How did the universe begin???

[Gibsons]

mutations are always harmful instead of useful... never has a mutation created anything helpful (that you can prove was a mutation).

absolutely unequivocally incorrect.

For evolution to work... you would have to have mom and dad ape for example... give birth to a new creature genetically different.... not only that... another mom and pop ape somewhere else would have to give birth to a similair creature of the opposite sex... and these creatures would have to be reproductive chemically compatible otherwise they would not be able to have babies.

no.

All you need is to reproductively seperate a population. Geography will do. Following that, genetic drift and time will ensure (pretty much mathematically) that you have two populations that aren't able to breed with each other. you already admitted dna randomly mutates. (it's sorta quasi-random as there are certain tendencies that are known by biochemistry and observed in an evolutionary sense by phylogenetic comparison of genome sequences).

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Gilby

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

The truth of Christianity is the only self consistent, rational, and fulfilling belief/religion/absolute truth.

And I plead with you that you choose it.

So let me get this straight....all the other religions are wrong--inconsistant was your word...because they disagree with Christianity. And Christianity is right...because it agrees with Christianity.

Absofackinglutely unbelievable. How does one even begin to debate with a brain this dense?

Clearly none of you has addressed the simple problem I posed that, if left unaccounted for, leaves any and all arguments you make against Christianity void and without effect. I have already made known the problem, and now you are the ones who must provide the foundation for your arguements.

I suggest you go re-read the posts I've made. In order for you to prove the Bible wrong, you must to use reason and logic. Yet you cannot use reason and logic without automatically affirming their veracity in that they flow directly out of God's character and cannot be the effect of a solely cause and effect universe. They are real because to prove them wrong, you must use them. And now because they are real, none of you can explain where they came from with your view of the world. Your all's view of the world is inadequate, incomplete, and inconsistent.

Wait a minute, run that by me again? So here's what you said: 1) To prove the Bible wrong, you must use logic and reasoning. 2) If you use logic and reasoning, you're proving that it came from God. I'm assuming the third implied premise if that if God exist, the Bible is true.

Now who's begging the question?

 

[FreemanHL2]

I think every religious person on the planet agrees with evolution. We see mutations on a daily bases, the problem is the "HOLES in evolution," the stuff that makes no sense.

The primary difference in opinion between creationism and evolution is:

EVOLUTION: The world was triggered by a random event called the big bang. Things began evolving from one-celled organisms.

CREATIONSIM: The world was created by god. God created humans and set evolution in progress.

Evolution is undeniable, and no one here has ever denied, it if you look at their posts really hard, you will never hear anyone saying evolution does not exist. The problem is where did it start, and from what level of development did evolution start (multi-cellular or one-celled).

The only real place to find logic is to start from the beginning, god or the big bang, in order to prove either theory. I am obviously for religion, so I will attempt to prove that god created things from the beginning, and I will leave it up to you to argue that the big bang was the beginning. Also for those arguing that this should not be in the highly technical forums, what are you thinking??? Evolution is one of the most complex scientific arguments of our decade, and you CANNOT talk about evolution without creationism entering the formula, just because some of us arguing in the forum will be religious.

So I argue that something had to transcend time in order to have a beginning. Because something can't come out of nothing, it just can't "happen" there needs to be a cause. But why can god transcend time but not matter??? Because I argue that time is just our perspective, and time to god doesn?t really exist. God has been there forever because he created our perception of time! An atom could not have been there forever, and neither could god, in our OWN PERCEPTION. An atom has to have a beginning, because it has to obey our own laws of physics and time. God does not, because god has no perception of time, he lives in another realm or dimension for all you scientists, the laws of time and physics do not apply to him. THE ONLY logical conclusion is the start of our time was triggered by something that transcends time, and our laws of physics.

Weather you believe in the Christian god or not doesn?t matter, something was there forever... something that doesn?t obey our own laws of physics/time... was it aliens from another dimension??? Was it god??? Was it a drifting rift of subspace matter in another dimension???

To me the logical conclusion is god, because there is more evidence of god than a subspace rift outside of time. Weather you think there is evidence of god or not doesn?t really matter, because there are books written way back in time about god, NOT subspace rifts. We have historical sightings of Jesus, records of his presence on earth, we have prophesies from god, such as the recent tidal wave, in which Jesus predicted large earthquakes of magnitude never before seen in human history. There is a prophesy about the demise of America (the eagle) as the world power, long before America existed!

Believe what you want, it doesn?t really matter, because this is not a religious debate. But from a scientific perspective the thought of something transcending time and our perspective of physics and even dimension is something very interesting...

 

[TuxDave]

You're muddling up several theories into one non-existant one. Since when did evolution had to do anything with the Big Bang theory? And somehow you went from Evolution is the process that occurs after life has been created (which is correct) into something coming from nothing (which isn't related to evolution.)

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

I suggest you go re-read the posts I've made. In order for you to prove the Bible wrong, you must to use reason and logic. Yet you cannot use reason and logic without automatically affirming their veracity in that they flow directly out of God's character and cannot be the effect of a solely cause and effect universe.

Um.

Wrong.

Just because you repeatedly claim something is so does not in fact make it so. Yes, you've claimed over and over again that logic is only possible if a hypothetical god exists--you've offered no more than your own say-so, and some quotes from a book of mythology that have nothing whatsoever to do with your claim. This only shows that you do not have the slightest idea of what logic and reason are, not that you are the absolute arbitrator of same.

Honestly? Keep arguing if you want. But you're really doing a poor job of representing your religion. Your arguments refute themselves quite well, making a far better case for the other side.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: Jeffyboy
DNA randomly mutates and in lab tests... mutations are always harmful instead of useful... never has a mutation created anything helpful (that you can prove was a mutation). For evolution to work... you would have to have mom and dad ape for example... give birth to a new creature genetically different.... not only that... another mom and pop ape somewhere else would have to give birth to a similair creature of the opposite sex... and these creatures would have to be reproductive chemically compatible otherwise they would not be able to have babies. It's ridiculous to think of this happening... and there are no fossil records to indicate that gradual change has occurred from ape to man so spontaneous evolution is the theory but it's just totally silly since it couldn't viably work. If gradual evolution occurred... there would be an abundance of fossil records which there isn't... not to mention evolutionists haven't painted a really nice picture of how this works yet... so creationism can't be ruled out.

You tend to listen to snake-peddlers without question, don't you?

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2

EVOLUTION: The world was triggered by a random event called the big bang. Things began evolving from one-celled organisms.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? The prevailing theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the formation of the universe or, for that matter, the planet. None. Those would be ideas covered by geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and various exotic branches of same. The theory of evolution is an idea covered by biology. It basically forms the basis for understanding everything we know about biology.

CREATIONSIM: The world was created by god. God created humans and set evolution in progress.

Far too simplistic. The YECs (Young Earth Creationists) would completely deny any sort of setting of evolution in progress, instead offering special creations mixed with stuff like a global flood. Deists, say, might agree that a diety created the universe, but think it had nothing to do with humans. Other Christians probably fall somewhere inbetween.

But you're ignoring so much. What about the idea that the universe, and the earth, have always existed, and will always exist? What about the idea that the universe was sneezed out of someone's nostril? What about the idea that an invisible pink dragon in my garage did everything? Sure, some of those ideas have been offered for longer than others, but all have about the same possibility and, for that matter, have about the same relation to science, ie none.

Evolution is one of the most complex scientific arguments of our decade, and you CANNOT talk about evolution without creationism entering the formula, just because some of us arguing in the forum will be religious.

And you can't talk about world war 2 without some holocaust denier to come along, just because some that argue are neo-nazi shitheads. Nor can you talk about the space program without some complete nutjob claiming that the moon landing is a hoax. Neither of these should be taken seriously, and neither should creationism.

So I argue that something had to transcend time in order to have a beginning. Because something can't come out of nothing, it just can't "happen" there needs to be a cause.

So you offer your own inability to comprehend, your own incredulity, your own ignorance as your reasoning? Good to know where you're coming from. It doesn't support your argument, but it lets us know just how little stock to put into anything you write.

we have prophesies from god, such as the recent tidal wave, in which Jesus predicted large earthquakes of magnitude never before seen in human history.

Actually, human history has seen larger earthquakes. See. You can't even get basic facts right. And you want us to try to give time to your logic?

There is a prophesy about the demise of America (the eagle) as the world power, long before America existed!

And everyone knows that no other nation/state/whatever has ever had an eagle as it's symbol.

Please. Just stop. Get a lot more education and a lot less ignorance before you try again.

 

[Gibsons]

What about the idea that an invisible pink dragon in my garage did everything?

It was a UNICORN damn you! Have you not read the book of the ONE TRUE UNICORN??? Philistine.

You shall be stoned at dawn.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Gilby

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

The truth of Christianity is the only self consistent, rational, and fulfilling belief/religion/absolute truth.

And I plead with you that you choose it.

So let me get this straight....all the other religions are wrong--inconsistant was your word...because they disagree with Christianity. And Christianity is right...because it agrees with Christianity.

Absofackinglutely unbelievable. How does one even begin to debate with a brain this dense?

Clearly none of you has addressed the simple problem I posed that, if left unaccounted for, leaves any and all arguments you make against Christianity void and without effect. I have already made known the problem, and now you are the ones who must provide the foundation for your arguements.

I suggest you go re-read the posts I've made. In order for you to prove the Bible wrong, you must to use reason and logic. Yet you cannot use reason and logic without automatically affirming their veracity in that they flow directly out of God's character and cannot be the effect of a solely cause and effect universe. They are real because to prove them wrong, you must use them. And now because they are real, none of you can explain where they came from with your view of the world. Your all's view of the world is inadequate, incomplete, and inconsistent.

Wait a minute, run that by me again? So here's what you said: 1) To prove the Bible wrong, you must use logic and reasoning. 2) If you use logic and reasoning, you're proving that it came from God. I'm assuming the third implied premise if that if God exist, the Bible is true.

Now who's begging the question?

I assume the existence of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, because without him nothing follows. His existence is the only foundation on which consistency may be derived.

Yet you just reasoned there. Whats your basis for the ability to reason, to say "I'm right!" or "You're wrong!" when all that is is a chemical process? You are still ignoring the fact that:
You can't explain the fundament origin of reason. and
You can't disprove anything (including the Bible) without using reason.

and you can't do either of those without using it.

But you continue to use it, without proof of its existence, as the structure for your arguements. Your science is not allowed to assume anything that is not backed up by evidence. You claim the consistency of science, yet you are not being consistent with yourself in backing that proposition up. You are self refuting.

Nothing and no one can disprove that. The moment anyone begins to try, they start assuming and, hence, refute their own beliefs. All that remains are personal attacks that do not sufficiently deal with the problem I pose.

 

[CTho9305]

I assume the existence of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, because without him nothing follows. His existence is the only foundation on which consistency may be derived.

...blah blah blah...

Nothing and no one can disprove that. The moment anyone begins to try, they start assuming and, hence, refute their own beliefs.

So you are exempt from the last part of your argument?

edit: Nearly all arguments require some premises - assumptions which the argument depends on. For example, if I wanted to argue that HP is better than Dell, I might have premises like:
1. Cheaper is better
2. HP is cheaper (I'm only using this as an example - it may not be true)
We could then conclude that HP is better than Dell. In order to have a reasonable debate, we need to settle on at least a SMALL set of premises, and you refuse to allow this - the only premise you allow is "The bible is irrefutable truth". A Dell "fanboy" might react similarly by refusing to allow the use of premise #2 in the debate, thus making discussion impossible. You refuse to accept that other hypotheses for creation can be reached if you argue from starting points other than the bible.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
All that remains are personal attacks that do not sufficiently deal with the problem I pose.

Originally posted by: CTho9305
So you are exempt from the last part of your argument?

See?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
All that remains are personal attacks that do not sufficiently deal with the problem I pose.

Originally posted by: CTho9305
So you are exempt from the last part of your argument?

See?

That obviously wasn't a personal attack. It was an attack on your argument.

 

[zugzoog]

Ok, I am going to jump in here. As this is a Highly technical forum I am going to address some of the technical positions that have made in support of your argument.

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
I'd also like everyone here to know something startling, space is nothing... yes it contains no oxygen, no atoms, NOTHING. Obviously there are bodies of gas in space, and stars and planets... but space itself is NOTHING. Space is never ending, because NOTHINGNESS has no beginning or end, and neither do moments of time.

Incorrect. Space is not empty. Fair enough it might not contain many atoms in it, but it is a veritable soup (or maybe more a very thin gruel ) of virtual particles.

Virtual particle pairs form out of nothing and exist for a very short period of time. As long as the product of the particle's mass and the time that it is in existence is less that Heisenberg's constant, then the conservation of energy postulate is not violated.

Please read the abstract on the following link for a quick discusion of virtual particles and their most noticable measurable effect (Casimir force) link

What proof is there that space is never ending? Could you please provide a source?

To continue this a little further, what shape is Space? Of course nobody knows this answer. Could it be that travelling in the same direction that you could end up where you started? An anology for this is, imagine you lived in a 2D universe that was spherical in shape. You are located on the equater of this sphere nad start travelling west. Keep on travelling in the same direction and you will eventually reach your starting point. Is our space like this? One of the peculiararities of such a universe is that the sum of the angles of a triangle would exceed 180 degrees.

Funnily enough this question is being asked about for our universe link2. Suppose we find that the sum of the angles of a triangle does not equal 180 degrees for our universe. Then it would could be reasonable to say that space could be finite in size.


You are quite correct about nothingess not having a beginning or end as concepts as time/distance are meaningless for nothingness. However this does not equate to Space = nothingness as Space does have the properties of distance and time.

 

[FreemanHL2]

Actually I don't believe man landed on the moon GILBY! You would need at least 10ft of lead to protect those inside the shuttle from being subjected to the suns highly dangerous levels of radiation. In comparison, those shuttles (on the moon) had nothing more than a couple of layers of steel and aluminum... and to be honest I don?t care what it was made from, they didn't have 10ft of lead so they should be dead. Plus the shadows and the perspective are all wrong, it was filmed using spotlights. But this is beside the point.

No one believes the universe was snorted from a nostril or created from a pink dragon. We are not PRIMITIVE BEINGS that can easily be persuaded by unlikely theories that have more bearing on children?s fantasy stories. I resent your statements GILBY, the Christian religion has made PROPHESIES, Jesus is WRITTEN in history you fool! These are far more likely than a pink dragon in your garage! You are an incompetent, ignorant, fool, who seems to dismiss much of the proof presented in my (and other ppl?s) statements, DENY before god that he did not prophesy of the fall of America and he did not predict the tidal waves!!! DENY it to all of us, tell me that it is as likely as a pink dragon!!! When did the pink dragon prophesy the future! Since when did I find snot all over the galaxy from some grotesquely overlarge nostril from which we all came!!!

IGNORENT IS THE ONE SAYING THERE IS NO GOD!

You cannot refuse the evidence that prophesies provide. You cannot deny Jesus, he is written in history! You cannot deny the fact that we have never found a half-evolved human being!

And in the end I don't honestly care weather this goes past biology and into astronomy and other sciences. I do not need to keep within the boundaries of biology; I will prove my point using all means available to me!!! I will change the name of this thread to "HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN."

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
Actually I don't believe man landed on the moon GILBY! ....

I was about to refute your previous posts... but after reading this, I decided that it wouldn't be worth my time.

Please Educate Yourself

 

[zugzoog]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
So time is never ending and so is space... after all almost every scientist on the planet now agrees space has no ending.

This is a bold claim. Your source?

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2

And in the end I don't honestly care weather this goes past biology and into astronomy and other sciences. I do not need to keep within the boundaries of biology; I will prove my point using all means available to me!!! I will change the name of this thread to "HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN."

OK. Fess up.

Who is this really?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: zugzoog
Ok, I am going to jump in here. As this is a Highly technical forum I am going to address some of the technical positions that have made in support of your argument.

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
I'd also like everyone here to know something startling, space is nothing... yes it contains no oxygen, no atoms, NOTHING. Obviously there are bodies of gas in space, and stars and planets... but space itself is NOTHING. Space is never ending, because NOTHINGNESS has no beginning or end, and neither do moments of time.

Incorrect. Space is not empty. Fair enough it might not contain many atoms in it, but it is a veritable soup (or maybe more a very thin gruel ) of virtual particles.

Virtual particle pairs form out of nothing and exist for a very short period of time. As long as the product of the particle's mass and the time that it is in existence is less that Heisenberg's constant, then the conservation of energy postulate is not violated.

Please read the abstract on the following link for a quick discusion of virtual particles and their most noticable measurable effect (Casimir force) link

What proof is there that space is never ending? Could you please provide a source?

To continue this a little further, what shape is Space? Of course nobody knows this answer. Could it be that travelling in the same direction that you could end up where you started? An anology for this is, imagine you lived in a 2D universe that was spherical in shape. You are located on the equater of this sphere nad start travelling west. Keep on travelling in the same direction and you will eventually reach your starting point. Is our space like this? One of the peculiararities of such a universe is that the sum of the angles of a triangle would exceed 180 degrees.

Funnily enough this question is being asked about for our universe link2. Suppose we find that the sum of the angles of a triangle does not equal 180 degrees for our universe. Then it would could be reasonable to say that space could be finite in size.


You are quite correct about nothingess not having a beginning or end as concepts as time/distance are meaningless for nothingness. However this does not equate to Space = nothingness as Space does have the properties of distance and time.

You beat me to the post
(and, thanks for that link... something I can use in class possibly)

For what it's worth, Einsteins view of the Universe is that it's non-Euclidean.
For the OP and any others, basically there are different geometries, based upon different axioms (or "obvious truths") upon which everything else is derived. The one everyone is most familiar with is Euclidean Geometry... the stuff you may have learned in high school. One of Euclid's axioms is that parallel lines never meet.

Then, a few mathematicians played around with the "basic rules", (one notable one was Bernard Riehman), and what changes were on the pythagorean theorem under a variety of different rules (or different geometries). For a long time, these were more of mathematical curiousities than applicable to anything in the real world (much the same as fractals were considered to be nonsensical mathematics until the computer age when mathematical operations could be performed more quickly and they started having applications such as compression). Then one day, some famous dude, Albert Einstein, (I believe you've heard of him) - a religious man (btw) said "dudes, the universe isn't Euclidean." Then he came up with all sorts of cool theories and stuff, one of them, from the mathematics, is that parallel lines DO eventually touch, and space is curved. (actually, Karl Schwarz-something or other wrote a paper years earlier suggesting a non-Euclidean universe)

Deviations from Euclid's rules are about (quoting from a book I just happen to be reading this week) "one part in one hundred thousand over the dimensions of our solar system, but their presence was undeniably confirmed by observation exactly as Einstein had predicted."


So.. you thought empty space was empty.. it's not.
It's as empty as a parking lot is flat and smooth. To us, that sounds true, but to something the size of a bacterium, a parking lot is no where near smooth. Likewise, (to something far far far smaller than a microbe, "empty space" is anything but empty.

And... in this universe, parallel lines meet.

 

[zugzoog]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
Actually I don't believe man landed on the moon GILBY! You would need at least 10ft of lead to protect those inside the shuttle from being subjected to the suns highly dangerous levels of radiation.

Source? What are the levels of radiation from the sun in space surrounding the Earth? What is the accepted radiation dose for a human? What is the effectiveness of radiation sheild for various materials that could be used.


I guess you better tell the astronauts that were on the Mir space station that they should be dead. I don't think that Mir had 10 foot lead protection either.

....or is that a hoax as well?

 

[zugzoog]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Then one day, some famous dude, Albert Einstein, (I believe you've heard of him) - a religious man (btw) said "dudes, the universe isn't Euclidean."

:thumbsup: The best summary of Relativity EVER!

EDIT for spelling

 

[zugzoog]

Originally posted by: zugzoog

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
Actually I don't believe man landed on the moon GILBY! You would need at least 10ft of lead to protect those inside the shuttle from being subjected to the suns highly dangerous levels of radiation.

Source? What are the levels of radiation from the sun in space surrounding the Earth? What is the accepted radiation dose for a human? What is the effectiveness of radiation sheild for various materials that could be used.


I guess you better tell the astronauts that were on the Mir space station that they should be dead. I don't think that Mir had 10 foot lead protection either.

....or is that a hoax as well?

Doesn't this conflict with your previous statement that space is empty?

 

[Mattnum25]

Originally posted by: Peter
Bacteria is a prime example where you can watch evolution at work, in the course of minutes, hours, days. That's because the breeding rate (and thus the change rate) is so high. Species that breed slowly evolve slowly. Still, even we humans do. We're growing taller, our skulls change, our dentition does too, toes are slowly but noticeably going out of fashion.

OK, I'm not particularly interested in the rest of this discussion, but I've got to ask...toes are going out of fashion?

 

[zugzoog]

Originally posted by: Mattnum25

Originally posted by: Peter
Bacteria is a prime example where you can watch evolution at work, in the course of minutes, hours, days. That's because the breeding rate (and thus the change rate) is so high. Species that breed slowly evolve slowly. Still, even we humans do. We're growing taller, our skulls change, our dentition does too, toes are slowly but noticeably going out of fashion.

OK, I'm not particularly interested in the rest of this discussion, but I've got to ask...toes are going out of fashion?

Hate to tell you this, but so are males...... Link :Q










Now that I have scared you, it is not quite as bad as made out.... link

 

[jagec]

Stop feeding the troll, guys.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2Jesus is WRITTEN in history you fool!

So is Mohammed. Your point?

You cannot deny the fact that we have never found a half-evolved human being!

Yes we have. And it keeps happening.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/bi...evolution/humevol.html

Not only did we find earlier versions of what eventually evolved to what we're now, we have also found sidelines of evolution who didn't make it to this day (e.g. the Neanderthals).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Your posts just show that there is no greater fool than the ignorant who's desperately clinging to the one book he's read.