Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. Yet, together, they capture, deliver and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages a milli-second! It would take dozens of Cray supercomputers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task.
How can nature give life when even scientists can't create life?
2006-11-10 13:50:18 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
is it logical to think that a a computer, for example, can build itself given "millions of years"??
2006-11-10 13:55:05 · update #1
God created everything i dont know why scientist even bother trying to comprehend how things were created they should just quit.
2006-11-10 13:57:54 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Nature is nature. It's a random, in that any possibility is tried out at any given time. Earth is an average planet revolving around an average star in an average galaxy. Some rather common chemicals were located on this planet and with a little time and luck, the first replicating molecule occurred. All life on Earth is descended from that replicating molecule. In fact the purpose of our bodies is to ensure that new newest version of the replicator (DNA) can continue to replicate in the bodies of our subsequent offspring.
The neat modifications that a plant or animal has is to help ensure that the organism can stay alive long enough to reproduce. Some creatures devour others so modifications had to be made on both sides. Nature has played part in an arms race for millions upon millions of years. So yes, an eye can be conjured up randomly. Originally the eye's purpose was to detect light, then the direction of light, then movement, then non-moving objects, and so on. This allowed the prey to see shadows, and the predator eventually developed an advantage either through mutations or as an evolutionary response.
Selective breeding also plays a part in evolution. Some animals may have preferred certain qualities in a mate over other qualities. The animals with the undesired qualities didn't breed and so their traits were bred out. Early creatures that could see light may have had a better chance of finding a mate than those that couldn't. So the animals with eyes out bred other members of the species who had less developed eyes. Also, animals that didn't see as well as others of their own species were probably eaten more often too. These factors would force an evolutionary response from the species--better eyesight.
To answer to subsequent question, yes. A computer could build itself once it starts replicating. That's all life needed to get started, and that's all a computer needs. In fact, there are replicators in cyberspace right now, they're called viruses. Give them time and they just might go beyond their original programming. Many may end in failure, but some of the "glitches" may give the program an advantage.
2006-11-10 14:08:02 · answer #2 · answered by Jenn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've posted a question before that would support your idea somewhat: If you were to take 1000 mosquitos, squash them, and place the remains in a perfect environment, would something evolve from that? I mean, think about it. As simple as a mosquito would seem, it still has a lot going on in there. You would have this soup de complexity, yet it would yield nothing but a mess. The first post said that complexity doesn't lead us to ID. Well, complexity doesn't lead us to believe that it was all just one big accident either.
If you break down the theory of evoltion and creation to the very basics, they are both silly. An evolutionist thinks that nothing became something, blew up, and turned into everything. Time is the god of evolution. I believe that an omnipotent being created everything out of nothing. I can see why you think that I believe in something silly. Are you willing to look at your "belief" in the same manner.
2006-11-10 14:03:25 · answer #3 · answered by ScottyJae 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It not only can, but it did.
As someone pointed out, complexity doesn't imply an intelligent designer.
Scientists haven't been able to EXACTLY duplicate the conditions of the earth during the formative years (taking into account temperature, atmospheric conditions, catalyst for the chemical reaction that produced the first amino acids, etc.). It would require exact and precise duplication to reproduce this process.
And for the record, there are computers/machines that are building themselves right now. They're being used in space exploration, and once they've achieved a certain threshold in programming, it begins "replicating" itself in order to continue its mission.
2006-11-10 14:05:04 · answer #4 · answered by Bill K Atheist Goodfella 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not good logic. There's very little that a scientist can "create." However, the main flaw in your proposal is a deep misunderstanding of the difference between "chance" and chaotic randomness. I'm sure you've heard of people winning a state lottery where the odds were astronomical. In fact, it seems to happen quite often. Are you prepared to say it can't happen because the odds are too high?
2006-11-10 14:03:30 · answer #5 · answered by JAT 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it does. Just imagine that if your parents hadn't met, you wouldn't even be here. If one particular sperm and one particular ovum hadn't met, you wouldn't be here. If...
BTW of the rest of your message, do you realise that if human life were somehow different, you'd be still praising THAT particular form of life we'd be? We are very FAR from perfect, but you want to see us as such, so you're only focussing on the good parts, and leaving out the rest. Yes, THAT particular part came out pretty well, but what about the rest?
And if we had 4 arms, with 4 fingers each, someone would still be saying how wonderfully perfect we are. So, are we perfect as we ARE? Then we can't be perfect in a different way...
EDIT: A computer is not a living organism.
2006-11-10 13:57:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good point. No it can't. I am a scientist myself, and the more I learn about life and about how an organism develops and function, the more my faith that life is not a hodge-podge or randomness that scientists have previously suggested.
Nothing happens by chance. Everything is a divine decree from God for a purpose.
2006-11-10 14:13:48 · answer #7 · answered by Amara ♥ 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YET
Ever heard of in vitro fertilisation??I took nature millions of years to create what you describe so eloquently .Science has been around for a couple a hundred years so give me a break . we can fly can't we ? we can space travel .we can communicate with each other on the other part of the globe.... wireless ! Stop complaining and DO something
2006-11-10 13:58:26 · answer #8 · answered by vitriol for the masses 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not to mention the fact that just one strand of DNA contains more information than the entire Encarta encyclopedia. The theory of evolution it-self is just a way for people to ignore the fact that there is a God and that it is he, and not us, that is in control. I challenge any atheist to go outside and point at any one thing that wasn't created. We created these computers we are now using, and the wires that they use, and the electrical sockets, etc...do I need to continue, but as for us? No sir, maybe you came from a monkey...
2006-11-10 13:56:09 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Ever watch the first Star Trek movie?
2006-11-10 14:00:18 · answer #10 · answered by Girl Wonder 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask a pregnant teenager whether she did that on purpose. The usual answer is that the life in her happened by chance.
2006-11-10 13:54:28 · answer #11 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋