "god" effectively explains nothing.
Except, perhaps, the prophecies and historical accuracy of the Bible...but my big question is why in the world is your username "Yahweh", if you don't believe in a god?
 
  • #12
3,762
2


Originally posted by Kaspah_2k
Do you know about ANY history of science mentat. If it wasnt for religion, we wouldnt even have things like clocks, philosophy or even science.
I know this very well, but that doesn't change the fact that they are now completely seperate entities. They've lost almost all of their ties, and one of them is discussed on the PFs, while the other is not.

Even though i dont believe in religion myself i still respect the work that religion has done to create our world the way it is just now.
So do I...I just don't discuss it here, if I can avoid it.
 
  • #13
14
0
Actually, I think the poll is a bit incomplete in its choices... so I clicked the "bannana" choice.... it's about as likely as "god created us."

I take it back. It's more likely than the god answer. I've seen a bannana ;)

I think you should have included a choice that said something about billions of years of evolution.

"Just appeared" is probably what you relate to this, but that choice was too simplistic for a process that took much trial and error over such a long period of time.

He who takes the name of god (Yahweh) said it best so far... when talking origins, there is a lot to say in science. I recommend Richard Dawkins' work, starting with The Selfish Gene.

Anthropologically though, religion is a fascinating subject. I'm always amazed at what lengths people go to when they are consumed by their beliefs, or that beliefs can consume people to such degree.
 
  • #14
49
0
Mentat im curious as to what the objection was again about this thread? because im looking all over this piticular forum and it seems almost everything under metaphysics is in relation to god.. or atleast half of them?
 
  • #15
515
0
WHY MUST WE ACCEPT OR REJECT THE GOD CONCEPT????

god is nothing more than an easy way of defining something greater than we can concieve. we may only be the coalesence of several bits of energy. is the original source of that energy god? what of the energy that spawned that god? etc. etc.

more importantly, why do we require a beginning? there is no time, therefore, thinking outside linear terms, we have always been.

can you concieve of a time when you didn't exist??????
 
  • #16
3,762
2
Originally posted by MythioS
Mentat im curious as to what the objection was again about this thread? because im looking all over this piticular forum and it seems almost everything under metaphysics is in relation to god.. or atleast half of them?
Yes, I know...this is an unfortunate circumstance (since Greg was rather clear about not posting religious threads on the Forums), but I guess some are allowable.
 
  • #17
1,029
1
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, I know...this is an unfortunate circumstance (since Greg was rather clear about not posting religious threads on the Forums), but I guess some are allowable.
Religious threads and threads about god are not necessarily the same things.
 
  • #18
1,029
1
Originally posted by Yahweh
Primarily, the thing I find least appealing about "God created DNA" (and other supernatural explanations) is the fact that explaining things in terms of "god" effectively explains nothing.
I don't think this is a reason for your belief. I think this is a product of your belief. Because a person who believes in god will read the explanations of science and think that they explain nothing with regards to genesis. How something is adequately explained depends mostly on a predisposition about how nature works and how things are revealed in that nature.
 
  • #19
87
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Except, perhaps, the prophecies and historical accuracy of the Bible...but my big question is why in the world is your username "Yahweh", if you don't believe in a god?
Best character ever written in Fantasy-Fiction. Go Yahweh!
 
  • #20
87
0
Originally posted by Fliption
I don't think this is a reason for your belief. I think this is a product of your belief. Because a person who believes in god will read the explanations of science and think that they explain nothing with regards to genesis. How something is adequately explained depends mostly on a predisposition about how nature works and how things are revealed in that nature.
One thing I've learned in my life:

There are just some people who choose to believe things based on their firm inner convictions, and not based on the evidence presented to them.


Just a thought to ponder...
 

Related Threads on 'god' versus 'genes'

Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
62
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top