The Big Bang and Evolution

[metis]

I don't like to think of myself as a primate. I like to think that I was born with Intellect and Freewill and not with instinct.

Actually the primates do have intellect and I would assume freewill.

Aren't you aware that we have an orangutan as president? I haven't seen his birth certificate but I have a team researching it right now and you can't believe what they're finding!. [sound familiar]

 

[siti]

I told you that they were in what I have read, and if you think I'm lying then I'd suggest you simply ignore anything I may post from now on.

So, in parting, here's an article that equates it with the size of a marble, although I have seen articles that have equated it being the size of a pearl and then an atom. Of those three, I've seen the latter most often.

How could all the atoms in the universe possibly fit into something the size of a marble at the time of the Big Bang? • /r/askscience

I did not suggest you were lying - I suggested that if a professional cosmologist wrote in a book that he "knew" what the size of the universe was he was telling lies. BTW - the link is to a discussion forum, not an article written by a scientist, and the scientists that actually commented on the question make some of the very same observations as I did - i.e. we have no idea how big the universe is/was/will be. I'm afraid I can't "simply ignore" it when you post misleading comments about science - and I see no reason why I should when you post them in a debate forum. If you don't want to be disagreed with then either avoid debates or make sure what you post is correct.

If these people are all wrong, so be it.

No - if these people are all wrong then we need to highlight this. Science is not about selling magazines with popular but misleading interpretations...its about uncovering the facts about our reality, our origins and our place in the universe. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I have no issue with you personally, just the misleading idea you posted.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm a lot more comfortable with that explanation than the religious, "God did it" explanation.

The problem that God didn't do it, is you have no explanation as to how lifeless elements created life. Something as far awe e know is scientifically impossible.

Really, I must have missed that.
Link please.

Goggle "primordial soup." Then google a scientist name Oparin. I don't remember his first name. 2 scientist tried to create life using some elements of the Oparin theory, but they never could even come close. I think soon after that evolution divorced itself from the origin of life. As I remember one of the 2 scientist was Miller. The other may have been Urey.

If you look into this, you will probably run into them.

 

[Valjean]

Indeed, the Primal Cause is not subject to laws. He is rather a law-Giver.

Where do you come up with this? A personified Primal Cause? Based on what? This is just simplistic, wishful thinking and positing a magical personage instead of trying to wrap your head around something complicated.

Now, regarding the Sun's creation analogy, it was caused itself to exist with the existence of the Universe because it is only obvious that it could not have caused itself to exist. You must have some grudge against me to find flaw in every thing I pontificate. Perhas if you make use of Logic, that problem will release your mind of many maladies.[/QUOTE]It is not "obvious." Nothing in advanced physics is obvious. You're trying to fit Reality into everyday experience. it's like an 19th C farmer saying it's obvious there was an invisible horse pulling a horseless carriage just because the mechanism was beyond his experience. It's a false dichotomy and argument from ignorance.

Are you comfortable with how the first single celled blob originated from lifeless elements? Evolution did originally include HOW life originated , but when ot being able to prove it became an embarrassment to therm., they moved it into another category.

Science never "proves" anything, and there are always unanswered questions. Scientists are comfortable with this. Scientists aren't embarrassed to say "I don't know." Without questions they'd be out of a job.

Have you looked into the current research on abiogenesis? No-one thinks life just popped into existence fully developed.
Q: What was this initial theory of origins. I'm not familiar with it?

Get real. It isd well know that these so-called scientific journals will not print any thing that even hints at creationism. That makes them the unrespectable orgainsations. IMO, they are afraid, the Creation scientist will expose the flaws in evolution, and they will do it with real science, not like "talk origins" who are only parrots.

The journals will print anything that's scientifically supported, and would probably love to publish something really ground-breaking.

You seem to think science is wedded to some sort of orthodox canon, and fears heresy. You mischaracterize it.

I don't like to think of myself as a primate. I like to think that I was born with Intellect and Freewill and not with instinct.

These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and what does it matter what you're comfortable with? Incredulity is not evidence.

 

[Valjean]

The problem that God didn't do it, is you have no explanation as to how lifeless elements created life. Something as far awe e know is scientifically impossible.

A couple centuries ago you could have applied the same false dichotomy to disease, storms and the passage of the sun.
I don't think you know whereof you speak. I don't think you have any idea what science knows about abiogenesis.

Goggle "primordial soup." Then google a scientist name Oparin. I don't remember his first name. 2 scientist tried to create life using some elements of the Oparin theory, but they never could even come close. I think soon after that evolution divorced itself from the origin of life. As I remember one of the 2 scientist was Miller. The other may have been Urey.

If you'd done any Googling yourself you'd know that Alexander Oparin's ideas are from the 1920s, and the famous Miller-Urey experiment, while inspired, was primitive and based on scant real data. The science you cite is archaic and obsolete.

You don't understand how life began, so you invent a comfortable, simplistic fable about an invisible personage in the sky poofing it into existence by magic.
Science seeks an actual, reproducible, falsifiable, non-magical explanation of mechanism; based on observations and testable data.

You seem to know of Talk Origins, though I doubt you've really perused it. Why don't you do some reading about the subject before you proffer opinions about it?

 

[Valjean]

How is Creation Science in any way science?

 

[Altfish]

A couple centuries ago you could have applied the same false dichotomy to disease, storms and the passage of the sun.
I don't think you know whereof you speak. I don't think you have any idea what science knows about abiogenesis.

If you'd done any Googling yourself you'd know that Alexander Oparin's ideas are from the 1920s, and the famous Miller-Urey experiment, while inspired, was primitive and based on scant real data. The science you cite is archaic and obsolete.

You don't understand how life began, so you invent a comfortable, simplistic fable about an invisible personage in the sky poofing it into existence by magic.
Science seeks an actual, reproducible, falsifiable, non-magical explanation of mechanism; based on observations and testable data.

You seem to know of Talk Origins, though I doubt you've really perused it. Why don't you do some reading about the subject before you proffer opinions about it?

Well said, I agree with everything you say, saves me replying.

 

[omega2xx]

The journals will print anything that's scientifically supported, and would probably love to publish something really ground-breaking.[/QUOTE]

The will not even consider anything that mentions God.

You seem to think science is wedded to some sort of orthodox canon, and fears heresy. You mischaracterize it.

Of course they don't fear heresy, they fear well qualified scientists refuting doctrines of the TOE with real science.

For some reason I can't get this post to come out in a format I can answer. I may try later.


“Whatever their bodies do affects their souls. It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out...”
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

 

[omega2xx]

A couple centuries ago you could have applied the same false dichotomy to disease, storms and the passage of the sun.
I don't think you know whereof you speak. I don't think you have any idea what science knows about abiogenesis.

I know they can't explain it. I know they can't explain what the first life form was. I know they can't explain what the first life form evolved into. What else do I need to know?

If you'd done any Googling yourself you'd know that Alexander Oparin's ideas are from the 1920s, and the famous Miller-Urey experiment, while inspired, was primitive and based on scant real data. The science you cite is archaic and obsolete.

It is obsolete because it failed.

You don't understand how life began, so you invent a comfortable, simplistic fable about an invisible personage in the sky poofing it into existence by magic.

You don't know how life began so you invent ways that refute the laws of real science----It is IMPOSSIBLE for life to have begun from lifeless elements.

Science seeks an actual, reproducible, falsifiable, non-magical explanation of mechanism; based on observations and testable data.

Life originating from lifeless element is more magical than "God did it." You can't even explain where these magical lifeless elements originated.

You seem to know of Talk Origins, though I doubt you've really perused it. Why don't you do some reading about the subject before you proffer opinions about it?

You assume something not in evidence, the usual evo way.


“Whatever their bodies do affects their souls. It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out...”
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

 

[ArtieE]

You don't know how life began so you invent ways that refute the laws of real science----It is IMPOSSIBLE for life to have begun from lifeless elements.

Here is a basic introduction to chemical evolution.

 

[Valjean]

I know they can't explain it. I know they can't explain what the first life form was. I know they can't explain what the first life form evolved into. What else do I need to know?

How do you know this? We know lots of things that seem impossible to know. Practically all of our technology would seem magical to someone from a thousand years ago.

It is obsolete because it failed.

It did not fail, in fact, it produced over 20 different amino acids.

You don't know how life began so you invent ways that refute the laws of real science----It is IMPOSSIBLE for life to have begun from lifeless elements.

What are you on about? "Laws of real science?" What does that mean?

Why is it impossible? Cause you don't understand it? Cause it's implications are threatening?
You declare it impossible, you don't say why it's impossible, and you apparently refuse to familiarize yourself with the research. Why should we give your declaration of impossibility any credence?

Life originating from lifeless element is more magical than "God did it." You can't even explain where these magical lifeless elements originated.

You keep making these unsupported claims, which I suspect are based on incredulity and ignorance.
Please show your work.

You assume something not in evidence, the usual evo way.

I assume nothing (and what's the "evo way?").
You refuse to look at the evidence yet declare the whole subject impossible. Who's being presumptuous? Who's making unsupported claims?

 

[omega2xx]

Here is a basic introduction to chemical evolution.

Not interested unless it explains how life began from lifeless elements and it can't do that can it?

 

[omega2xx]

How do you know this? We know lots of things that seem impossible to know.

If we know them they were not impossible to know.

]Practically all of our technology would seem magical to someone from a thousand years ago.

Some of it, especially in electronics seems magical to me today.

It did not fail, in fact, it produced over 20 different amino acids.

It failed in it primary goal---to produce life. It did not produce amino acidsd it discovered them.

What are you on about? "Laws of real science?" What does that mean?

"A law of science is something that works the same way, under the same conditions all the time.

Why is it impossible? Cause you don't understand it? Cause it's implications are threatening?

I do understand it. It can only be threatening to me if it can be proved nd it can't be because it is IMPOSSIBLE for something without the element of life to produce life. Why is that so hard to understand? You want it to be true, because if it is not it is you view that is threatened.

You declare it impossible, you don't say why it's impossible, and you apparently refuse to familiarize yourself with the research. Why should we give your declaration of impossibility any credence?[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't. You should consider that real science says.

You keep making these unsupported claims, which I suspect are based on incredulity and ignorance.
Please show your work.
I assume nothing (and what's the "evo way?").
You refuse to look at the evidence yet declare the whole subject impossible. Who's being presumptuous? Who's making unsupported claims?

Funny. You ASSUME everything some evo scientist says. You assume evolution has been proven.

 

[ArtieE]

Not interested unless it explains how life began from lifeless elements and it can't do that can it?

I didn't expect you personally to be interested. But there might be others who follow this thread who are genuinely interested in learning about the origins of life. For them I recommend this video.

 

[Valjean]

Not interested unless it explains how life began from lifeless elements and it can't do that can it?

Translation: I refuse to look at the evidence, but reserve the right to voice a strong opinion on the subject.

If we know them they were not impossible to know.

Exactly -- and neither is evolution or abiogenesis.

Some of it, especially in electronics seems magical to me today.

And yet you're not declaring it impossible.
What's the difference?

It failed in it primary goal---to produce life. It did not produce amino acidsd it discovered them.

Balderdash! Its goal was not to produce life, but to see what would happen; to produce evidence to be evaluated.
The amino acids were not there when the experiment began, and myriad subsequent and better designed experiments have produced amino acids and many other biological sub units.

I do understand it. It can only be threatening to me if it can be proved nd it can't be because it is IMPOSSIBLE for something without the element of life to produce life. Why is that so hard to understand? You want it to be true, because if it is not it is you view that is threatened.

It's hard to understand because it's illogical and without evidence.. You posit some mythical sine qua non.
What is this "element of life?"

You seem to have decided that something you have no evidence of is a necessary element of life, and that any 'explanation' that doesn't include it must needs be wrong. Your position is a priori. You can't expect others to accept a position requiring some element you have no evidence of.

You keep going on about "proof." It has not been proved that the Earth revolves around the sun, that the Earth's actually spherical or that germs cause disease. You seem to be confusing science with mathematics.

You declare it impossible, you don't say why it's impossible, and you apparently refuse to familiarize yourself with the research. Why should anyone give your declaration of impossibility any credence?

I get the impression you're seeing some vast, scientific conspiracy at work.

Funny, You ASSUME everything some evo scientist says. You assume evolution has been proven.

I accept credible evidence. I'm skeptical of unsupported claims. And what the heck is an "evo scientist?"

You haven't been paying attention. How many times have you been told science doesn't prove things?
You are clearly unfamiliar with the evidence for evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. Things do change over time.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Where do you come up with this? A personified Primal Cause? Based on what? This is just simplistic, wishful thinking and positing a magical personage instead of trying to wrap your head around something complicated.

A personified Primal Cause based on the Logic of the existence of God. If you sustain that this is all wishful thinking, tell me yourself who or what caused the Universe to exist? If you can't, I have no other option but going back to the personification of the Primal Cause. You cannot refute what I am saying by ridiculing my statements. You must explain the opposite.

 

[Valjean]

Yours is a false dichotomy
There is no "Logic of the existence of God."

I was right. Your belief in God is axiomatic, it's sine qua non. You will dismiss any explanation that doesn't include magic poofing.
Why are you even participating in a scientific discussion, where reasoning proceeds from evidence to conclusion? You're reasoning is from conclusion to cherry picked evidence.

A more productive tack would be an attempt to prove this God.

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't expect you personally to be interested. But there might be others who follow this thread who are genuinely interested in learning about the origins of life. For them I recommend this video.

Before I read it, I will predict it will not offer an scientific evidence for the beginning of life. No I am going to read it and report back.

[/QUOTE]

In the beginning ....and they lived happily ever after.

That was the silliest, explanation I have ever heard and they did not present one iota of evidence, let alone scientific evidence. . The even lied. The said Miller-Urey created life---THEY DID NOT.

Not only that, they started with matter already created, and they didn't bother to say how it originated. And you say you understand science. I have some land in Florida I would like to sell you.

That was a perfect example as to why I have quite reading evo links.

 

[omega2xx]

Translation: I refuse to look at the evidence, but reserve the right to voice a strong opinion on the subject.

And you have the right to prove there is evidence in these links by simply cutting an pasting it for all to see. Yot none of you true beleiv eshas don't that. Makes me thin you can't. Prove me wrong.

Exactly -- and neither is evolution or abiogenesis.
And yet you're not declaring it impossible.
What's the difference?

Not only am I declaring it impossible, so does real science.

Balderdash! Its goal was not to produce life, but to see what would happen; to produce evidence to be evaluated.
The amino acids were not there when the experiment began, and myriad subsequent and better designed experiments have produced amino acids and many other biological sub units.
It's hard to understand because it's illogical and without evidence.. You posit some mythical sine qua non.
]What is this "element of life?"

It was to produce life and the amino acids were they. They just discovered them.

You seem to have decided that something you have no evidence of is a necessary element of life, and that any 'explanation' that doesn't include it must needs be wrong. Your position is a priori. You can't expect others to accept a position requiring some element you have no evidence of.

I expect intelligent people to look at what is presented as evidence. So far none of you have presented any scientific data.

You keep going on about "proof." It has not been proved that the Earth revolves around the sun, that the Earth's actually spherical or that germs cause disease. You seem to be confusing science with mathematics.
If you don' think those have been proven, you are in worse scientific shape than I imagined.

You declare it impossible, you don't say why it's impossible, and you apparently refuse to familiarize yourself with the research. Why should anyone give your declaration of impossibility any credence?

Proven fact: death can't be the source of life. They shouldn't give anything I say credibioity, they should olook at and evaluate what is presented as evidence.

get the impression you're seeing some vast, scientific conspiracy at work.
I accept credible evidence. I'm skeptical of unsupported claims. And what the heck is an "evo scientist?"

You are not skeptical of unsupported claims,l That is all evolution has and you believe them. An evo, is an evolutionists.

You haven't been paying attention. How many times have you been told science doesn't prove things?]

That is the dumbest thing someone can say about science. Science has proved there is more than one blood type- it can prove what type you have. Teh can prove if you get the wrong type, you will die.

You are clearly unfamiliar with the evidence for evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. Things do change over time.

If it is overwhelming, post one thing, just one thing in the TOE that has been proven.

 

[ArtieE]

Before I read it, I will predict it will not offer an scientific evidence for the beginning of life. No I am going to read it and report back.

Actually it is a video not something you read...

That was a perfect example as to why I have quite reading evo links.

It is a video... a video is something you watch and listen to.