Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
I'm not aware of any specific statistics relating to abiogenesis. Ultimately, either it's possible or it's not.
As I said, organic compounds...amino acids such as glycine...have been positively detected on comets, but that's only one side of the coin. For life (at least as it's presently recognised on this speck of dust) you also need nucleic acid; and that hasn't been detected 'in the wild' yet.
Obviously this wouldn't need to be anything like as complex as current DNA, which has been evolving and adding to its complexity for billions of years, it could be something far simpler.I guess the big question currently is exactly how simple a functioning nucleic acid needs to be; and how likely is it that it might form via the same chance reactions that formed the amino acids.
New life has been synthesised in the lab by Craig Ventor...a genome biologist, but I believe that was achieved by injecting the necessary synthetic compounds (including synthesised nucleic acid) into an existing but completely sterile cell...more of a re-animation than a pure abiogenesis, some might argue.
I suppose most people will not be satisfied until life is created completely from scratch, starting with nothing but chemical compounds. The problem with that is that, even taking some laboratory shortcuts, it might prove very difficult to short-circuit a billion years of random mixing in some primordial soup.
It can be done via computer simulation, of course, which can compress the timeline to an acceptably short period; but that's not going to be remotely acceptable to the sceptics.All that being said, I strongly suspect that it's simply a matter of time. This area of research is developing at breakneck speed. Not that that is likely to quell the argument, as all it proves is that it is possible for life to self-assemble itself. Hard line fundamentalists will continue to argue that that is no proof that it actually did.
-
The universe was conceived in SketchUp, but due to the high poly nature of the project there was a crash resulting in the "Big Bang."
This is a fact I learned from 2,000 year old scrolls buried in my back yard.
-
@roger said:
The universe was conceived in SketchUp, but due to the high poly nature of the project there was a crash resulting in the "Big Bang."
This is a fact I learned from 2,000 year old scrolls buried in my back yard.
LOL
-
@roger said:
The universe was conceived in SketchUp, but due to the high poly nature of the project there was a crash resulting in the "Big Bang."
This is a fact I learned from 2,000 year old scrolls buried in my back yard.
What is this religion called again? I'd like to sign up...
-
@roger said:
The universe was conceived in SketchUp, but due to the high poly nature of the project there was a crash resulting in the "Big Bang."
This is a fact I learned from 2,000 year old scrolls buried in my back yard.
I can understand that...but these early scrolls...do they give any details of the Big Bang and the following expansion....was the mesh being Push/Pulled at the time, or was it the Scale tool wot dunnit?
-
Sketch UP ^ - it is clearly the instrument of God...
and this is what happens when humans mess around with it:
Youtube Video -
Maybe a far from origin problem due to a Autocad import?
-
Back on topic.
About abiogenisis, until I see a Ferrari or computer assemble itself out of an explosion in a junk yard, I see no evidence supporting it. As for mutation into new species, was information added or removed? If information was added (highly unlikely) then macro evolution might have some credibility. If not... well then, there goes that evidence. Micro evolution (change in species) was regected in error by the Roman Church (think of the size of the ark then ), Darwin was right on that, good scientific progress. However, extrapolating the beak size of finches to humans coming from apes, that is a stretch.That's all for now.
-
@dantheman said:
Back on topic.
About abiogenisis, until I see a Ferrari or computer assemble itself out of an explosion in a junk yard, I see no evidence supporting it. As for mutation into new species, was information added or removed? If information was added (highly unlikely) then macro evolution might have some credibility. If not... well then, there goes that evidence. Micro evolution (change in species) was regected in error by the Roman Church (think of the size of the ark then ), Darwin was right on that, good scientific progress. However, extrapolating the beak size of finches to humans coming from apes, that is a stretch.That's all for now.
Well, sort of back on topic. Humor was something that we humans thought was totally unique to us but it would appear to be our vanity or stupidity getting in the way of the obvious ...... again!
Have a look at Jane Goodall on what separates us from the apes
http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_goodall_on_what_separates_us_from_the_apes.html -
@dantheman said:
Back on topic.
About abiogenisis, until I see a Ferrari or computer assemble itself out of an explosion in a junk yard, I see no evidence supporting it... However, extrapolating the beak size of finches to humans coming from apes, that is a stretch.
That's all for now. LOL. i like that. -
If we are the product of a creator, we should get together and formulate a class action lawsuit for incompetent design.
-
@dantheman said:
About abiogenisis, until I see a Ferrari or computer assemble itself out of an explosion in a junk yard,
See Wikipedia article on Hoyle's Fallacy. That's not the way evolutionary synthesis works. In any case, it would be a quadrillion junkyards exploding simultaneously and perpetually for a billion years...and assembling something more like the complexity of a mousetrap.
The analogy is so over the top that an agnostic would be equally justified in saying that it would take God himself coming down to earth in a blaze of glory, getting into the Ferrari and driving it away before he would believe.@dantheman said:
As for mutation into new species, was information added or removed?
Yes it was. The amount of genetic information in the goatsbeard chromosome more than doubled. Apologies if that confounds the creationist redefinition of what constitutes speciation.
-
@unknownuser said:
Did God create the universe?
It may have been his wife.
http://news.discovery.com/history/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.html
That would explain a lot actually.
@unknownuser said:
About abiogenisis, until I see a Ferrari or computer assemble itself out of an explosion in a junk yard, I see no evidence supporting it.
That's such a bad analogy for abiogenesis that if God and his lovely wife exist they may have laughed out loud when reading it, thus creating a new universe.
-
Hi,
If there is a Creator who created this universe, then it was probably an experiment. The Creator now observed how the experiment evolved. Perhaps he sees the universe with a scientific view. By chance, he has discovered countless planets on which performed very small organisms. After a few million years, he looks again through his microscope and sees these organisms have proliferated on some planets. On other planets, the organisms are dead again or the planets disappeared. Now he's trying to figure out what is the cause. That will still take a another few billion years. The Creator has indeed not a time problem.
Charly
-
In one of the books from the Rama series written by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee, it is explained that god is a scientist running an experiment making many universes in order to find one that reaches equlibrium. This includes studying the way spacefaring species interact with eachother. He sends out ships and robots into the new universes so he can better observe the conditions and the life that forms inside some.
In this view god is only a scientist that obersves, studies but does not or cannot intervene.
I find this to be one of the most interesting views on god.This would also answer why god created the universe. He was curious.
-
@alan fraser said:
@dantheman said:
About abiogenisis, until I see a Ferrari or computer assemble itself out of an explosion in a junk yard,
See Wikipedia article on Hoyle's Fallacy. That's not the way evolutionary synthesis works. In any case, it would be a quadrillion junkyards exploding simultaneously and perpetually for a billion years...and assembling something more like the complexity of a mousetrap.
Even if all the processes happened (I have seen explosions bend, twist and ram metal through wood) they would still have to happen in exactly the right order, and in perfect alignment. this is highly unlikely. At the same time as the millions of junkyards are exploding to form a mousetrap, millions more must explode to form the rattraps, bear traps, and other things needed to form our "trap cell." Then once all the necessary parts are assembled millions of these must explode to assemble the wall we need to keep out the baddys who want to get in (poisons in the early atmosphere). THEN we can start on the things that run the "trap cell" (DNA for example).
@unknownuser said:
@dantheman said:
As for mutation into new species, was information added or removed?
Yes it was. The amount of genetic information in the goatsbeard chromosome more than doubled. Apologies if that confounds the creationist redefinition of what constitutes speciation.
All this is is a failed meiosis, the genetic information is the same, there is just two copy's instead of one, there is no "new" information (information that didn't exist before). This causes any cross fertilization with a "normal" plant to not work. This is also found in crops, however these are not considered new species
-
Late to the party, just my .02 worth:
The Big Bang is a theory. And like any other theory, it is conjectural, has no solid basis in fact, and can not be proven conclusively.
From that point of view, so is argument for the existence of God ...You pays your money and you takes your point of view.
Cheers
-
@idahoj said:
The Big Bang is a theory. And like any other theory, it is conjectural, has no solid basis in fact, and can not be proven conclusively.
Nothing can be proven absoulutely 100%. Yes the Big Bang is a Scientific Theory. That means it is not guess work but backed by observations, experiments and calculations. The microwave background radiation is one verifiable evidence for the Big Bang, and the mathemathics of it all works perfectly until the first few moments from the birth of the Universe when all known laws of physics break down. That may be a clue in itself that there are other laws of physics we are not yet aware of.
On there other side the existence of a god, any god is based only on guess work and on creative but baseless arguments.
-
Same old creationist BS that is taken from an inventory of such stock responses on answersingenesis.com, godandscience.org or some other such site. These off-the-peg responses which are designed to make creationist look like they know what they're talking about don't make them any less BS...as they've been shown to be a million times before by real scientists. I'm not about to waste my time making that a million and one.
The fact that you're still going on about explosions shows that you didn't even look at the article that shows your original analogy to be entirely faulty.
@dantheman said:
All this is is a failed meiosis...
Of course it is. So what? If the new type of goatsbeard can pollinate itself and make new fertile offspring but only makes sterile seed with the old kind of goatsbeard, then...
IT'S SPECIATED! It's a new species!
A new species is a new species, no matter how many times creationists move the goalposts and redefine the term. It's about time creationists developed their own method of Taxonomy instead of muscling-in on the one developed by real scientists (who made the rules in the first place, so get to dictate what defines a species).
It could have its own single, immutable kingdom, covering all life forms, called Deus Me Facit (God made me). Then we'd all know where we stand. -
@alan fraser said:
S
IT'S SPECIATED! It's a new speciesYes it is, BUT, NO NEW information was "created", it all existed before.
As for the beginning of life, even if a scientist could make life, it still needed an intelligent designer (the scientist) to make it. That alone would not prove anything (not that science can prove anything) but would merely state that we a bloody smart.
Advertisement