Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@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.
-
@dantheman said:
@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.That's a fallacy.
'Information' is ever changing.
New 'information' is arising all of the time.
The relationships of bits of stuff changes over time.
That relationship is 'information'.
'Information' is not 'created'.
It's simply a snapshot of the relationship of 'stuff' at any given moment.
How things interact to produce this 'information', is beyond prediction: if it were all 'preordained' then why would we bother ??? -
@unknownuser said:
BUT, NO NEW information was "created"
The creationist information "theory" just annoys the hell out of me because it just doesn't make any sense in real terms. Yes we can compare some aspects of DNA with computer code but it's not anywhere near equivelent in the way they work.
DNA is chemistry not information, we humans just try to make sense of it as such. There is no programmer that makes chnages to the code or add line to the code in order to make new speciesand there isn't a need for one.
Speciation aka evolution works through small gradual mutations of the DNA that changes in minute ways how some gene works.If a mutation happens in a gene that controls the growth hormone for example, then those individual affected by the mutation might grow larger or smaller and this in change could provide benefits like being able to hide easier from predators or reach to food on trees or something. Because the individuals have an advantage over the "normal" population they live longer better lives and can mate more times, have more offspring and pass one that mutated hormone gene.
Over a long time other mutations happen. Ones are helpful for the small individuals and others for the large ones and makes the two types live in more and more different environments until they are separated or become so different that they don't interbreed anymore even if it were possible. As changes become more pronunced between them they become different species.That's what speciation is and that's how evolution works. New genes don't appear overnight when god feels like writing a few.
-
I command thee to stop....
-
-
What if God is the singularity? One with the universe. Is everywhere and nowhere. Is like magnetism encompassing the full range between positive and negative. Are there any Buddhist out there? Isn't the Buddhist nature in everyone? Doesn't early Buddhist literature talk about being one with the "void"? Don't physicists talk about the big bang coming from a singularity and all of us being made of star dust ie. the basic building blocks of the universe. It could be that those on both sides of the argument are simply opposite poles of the same phenomenon.
-
Does the exit of universe is well indicated in case of trouble ?
-
@unknownuser said:
What if God is the singularity? One with the universe. Is everywhere and nowhere.
Actually, money too, Everywhere and nowhere.
-
@solo said:
The way I see it is that the idea of a God creating the universe is based in thought and faith only, no facts no proof, nada.
Perhaps just not the sort of evidence you'd like to see?
@unknownuser said:
The theory of a big bang, has facts and proof yet it's not enough to decisively convince the faithful.
What theists dispute the big bang? I'd argue that theists were onto the big bang before scientists. Not in scientific terms perhaps, but theists posed that the universe had a beginning before atheists came around to the idea.
@unknownuser said:
What will it take? maybe this:
Have scientists at the LHC found the Higgs or not?
With rumours of the possible discovery of the Higgs, the BBC's Pallab Ghosh looks at what's likely to be announced at a press conference at Cern.
BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)
Maybe this is not the smoking gun, but by Jove it certainly is exciting and could answer many questions and solve many unknowns.
Maybe exciting but I've seen a lot of these sorts of articles over the years about a revolutionary discovery just around the corner. They don't tend to pan out on such a regular basis though and when they do the implications tend to be less widespread than is anticipated. Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating stuff, it's just a lot to ask of theists to speculate on the implications of faith regarding every theoretical new discovery that hasn't quitehappened yet.
-Brodie
-
Perhaps the most interesting part of that article about the LHC (as far as this thread is concerned) is that even if, by next Spring, the scientists have conclusively found no sign of the Higgs boson,they will be equally jumping for joy...because they will have almost conclusively proven that one of the major pillars of modern physics will have been found to be faulty...leading to a flurry of new research.
This is exactly the opposite of what creationists would have people believe...that orthodox science gangs up against them, because their 'theories' don't fit the standard model. They don't fit because they're fairy stories, not because they represent any viable challenge.
Scientists like nothing better than to kick over the apple cart...but they need the evidence...and creationists don't have any. Or at least they don't have any unless they intend redefining the word 'evidence' now, like they have 'speciation'. If they do that, then we might as well save all that money spent on the 'real science' of forensics, DNA profiling etc. We can just declare people guilty because a little voice in your head tells you they are...or you feel with every fibre of your being that they are...or even that it's just 'obvious' that they are.
Advertisement