The Big Bang and Evolution

[sayak83]

the title of his book infers differently

Umm..no. Darwin was talking only about the origin of species (how is it that multiple forms of diverse life exist) and not the origin of life. He says his objective clearly in his introduction,
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which most justly excites our admiration."

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

Your idea of usage of the word "origin" deviates from common English usage. When i am saying "this diamond originates from South Africa", I am speaking the truth even though all Carbon atoms in that diamond existed long before they were arranged as a diamond in some mine in south africa.

 

[Evie]

If there is doubt, you could always read the book. It didn't explain the origin of chemistry which is also a prerequisite for life and hence, species. Oh and it didn't explain the origin of the Earth, either, or...

There is no evading the fact, he had to appropriate something already in existence. No-one knows for certain how all got started, not even the brilliant physicist Hawkins. Stumped when it came to establishing an absolute source for a Big Bang to occur. Something cannot come out of nothingness.

If there is doubt, you could always read the book. It didn't explain the origin of chemistry which is also a prerequisite for life and hence, species. Oh and it didn't explain the origin of the Earth, either, or...

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no evading the fact, he had to appropriate something already in existence. No-one knows for certain how all got started, not even the brilliant physicist Hawkins. Stumped when it came to establishing an absolute source for a Big Bang to occur. Something cannot come out of nothingness.

All of which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the book.

 

[Evie]

The

There is no evading the fact, he had to appropriate something already in existence. No-one knows for certain how all got started, not even the brilliant physicist Hawkins. Stumped when it came to establishing an absolute source for a Big Bang to occur. Something cannot come out of nothingness.

only records of something created from nothing was when Jesus fed the t5,000 on a few loaves of bread and a few fish. And there were many baskets of leftovers. I don't think that was the only time He did it.

 

[Altfish]

There is no evading the fact, he had to appropriate something already in existence. No-one knows for certain how all got started, not even the brilliant physicist Hawkins.

And isn't that exciting?
Scientists have things to investigate and explain. It would be really boring if we knew everything.

Stumped when it came to establishing an absolute source for a Big Bang to occur.

Stumped maybe, but getting closer to an answer all the time. I find it fascinating. Why, in my lifetime our understanding and knowledge of the origins of the universe have come on leaps and bounds.

Something cannot come out of nothingness.

That is an assertion that no longer stands scrutiny.
Try reading this book...
A Universe From Nothing eBook: Lawrence M. Krauss: Amazon.co.uk: Books

I think the saddest thing is that you seem to revel in the fact that 'science can't explain everything'. If it could we would have to close universities, research facilities, etc.
Science is not infallible and dos get things wrong (It usually corrects its own mistakes though) but it gives us more understanding than all religions put together.

 

[Evie]

And isn't that exciting?
Scientists have things to investigate and explain. It would be really boring if we knew everything.


Stumped maybe, but getting closer to an answer all the time. I find it fascinating. Why, in my lifetime our understanding and knowledge of the origins of the universe have come on leaps and bounds.


That is an assertion that no longer stands scrutiny.
Try reading this book...
A Universe From Nothing eBook: Lawrence M. Krauss: Amazon.co.uk: Books

I think the saddest thing is that you seem to revel in the fact that 'science can't explain everything'. If it could we would have to close universities, research facilities, etc.
Science is not infallible and dos get things wrong (It usually corrects its own mistakes though) but it gives us more understanding than all religions put together.

How do you or science explain that the only recorded accounts of something created out of nothing was Jesus fed the 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish. And that was not an isolated incident. Jesus demonstrated that the power of God can create something out of nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

only records of something created from nothing was when Jesus fed the t5,000 on a few loaves of bread and a few fish. And there were many baskets of leftovers. I don't think that was the only time He did it.

And you evidence that this actually happened is what, exactly?

The problem with citing the something can't come from noting old chestnut is that positing a god doesn't really help. Instead of an unexplained physical universe, you get an unexplained god. No basic questions are answered - they just get moved...

 

[omega2xx]

it may well be a gradual process. But Darwin's book titled the ORIGIN of the Species is making an incorrect claim. in order for any process of evolution to begin, his theory had to appropriate (take) 'something' already in existence. As such, that 'something' possesses a PRIOR claim to the actual ORIGIN of the species. Darwin appropriated then built his theory upon that 'something'.

At least 2 problems. The don't really know what the first life form was. Even if they are right( as single celled blob), the laws of genetics will not allow it to become something more complex. When DNA was discovered, it is utterly impossible for something that complex to have originated by accident.

Also, it is impossible for life to have its source in lifeless elements.

 

[Altfish]

How do you or science explain that the only recorded accounts of something created out of nothing was Jesus fed the 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish. And that was not an isolated incident. Jesus demonstrated that the power of God can create something out of nothing.

I don't try to explain fables. Apart from John's gospel which claims JC fed a multitude; Luke and Mark do not describe such large numbers.
I would believe it if it could be repeated and verified, as it is, I take it as a great story, just like Harry Potter.
What do you think of the Laurence Krauss book?

 

[Evie]

T

And you evidence that this actually happened is what, exactly?

The problem with citing the something can't come from noting old chestnut is that positing a god doesn't really help. Instead of an unexplained physical universe, you get an unexplained god. No basic questions are answered - they just get moved...

The proof is that He demonstrated something which is the only logical answer. Scientists are absolutely unable to explain how it all began in a way which does not involve a Creator. But they will keep on trying. Jesus demonstrated that with God the seemingly impossible is possible.

 

[omega2xx]

Umm..no. Darwin was talking only about the origin of species (how is it that multiple forms of diverse life exist) and not the origin of life. He says his objective clearly in his introduction,
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which most justly excites our admiration."

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

Your idea of usage of the word "origin" deviates from common English usage. When i am saying "this diamond originates from South Africa", I am speaking the truth even though all Carbon atoms in that diamond existed long before they were arranged as a diamond in some mine in south africa.

If he didn't mean "origin" as commonly used, why did he use it in the title. He also did not offer any evidence as to how life in any form originated.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't try to explain fables. Apart from John's gospel which claims JC fed a multitude; Luke and Mark do not describe such large numbers.
I would believe it if it could be repeated and verified, as it is, I take it as a great story, just like Harry Potter.
What do you think of the Laurence Krauss book?

Do you ever explain how you know Jesus feeding the multitude is a fable?

 

[ratiocinator]

The don't really know what the first life form was. Even if they are right( as single celled blob), the laws of genetics will not allow it to become something more complex.

I don't know of any current hypothesis that suggests that anything as complex as a cell was the first self-replicator (which is what is needed to get evolution going).

As for the laws of genetics nonsense: have you worked out if it's that almost all the scientist who study genetics and evolution are fools who don't understand their own subjects or a vast international conspiracy?

 

[omega2xx]

And isn't that exciting?
Scientists have things to investigate and explain. It would be really boring if we knew everything.


Stumped maybe, but getting closer to an answer all the time. I find it fascinating. Why, in my lifetime our understanding and knowledge of the origins of the universe have come on leaps and bounds.


That is an assertion that no longer stands scrutiny.
Try reading this book...
A Universe From Nothing eBook: Lawrence M. Krauss: Amazon.co.uk: Books

I think the saddest thing is that you seem to revel in the fact that 'science can't explain everything'. If it could we would have to close universities, research facilities, etc.
Science is not infallible and dos get things wrong (It usually corrects its own mistakes though) but it gives us more understanding than all religions put together.

Science is no closer to explaining the origin of life that it was in Darwin's time. Even without reading his book I guarantee Krauss did not offer any scientific evidence for his guess.

The Bible explains spiritual truth, not scientific truths, and they are just as important as scientific truths, especially if they are true.

 

[ratiocinator]

The proof is that He demonstrated something which is the only logical answer. Scientists are absolutely unable to explain how it all began in a way which does not involve a Creator. But they will keep on trying. Jesus demonstrated that with God the seemingly impossible is possible.

It's a fantastical story in a religious text - the world is not short of stories like that - it isn't proof (or even remotely credible evidence) of anything.

How come your god just happens to exist? If you can't answer that, you are applying double standards.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't know of any current hypothesis that suggests that anything as complex as a cell was the first self-replicator (which is what is needed to get evolution going).
There is no hypothesis today, because all in the past made them look foolish. The TOE originally offered an explanation as o how the first life came into being, but gave it up because it was scientifically impossible to exp;lain.

As for the laws of genetics nonsense: have you worked out if it's that almost all the scientist who study genetics and evolution are fools who don't understand their own subjects or a vast international conspiracy?

Calling the laws of genetics nonsense only confirms you have no understanding of genetics. Therefore you have to accept by faith alone whatever the evos present and that without any evidence. These scientist you refer to, NEVER offer any scientific evidence as to how evolution is possible. If you tell me mutations and natural selection, I will tell you that you also don't understand those terms.

 

[omega2xx]

It's a fantastical story in a religious text - the world is not short of stories like that - it isn't proof (or even remotely credible evidence) of anything.

How come your god just happens to exist? If you can't answer that, you are applying double standards.

Unless you can explain how matter, energy and life created itself out of nothing, you don't even have a single standard. Only a pitifully, unscientific guess.

 

[ratiocinator]

Calling the laws of genetics nonsense only confirms you have no understanding of genetics. Therefore you have to accept by faith alone whatever the evos present and that without any evidence. These scientist you refer to, NEVER offer any scientific evidence as to how evolution is possible. If you tell me mutations and natural selection, I will tell you that you also don't understand those terms.

I didn't call the laws of genetics nonsense. And you didn't answer my question. Since the vast majority of scientists who study genetics and evolution disagree with you - are they idiots who don't understand their subjects or is it an international conspiracy?

 

[ratiocinator]

Unless you can explain how matter, energy and life created itself out of nothing, you don't even have a single standard.

Unless you can explain how god created itself out of nothing, you have an exactly equivalent problem. The inability of current science to explain something does not lend credence to evidence-free storytelling.

 

[Evie]

G

Unless you can explain how god created itself out of nothing, you have an exactly equivalent problem. The inability of current science to explain something does not lend credence to evidence-free storytelling.

God explains Himself. When Moses asks who shall I say sent me God says 'tell them I AM sent me.'