- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 11 2007,21:34) Could someone (including apes) explain to me how nothing became the cosmos. I am not interested in the matter vs antimatter war, or how matter came to be and clumped together to form bodies and systems. No I have heard all that before, and it proves naught that God created the cosmos.
No what I want to know is how nothing actually became something.
When I think of nothing, all I can think of is nothing resulting from it. In fact no result at all.
Please explain how nothing turned into something, or how something came out of nothing.
I really would like to know, because I could apply that knowledge to some inventive ideas I have, such as making 1 million dollars appear out of thin air.
Thanks in advance and I will give away 10% of the 1 million dollars to your favourite charity, if I can make it appear from nothing at all based on your explanation of how something can come from nothing.
What you are really looking for is a gap to lever a god into. There are plenty of such gaps at the moment, but as they shrink, you will need a god that is very compressible.stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 12 2007,04:46) Hi,
THe problem is that men have come to glory in what they think is knowledge
-science-
a partial view at best of what is-
instead of weeking wisdom, which begins in fearing God.A 19 yr old's knowledge may lead him to by a WRX car because he finds it is the most powerful and reasonably priced vehicle available
but without wisdom he is likely to die at the wheel.
The history of Western Europe from the dark ages to the Enlightenment and beyond is the triumph of a scientific method of discovery that works over a 'revelation' method that does not work, and very often causes people misery.The demographic and societal changes (for example public health, life expectancy, ability to explore new places like space) that have resulted are amongst the greatest achievements of the remarkable great ape homo sapiens.
The car example I think is like our treatment of the environment. It may have been partly our knowledge of science that has got us into the environmental trouble we have but we sure won't escape from it without science.
That people give thanks to a Sky Friend for these things is quaint, but irrelevant.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 12 2007,05:33) Hi Stu,
Your argument is not with us but with Charles Darwin.
He did not approve of the tangential gospel that grew from his idea.
Are you speaking in tongues, Nick? What on earth are you talking about?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 12 2007,05:47) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 12 2007,04:46) Hi,
THe problem is that men have come to glory in what they think is knowledge
-science-
a partial view at best of what is-
instead of weeking wisdom, which begins in fearing God.A 19 yr old's knowledge may lead him to by a WRX car because he finds it is the most powerful and reasonably priced vehicle available
but without wisdom he is likely to die at the wheel.
The history of Western Europe from the dark ages to the Enlightenment and beyond is the triumph of a scientific method of discovery that works over a 'revelation' method that does not work, and very often causes people misery.The demographic and societal changes (for example public health, life expectancy, ability to explore new places like space) that have resulted are amongst the greatest achievements of the remarkable great ape homo sapiens.
The car example I think is like our treatment of the environment. It may have been partly our knowledge of science that has got us into the environmental trouble we have but we sure won't escape from it without science.
That people give thanks to a Sky Friend for these things is quaint, but irrelevant.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You may claim to be an ape but we do not share that heritage.Do you really think men are now enlightened?
They may understand and know a little more about what can be seen and grasped but is that reason enough to bask in glory when some of that information is only used to kill other men and sin and selfishness is destroying the earth?
Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 12 2007,01:43) t8, The way I understand it, scientist realize this conundrum. I don't think any of them think everything came out of nothing. I think they believe that at one point in time, the basic rudementary needed “things” existed before the creation of big bang / time.
These “things” must have existed eternally (hard to find words in a no time universe) in some form of a steady state until some reaction occured causing them to “start up” the creation process.
Thanks Morningstar.There it is right there.
“scientist realize this conundrum. I don't think any of them think everything came out of nothing”.
So there has always been something.
Then it boils down to 2 options:
- Something has always existed
- Someone has always existed
It is usually common sense to assume that something always comes from something or someone, but if you had to go right back, it would be ridiculous to assume that some inanimate object or something not living has always existed.
So at least on the outset we have a 50% chance that it was someone as opposed to something and yet many deny the possibility of someone.
But logically speaking it seems highly unlikely that the first thing was something. Because you still have the problem of where did something come from. Can it really be a progression of somethings, one thing into another for all eternity in the past.
It seems more logical that someone existed before all things. Then you have the cause and you eliminate the almost preposterous thought that something has been transforming from one thing to another for all eternity past with no guidance from intelligence whatsoever.
Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.Quote You have not disproved the fact of evolution. I'm going to look for a list of facts that are no longer facts….
“a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation.” (wikipedia.)
To my knowledge, no one has observed evolution of one species into another and it is not verifiable. If it is, I'd like it verified.
I just like this quote.
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”- Albert EinsteinQuote (david @ Dec. 12 2007,16:32) Quote You have not disproved the fact of evolution. I'm going to look for a list of facts that are no longer facts….
“a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation.” (wikipedia.)
To my knowledge, no one has observed evolution of one species into another and it is not verifiable. If it is, I'd like it verified.
“Flying machines, heavier than air, are impossible” is a fact of the kind that matches your definition, that was but no longer is. All knowledge is provisional, including facts. Some facts are more robust than others.The fact of evolution is not in someone standing around staring at fruit flies reproducing and measuring the new phenotypes that arise (although evolution of this kind has been observed). The fact is of the fossil record, which by radioisotope dating demonstrates that older animal remains are of species that are no longer extant, while most modern species have not left remains in the oldest rock. Animal and plant species have changed over long periods of time. That's what you said evolution is.
Evolution is one of the most robust facts known to science, and natural selection is one of the most powerful and predictive theories.
Stuart
Hi Nick
Quote You may claim to be an ape but we do not share that heritage. Where in scripture does it say you are not, biologically speaking, a great ape?
Quote Do you really think men are now enlightened? Compared to the dark ages and medieval times, which were characterised by religious ignorance, I think we are more enlightened. The evidence of human discovery since the Western Enlightenment shows that our knowledge and understanding have increased exponentially. I think our ethical thinking, concern for fellow humans and capacity to help others has increased markedly.
Quote They may understand and know a little more about what can be seen and grasped but is that reason enough to bask in glory when some of that information is only used to kill other men and sin and selfishness is destroying the earth? Don’t forget how much of that selfishness is in the actions of those who are religious fundamentalists. Sure there are problems, but I think this is a very bleak christian outlook on the world, and I choose to be more optimistic.
Stuart
t8
Quote It is usually common sense to assume that something always comes from something or someone, but if you had to go right back, it would be ridiculous to assume that some inanimate object or something not living has always existed. Common sense and ‘ridiculous’ are in the eye of the beholder. What if the origins of matter do not conform to common sense?
Quote So at least on the outset we have a 50% chance that it was someone as opposed to something and yet many deny the possibility of someone. Please can you give your calculation for your figure of 50% probability for ‘someone’.
Quote But logically speaking it seems highly unlikely that the first thing was something. Because you still have the problem of where did something come from. Can it really be a progression of somethings, one thing into another for all eternity in the past. Just like the recursive problem of your ‘someone’.
Quote It seems more logical that someone existed before all things. Then you have the cause and you eliminate the almost preposterous thought that something has been transforming from one thing to another for all eternity past with no guidance from intelligence whatsoever. Humans like to think so, but we are hunter-gatherers with relatively poor unaided senses and many prejudices. That is the message of objective science.
Quote Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.Matthew 5:22 … but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Stuart
Stu, from “The Bible” thread since this fits better here:
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 11 2007,12:12) Quote (kejonn @ Dec. 12 2007,00:10) In fact, our own bodies can show signs of micro evolution. For example, my son takes allergy shots to aid in the ability of his body to resist these allergies. How do you think this takes place? Our bodies immune system is a great example of micro evolution.
Hi kejonnWhat is microevolution?
Stuart
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
- Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level [1].
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and nonrandom mating.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.
I will freely admit, however, that my example of immunotherapy was misapplied as a microevolutionary event because such therapy would not result in a change that would be passed on genetically. Immunotherapy is more akin to “exercise for the immune system”. That is, I can work out and raise my phyical fitness but such changes rendered in my own body would not result in a genetic change that would be passed on to further generations. Immunotherapy is basically a “workout” for the immune system to aid in fighting off certain bodily contaminants. In my son's case, this would be certain airborne allergens.
Hi kejonn
Microevolution is a creationist concept, like flood geology, it is derived from biblical mythology and has no relationship to what is observed in reality. From the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia site you linked is this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#barriers
Explains why the term microevolution has no real meaning.
There is only one theory of evolution and the terms macroevolution and microevolution are not used by real scientists.
Stuart
Stu,
I see! There is an entry on the “differences” found on a page under About.com's Athiesm/Agnosticism section.
I'd never really considered the difference, just that macro seemed on a larger scale. However, if you think on the basic levels of adaptation, natural selection, “survival of the fittest” then we're not talking about one species becoming another but developing certain changes that enable them to survive their environment.
Not that I have the time to really dig, but is there a documented case (or cases) of one species evolving to another? Two different species now, not just a new subspecies. For instance, a lizard turning into a snake
. A cat turning into a dog. I'm not really interested in a black widow spider turning into a tarantula (though that would be neat) but in one giving rise to another.Hi kj,
That would be reasonable scientific evidence.
But it does not exist.
And good science is given a bad name by this hocus pocusQuote (Stu @ Dec. 12 2007,22:17) Common sense and ‘ridiculous’ are in the eye of the beholder. What if the origins of matter do not conform to common sense?
OK, lets say that they don't necessarily conform to common sense.Answer this Stu.
Is the existence of a God common sense to you?
If not, then why do you say that the existence of God is silly and things don't necessarily conform to common sense.
That is a contradiction in your thinking. I think the contradiction has its cause in bias.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 13 2007,10:05) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 12 2007,22:17) Common sense and ‘ridiculous’ are in the eye of the beholder. What if the origins of matter do not conform to common sense?
OK, lets say that they don't necessarily conform to common sense.Answer this Stu.
Is the existence of a God common sense to you?
If not, then why do you say that the existence of God is silly and things don't necessarily conform to common sense.
That is a contradiction in your thinking. I think the contradiction has its cause in bias.
I don't think I have ever been as kindly mild about the self-delusion of belief in a murderous fictional character that controls everything but has been observed to affect nothing.Please can you show me where I have been as pathetically wimpy as to use the words 'silly' and (lacks) 'common sense', and I'll ask for editing rights to change them to what I really think.
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Dec. 13 2007,06:49) Stu, I see! There is an entry on the “differences” found on a page under About.com's Athiesm/Agnosticism section.
I'd never really considered the difference, just that macro seemed on a larger scale. However, if you think on the basic levels of adaptation, natural selection, “survival of the fittest” then we're not talking about one species becoming another but developing certain changes that enable them to survive their environment.
Not that I have the time to really dig, but is there a documented case (or cases) of one species evolving to another? Two different species now, not just a new subspecies. For instance, a lizard turning into a snake
. A cat turning into a dog. I'm not really interested in a black widow spider turning into a tarantula (though that would be neat) but in one giving rise to another.
The article you linked to puts it better than I did. 'Macroevolution' is just 'microevolution' that has gone on for longer. The interest value lies in the second-to-last paragraph which indicates that it is not the definition of microevolution that is important but the definition of species. For sexually reproducing animals and plants a species consists of those able to interbreed. This would seem to be easy until you encounter plants, animals and protists that reproduce asexually, and ring species, which show what I think of as 'horizontal' evolutionary difference.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
In the same way, creationists attempt but fail to make mileage from the aparent contradiction that one species could not in a single generation give rise to a different species. The ring species are a living example of why you cannot say exactly where the border is between one species and another. To the fundamentalist mind, this lack of certainty is unacceptable, which is why their mindset is the antithesis of the scientific one.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 13 2007,06:53) Hi kj,
That would be reasonable scientific evidence.
But it does not exist.
And good science is given a bad name by this hocus pocus
May I make the observation that you confuse the useage of the word evidence with that of the word argument. Presenting an argument is not the same as presenting evidence, although the bible seems to be pretty carefree on its use of these otherwise well-defined terms.It also occurs to me that your posts on this subject are not supported by a good understanding of the subject. There is no crime in that but I really can't tell what you think is 'hocus pocus' and therefore you are giving science a bad name yourself in a smearing kind of way.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
We have the sacred writings but all you have is the gropings of blind men.
Yet you put these men on pedestals and insult our treasures.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 13 2007,16:04) Hi Stu,
We have the sacred writings but all you have is the gropings of blind men.
Yet you put these men on pedestals and insult our treasures.
The sacred writings are the gropings of blind men. You do more than treasure them. You obsess over them to the point of denying reality.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
