This all just happened..

Jump to Last Post 1-36 of 36 discussions (227 posts)

65
aka-djposted 13 years ago
After you have had a look at this..

http://molpath.ucsd.edu/pdf/Domains_Signaling.pdf

Come back and re-affirm it was all just a mere accident, without any intelligent "cause".
reply report
1. 68
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "It looks complex to me so God made it."
  reply report
2. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is correct dj. I can see you are angry and I don't blame you - I was when I discovered Christianity was nonsense. Oh well - better late than never.
  
  Glad you are now claiming to understand molecular biology though. Seeing as you do not believe evolution happened despite the facts.
  
  Will you get more angry as the Winter Solstice approaches?
  reply report
  61
  hanging outposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i noted the url was ucsd.edu University of california San Diego.
  
  again you are quick to slap at anything. Perhaps the anger is not contained to the person you would like to point it at.
  
  when i discovered that atheism was pure nonsense (and this mostly i discovered listening to many atheists purport their flimsy and self justifying, ego-centric nihilist versions of idiocy) I embraced a more stable belief.
  Christianity. It has answers and doesn't leave any questions. Of course quoting the bible out of context and relying on carnal and unspiritual interpretations of said book will never reveal to any upright monkey (hairless or otherwise) the truth of whasup.
  My biggest question is what makes certain people so egotistical as to always be pointing a finger at something or someone while refusing to see the mote in their own eye.
  Since the url you question comes from a university which has good standing i would say that the person who pointed us to this wonderful article DOES NOT HIMSELF have to have an understanding of all the intricacies involved therein, but can by natural faith assume the content to be of reliable source.
  What part of this do you want to take out of context :lol
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True, we are all well informed and educated in the fine nuances of birth without conceiving, zombification of dead people and the shimmering display of faked deaths by gods. I got no questions.
  reply report
3. 79
  Sufidreamerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing complex about that - pretty basic stuff
  
  Here is an explanation of how such systems probably evolved from simpler systems, also showing how nature is very economical with such mechanism, reusing them over and over again:
  
  http://www.mun.ca/biology/desmid/brian/ … lution.pdf
  
  It is a fascinating paper, with lots of avenues for future research
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh Sufidreamer, aka dj is here not to have any rational explanation but to "prove" to himself that there is god. he don't accept any explanation unless there is the word god and bible in it.
  reply report
65
aka-djposted 13 years ago
Where do you guys get the notion I am angry??
Beats me? I can't remember the last time I got angry.
Certainly not with the sad lot of atheists on Hubpages forums.
If anything, I am greatly amused, how you all believe the nonsense you defend so hard.

About the article, though, it looks like the most amazing flowchart ever. Don't you think?
It has taken (intelligent) human minds multiple thousands of manhours and the same in $, just to decipher this.
And they still have much to learn. I guess thy'll be busy for a while yet.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So - you don't understand it, therefor there must be a god. How sad.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I see.
  You DO understand it, so there mustn't be a God.
  Makes sense to me!
  Same evidence, different interpretation!
  
  BUT, if you are right, then SO am I!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No dj - I don't fully understand the intricacies of molecular biology. Nor do I have an answer to everything - unlike yourself. But at least you admit the reason you believe is because you do not understand, I just do not need that crutch. Sorry. It was actually peopel such as yourself who showed me that there is not a god. Thank you.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, I didn't show you that, because it is impossible to "show" anything of the kind.
  You CHOSE to reject any notion of God, and religion, of your own free will. Please don't pretend to be some sort of victim, and blame "them". "They made me do it", nonsense.
  
  Good night, satellite.
  I'm off to get some beauty sleep!
  reply report
  61
  hanging outposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  hahahaha
  
  its actually people like you that make me thank God there is a God, otherwise we all be like you and that would only start wars :lol :lol
  reply report
  68
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There's no logical way to go from "it's very complex" to "it must be made by God". It's just that you have no other way to view it and therefore that's what you conclude. Yes it'll take a while to figure it all out but whether God made it or whether a process of millions of years made it, in both cases we can't expect to grasp it in five minutes.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why should a process start on its own?
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why should a process starts by entity which itself has no cause ?
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  agreed and what people called god is mere assumption of constant..god created the universe...then who created god...well..hmmm...aahh...HE was always there...PERIOD..no explanations needed...what do you call that?...so god = constant...assumed
  reply report
76
frogdroppingposted 13 years ago
So the resulting analysis supports proof of God? That the answer to the question?

A thorough investigation into bio-molecular science is all it is. It's complicated because most of us don't operate along the lines of the average molecular scientist.
reply report
1. 65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not proof. Just evidence that can be interpreted any way you want. I choose ...well, you know what I choose!
  
  As to complexity, I merely point to how unlikely that accidental chemical reactions brought this about.
  I applaud the minds who have figured it out.
  reply report
  76
  frogdroppingposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which is the foundation on which all fights, foul-ups and fall-outs occur between theists and atheists
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why?
  
  Every time fights, conflicts and wars are mentioned, it ALWAYS comes from the atheist camp.
  reply report
  76
  frogdroppingposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No aka, I disagree. I've seen the same from both sides. Being a believer doesn't remove the mean and nasty from some people. It's the same with atheists.
  
  You're talking about religious wars, or wars thought to be caused by religion. I was talking about fights generally - not ones on global or national scales.
  
  The sad fact is that many wars are driven by religion. Cultures have been wiped out or severely decimated simply because an invading nation or culture imposed not just their will but their faith also.
  reply report
  67
  Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I just wanted you to know that i am so proud of your relentless campaign, for the existence of a god. Where would any of us be with out his creations, and his love and kindness, and well everything really. Hope you have a great day.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If that was for me, I thank you!
  You have a gr8 Christmas.
  reply report
  67
  Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it was for you of course, i often read the threads but dont always feel inclined to join in, as it has all been said before, but i really do admire your spirit. I do not celebrate christmas, but i am so looking forward to getting over to see my dad in England, he is fighting for his life. His lungs have almost given up, he is on oxygen and is fighting one infection after another. My sister is his full time carer, and needs my support but i cant get over because of the snow..... A mention in your prayers would be nice.... I want to be able to get to him on the 26th.
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ak-dj isn't it simple...atheist never fight for my daddy strongest theme...it is work of religion especially abhramic ones...crusader or 9/11 is part of it..imagine people fighting for something which they have never seen and killing those whom they can see , talk , feel about...
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What's with this killing, war & fighting etc obsession?
  
  I have not ONE TIME condoned, killing and war.
  I have stated many times, that it's not religion that causes war.
  It's MEN! Men have hate and violence in their hearts, and will kill others to have their way of power and domination over others. religion is but a mere excuse to magnify this self same violent, hateful behaviour.
  
  Take a look around you. Killing is going on all the time, and it's not all religious in motivation.
  
  Besides all that, your post is off topic, anyway.
  
  Do you agree, that all life as we know it today, "just happened"? Or, is it (at least as) that a Higher power is behind it. Though we may not understand (Him).
  reply report
  71
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  No offense, but what you choose to believe is irrelevant to reality, and unsubstantiated. The fact that there has never been any evidence of a designer is the prime reason why your conclusion is nonsense. People who do this have chosen to reduce the parameters of their minds.
  
  As to complexity, please explain how likely it is that God created himself from fiat?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God didn't create Himself.
  get it right!
  
  "parameters of their minds". What's that? Do you have any? Did you limit yours?
  
  It's OK if you want to base your whole worldview on this "reality". That is more limiting than what I'm suggesting, anyway!
  reply report
  71
  getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then there must be a designer who created God.
  
  I guess Goddunnit is the most open-minded and progressive way to discern reality? No limitations there!
  
  I can't stop laughing.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Laughing at your inability to understand, that God is not a created being.
  
  I'd say you have some serious limitations in thinking ability. (IE you can only think in three dimensions). Even kids can do better than that!
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In other words, you "choose" to continue to embrace myth because you believe something that is way beyond your level of understanding "unlikely" occurred. LOL!
  
  That's exactly the same as most other threads you create.
  reply report
60
wilmiers77posted 13 years ago
The orderly nature of the universe suggest that someone made it. The idea that someone made it is much more compelling than it came from nothing and, over a long period of time, arrived at our present state. After all, our experiences in the world is that someone caused or made an observed event. Than, why is what exist derived from randomness over time more logical than someone made or caused it? Creator trumps nothingness.
reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
The idea that you are angry might come from the multiple punctuation marks and capital letters.
reply report
50
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
Because He starts the cause.
reply report
1. 81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Prove it.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You prove otherwise; please.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ever heard of burden of proof ?
  
  You're spamming hubpages with your ahamadiya spam claims and creator threads, i'm not.
  reply report
60
Paul Wingertposted 13 years ago
God did not create himself. People created God. Since time began, whenever something can't be explained, "God(s) created it" was and apparently still is, with a few out there, the most logical explanation. Stephen Hawkin and other physicists concuded that because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. There's no need for a creator. Physics, not a creator, made the Big Bang.
reply report
1. 65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really?
  
  So, what or who "caused" gravity? How can any man know gravity existed prior to creation/bib bang?
  
  Physics? What the heck is physics, when NO matter exists(ed)?
  
  As to man creating God. Phooey to that. Man created idols, called them god, then re-invented them into unseen deities. Mere fakes of the One and Only True God.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why would think a "who" caused gravity?
  
  LOL!
  reply report
0
Home Girlposted 13 years ago
Who created Physics then?
We are still in darkness and don't have an answer.
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You could probably take that back to the 7th century BC starting with Thales - the "Father of Science".
  reply report
2. 60
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Physics is not a creation, it's a natural science.
  reply report
90
melporposted 13 years ago
Aka-dj, these are illustrations of biochemical pathways of chemical reactions that take place at the cellular level in a living organism such as us. Scientists have been mapping biochemical pathways for decades to cure diseases and to explain why diseases occur.W ith this knowledge they are able to predict the outcome of some these reactions to develop drugs to change these pathways to cure various ailments in the body.
reply report
1. 65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the quick explanation of WHAT it is, and why it is of interest to science and medicine.
  However, you missed the whole point of this thread. That it all just popped into being accidentally.
  It's akin to explaining how the software in my computer works to run my laptop. You can learn all about how and why it works, what it does and how to improve on it, but it says only one thing about it's original inception. Someone wrote it. It didn't just one day appear inside the hardware.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but that isn't even remotely akin.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The fact that you have to ask Why to was Beelzedad said isn't too shocking.
  
  First off- "God" cannot be properly explained or defined.
  
  Secondly, any computer software on your computer that makes it run, is easily explained and has defined characteristics.
  
  That's why they are not akin.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So do these chemical pathways.
  They are very specific, and are the "language" the cell uses to function.
  VERY akin!
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You don't agree??
  
  Maybe YOU'RE the one who needs to read some relevant information!
  
  It's recently documented fact, (since all you sceptics like facts) that every cell in the body has a "language" and communicates with other cells. It's a chemical language, as one MD (that's a DOCTOR) has described it, it's the "software" that drives cell function.
  
  But you already knew that right?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not laughing any more?
  reply report
  68
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your post was just so ridiculous, there's nothing to say about it. And a response like this makes it even worse.. you really think you've proven a point?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yea.
  Haven't I?
  
  Why is it ridiculous? Because I have different point of view?
  reply report
  68
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because you're overly happy saying that it's complex and that it can be considered the same as "software"... with the obvious question who "programmed" that software. We're back to the beginning of this thread where you posted that document and left implicit that things that look complex must have been designed / created.
  report
2. 65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Simon. You asked the very question you SHOULD have asked.
  Indeed, who DID program the software?
  
  I say God did.
  
  If He didn't, and no-one did, how can that be?
  reply report
  68
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Let's take a few steps back here. You're working from the assumption that someone or something must have "programmed" the "software". Why would that be? Why must there necessarily be a being that has programmed our software? In what way does evolution not explain the emergence of these mechanisms to your satisfaction? Why are you ruling out an alternative explanation that provides clear biological mechanisms as to how life develops?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Why are you ruling out an alternative explanation that provides clear biological mechanisms as to how life develops?"
  
  I am not ruling the alternative explanation out. There IS no alternative explanation. To say that it just evolved is not good enough. No acceptable answer is forthcoming on this subject. If there is one, please point me to it!
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Answer the question right above your last post. Where did god come from?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I wanted to answer your post (below) but couldn't be bothered.
  I'm surprised I did now!
  
  But, to answer your question, God did NOT come from anywhere.
  Your version of god may have come from human imagination, religious icons/paintings, whatever, I don't know. But that's NOT the God I know.
  
  Eternal means self existant, with no beginning and no end. It is a "super-natural" state. That means of a higher order. So, to apply three/four dimensional language to Him, or Eternity, is both incorrect, and futile.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But I thought you said something cannot come from nothing. There is nothing to show god has always been here other than you and other HUMANS saying so. And neither you nor the other humans can prove otherwise.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is becoming a circular argument.
  You demanding "proof".
  
  Can I say it loud and clear? THERE IS NO PROOF.
  Proof requirers no faith.
  No-one needs to prove to me that my chair is holding me up. The proof is right under my butt!
  
  Ask yourself, what proof can you give that your wife loves you?
  Prove it to me.
  
  Same thing. You can give me evidence of her actions and words to support your feeling, or knowing that she just does.
  
  God is calling people to believe, (faith). If He chose the way to be, a sign in the clouds, written for all to read, He would have done that.
  BUT, I guarantee you, that millions would NOT believe that either. They'd come up with some theories, or hypotheses of how that writing came about without the need for a god.
  
  Back to the starting point, yea?
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps that is because many cannot entertain the idea that Man is not "lord over thee" type thing. To admit that we are limited beings in this finite world would mean Man does not have dominion over what he thinks he has.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My head hurts from banging it on the wall.
  
  I need some ice!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What does this have to do with your refusal to accept proven scientific facts dj?
  
  God is not calling anyone - and you are specifically breaking the admonition to walk away from arguing with non believers. So - obviously you do not believe either - you just want to shout at other people that they should believe.
  
  Science has shown there is no need for a God for the universe to come about. I can see why that makes you angry, but arguing that proven scientific facts are lies is not helping your case.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are seriously going to have to drop the "you are angry" assumption of yours.
  I made it bold last time. Did you not read it?
  
  "Science has shown there is no need for a God for the universe to come about." Chapter and verse please!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have given you chapter and verse dj. I know you understand physics far better than the greatest physicists of our time, but still.......
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Who's telling lies now?
  
  As I said, chapter and verse please.
  reply report
  67
  Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  join the thread happy holidays, keep Marks off the top, and bring your friends
  report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't quite understand your comment.
  report
  67
  Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  go to the happy holidays thread......
  
  Mark has a thread saying kinda happy christmas, and it was up on top for ages, just keeping off the top is all ...... I found another with a similar message for all hubbers to comment on, i will give you a linklhttp://hubpages.com/forum/topic/62703
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are.
  I have explained evolution ad infinitum. Clearly there is no need for a god.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572
  
  Hawking's book explains how the Universe could come into existence without the need for a god:
  The Grand Design
  
  What did you make of the book dj?
  report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How am I lying?
  
  Where's the chapter and verse you gave me?
  
  Show me the money, dude?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I linked to this book and the thread before - this is chapter and verse is it not? Did you read the book? Or the thread?
  
  I though bearing false witness meant eternal torment?
  report
  67
  Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  take a bread Mark it is the season of good will
  report
  68
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Facepalm. If HubPages had signatures in forum posts, this would be signature-worthy.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The same as who programmed god. Whatever made the gods anyway?
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
Gravity is caused by mass, which came into being with the big bang.

And it seems a reasonable question to me, if complexity means something is created, God must be created. By whom?

Or maybe complexity can arise naturally.
reply report
0
Home Girlposted 13 years ago

Who created Big Bang then???
reply report
1. 50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Creator-God set it off as per His design.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Conjecture.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So is Big Bang, or any other hypothesis!
  
  What makes either/or better/worse?
  
  Just the individual, and their biased perspective.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am not surprised by your statement. However, you can believe what you like. You're only going to confuse the issue.
  
  This all just happened? Who said anything had to occur to make the Universe. It's endless, so what makes you think something had to occur to make it happen.
  
  The Universe could just exist. Like your imagined god, just exists. You seem determined to point it in the direction of a god.
  
  The "cause and effort" theory need not apply to the Universe, because it's a law inside the Universe. What Laws apply to the Universe are outside of the Universe and since the Universe is endless, I guess there isn't presently within human capability of reach it. To believe an all-powerful single entity, regardless of what, created the Universe is not only absurd, but completely irrational.
  
  So, I will disagree.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Big-bang has evidence, do you've have any evidence for creator being cause itself or creator creating this universe other than stories ?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Big Bang has evidence?
  So does creation!
  I was not talking about origin of the universe, in the OP.
  So, to bring it all back on track, life from non-life is (as Cagsll so aptly put it) "is not only absurd, but completely irrational."
  
  Of course, you are free to believe it all "just happened".
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the evidence for creationism is believers stating emphatically that god did it. What more evidence do you need?
  reply report
  60
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Life started in a plush garden inhabited by a talking snake. Makes perfect sense to me!
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Even if your god did it, he would have had to have created life from non-life, no? And, that's not absurd and completely irrational?
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is non life to you?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Anything that is not alive.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So energy is not alive? Or are you talking about...well what is not alive? Maybe you are talking about awareness as being alive?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We have Potential and Kinetic energy, that which is stored and that which is in action. Something that uses it's stored energy and puts it into action can be considered alive.
  
  If that something is unable to use it's stored energy to put into action, then it probably isn't alive.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So if we assume the big bang theory is correct. Since matter did not exist would that have been kinetic or potential energy? To be alive then it must have been able to use its stored energy right to create what it did?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is unknown if potential and kinetic energy were relevant physical properties of whatever existed prior to the Big Bang, but they certainly resulted from the event of the Big Bang.
  
  The entire universe at that point was pure electromagnetic radiation, there were no objects in the universe in which to use that energy, hence nothing alive.
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok so I'm not getting it?
  
  Agree that they say no objects existed.
  
  Logically thinking though, if scientist says energy cannot be destroyed only changed. Then it would have had to have existed prior to the big bang. Wouldn't it have?
  
  If so, for the big bang to occur, it makes sense that to create the bang it would have to use its stored energy from the point of singularity. So that point of singularity was alive.
  
  It doesn't make sense if energy came into existence after the big bang. That would invalidate the scientists findings that energy is indestructible.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not necessarily. The aftermath and result of the Big Bang was energy. What scientists say about it does not include what happened prior to the BB.
  
  Again, there is no reason to suspect or assert that. As well, stored energy is just stored energy. It doesn't mean anything is alive.
  
  Why doesn't it make sense energy came into existence after the BB and why would that invalidate what scientists have to say about it?
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok so I will recap
  
  I asked what non life is to you, you replied anything that is not alive. Ok I got that. I asked, is energy not alive to you, you replied kinetic is energy in action and potential is stored energy, something that can use its stored energy can be considered alive. Any thing that cannot is like considered not alive. Ok I got that. I then asked since matter did not exist around the time of the big bang it would have had to use stored energy to create what it did. You replied that it was unknown as only electromagnetic radiation (which I thought was energy?) existed around that time so nothing was alive. Ok I didn't get that.
  
  So if energy existed only after the big bang, scientists probably need to explore further because if energy was created from the bang it can be destroyed. Anything that can be created can be destroyed is my understanding.
  
  If you say anything that can use its stored energy can be considered alive. Why can we not assert that the point of singularity was alive? We cannot assert this only if energy did not exist prior to the big bang.
  
  It invalidates what the scientist say about energy not being able to be destroyed only changed because what can be created usually can be destroyed.
  
  I thought I might add: I am not looking to discredit science at all. Just looking to connect the dots.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Scientists don't need to explore that which they already understand. In any closed system, energy can only be transformed from one state to another. No new energy can be created adding the to energy already present in our universe.
  
  We don't know what existed prior to the BB, if you want to assert there was something "alive" you are free to do so, finding the evidence to support that assertion may be quite difficult.
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Given that scientist have no need to explore, and you cannot add new energy, there must have been energy that created the big bang. In your understanding only stored energy can be considered alive. The big bang would have needed to have this stored energy to do what it did and it therefore is possible that it is alive.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The problem here is that you're making an assumption of what existed prior to the BB, which we can only do if we have some supporting evidence or observation.
  
  And, while I might tend to agree with you if we were to impose our current set of physical laws and theories into practice, but the fact is that these laws and theories were a result of the BB, and that they only came into existence a time after the BB, once expansion and cooling had taken effect.
  
  No, I didn't say that. There is stored energy in a boulder at the top of a hill. If an earthquake occurred, the boulder might move enough to roll down the hill and convert the stored energy into kinetic energy. The boulder is not alive, of course, or the earthquake that started the boulder rolling.
  
  The Big Bang could also be the same as the boulder sitting on a hill, waiting for some other event to start it rolling down the hill. In other words, the Big Bang could just be one in a number of events that occurred yet nothing "alive" made it happen.
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, sorry I omitted to put in 'uses' ...anything that uses its stored energy was considered alive in your opinion.
  
  Isn't it common sense though, that energy must have existed before the big bang? If it didn't Scientist claim that energy cannot be created or destroyed then becomes false. If it was created after the big bang then it can be created. Which means if an environment similar to the big bang exists somewhere in the universe which is vastly undiscovered could mean that energy is being created as we speak.
  
  Anything that uses its stored energy can be considered alive. Therefore the universe and that which uses its energy can be considered alive can it not. The sun is alive, the earth is alive etc.
  
  So if the big bang did not use stored energy. Out of non live things can come live things.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Whether you think it is common sense or not, it is an assumption that is unknown and as yet cannot be verified.
  
  No, it isn't false. You are confusing the state of our universe before and after its creation. At this time, we are only able to understand what happened after the BB.
  
  You are beginning to fantasize and making fallacious claims.
  
  Your conclusions are based on false assumptions and confusion of concepts. Sorry.
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am not making any claims. I am speaking hypothetically. We cannot verify either ways. If it doesn't make sense to you. All good.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure I see the point of 'speaking hypothetically' about understood topics? In other words, are you saying we should just let our imaginations roam and pretend one particular concept might be different if such and such happens...?
  
  Not really, scientists are hypothesizing other dimensions using mathematics, no new dimensions have recently been discovered over and above the four we currently reside.
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Using common sense does not mean I am letting my imagination run wild. Even using power of deductions does not require this. If you think so and cannot see based on scientific findings that it is possible energy existed before the big bang, then so be it.
  
  Not sure what the difference is when it comes to hypothesizing and theory. However, if I recall correctly, quantum physics have discovered this through string theory, waves, and planks or whatever they are called.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Many of the preconceived notions held by us often do not follow what common sense might dictate, until we have found a true understanding of whatever phenomenon is in question.
  
  Exactly, and by recalling correctly, "...whatever they are called" is the exact same thing as saying. "I have no idea what I'm talking about"
  
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes agree, common sense is sometimes uncommon for some. As yet, I understand scientists have not found a true understanding. So it seems common sense does not apply there either.
  
  As for your opinion that I have no idea what I'm talking about... ok if you say so. Do you know what you are talking about when you say they haven't found other dimensions? In relation to quantum physics that is?
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're free to opine about such things, but it's best to get an understanding of what it is you're opining about, first.
  
  Yes, I do. We live in a four-dimensional spacetime metric. Mathematically, we can solve problems in quantum field theory by introducing other dimensions. These dimensions have never been discovered though, only theorized mathematically.
  report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok cool. Thanks
  report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Creator-God has claimed it in so many words in Quran and there has been no other claimer.
  
  [21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
  http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=30
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Creator is jobless to preach his existence to his own created species ?
  reply report
81
skyfireposted 13 years ago
Yup

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Nope. It's christian preachers evidence, not at all peer-reviewed and lacks empirical proof. Nothing new.

Want to search 'abiogenesis' for a change ? Atleast after knowing that there are arsenic based life forms which are completely originating from non-life resources. Of course you're free to stay in delusion -without empirical evidence as usual.
reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
Beelzedad wrote:
Even if your god did it, he would have had to have created life from non-life, no? And, that's not absurd and completely irrational?
- - - - - - - -

That is the same way as evolution says it happened but if a God did it ?? he would have had something to work from.
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jerami, evolution has nothing to do with creationism.
  reply report
81
LondonGirlposted 13 years ago
I think teeth are very important to the issue of creationism.

No-one with any damn sense would design the teeth we have.
reply report
60
PieterTheProphetposted 13 years ago
Great comments. Good discussion. Of course no one on this planet really understands how the Universe works at all. (That's the truth of it.) We are teeny-weeny, tiny, little, complex blobs of bio-goo hanging from miniscule calcium frames; whirling around on a spot of moisture; in orbit around a pin-prick sun zipping along a smudgy ray of stars on the edge of a twinkle in the night..Blah, blah.

The best word I can think of is miracle and it falls waaay short. How, why, who? Great questions. The only answer that works really well is: US!
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That will work for me!
  reply report
2. 0
  china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  IMO this is at the bottom of it - such funny little pink bio-blobs with such a huge arrogance and high opinion of its own blobbiness that it thinks that all this is made just for ITSELF ! My cat is certain that I exist only for its comfort and entertainment, my dog is convinced that I am the creator of everything - you would have thought that man would have got over itself by now, and started on that grow-up journey away from hiding behind its imaginary father.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How do you mean? I thought he was pointing to we are all connected? Meaning we are not separate to 'all that is'. Thats the way I read it. I didn't see that he was talking about an imaginary father? I could be wrong?
  reply report
50
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
The Big Bang is mentioned in following verse of Quran by the Creator-God in so many words and there has been no other claimant.

[21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=30
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, that's not what the Big Bang was about. Sorry.
  reply report
0
Home Girlposted 13 years ago

Still fighting over priority, hey?
reply report
1. 65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  NO.
  
  The answer is the one on top.
  Always has been.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not all species lay eggs, there are some mammals as well. In case of mammals either one of the reproducing gender needs to be born first.
  
  Many fish species on this planet change gender as they mature.
  
  Saying it always has been shows lack of education.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was talking about the chicken.
  
  No lack of education.
  
  BTW, Who's teaching, anyway?
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My point still holds true if you read my reply.
  reply report
61
David Bowmanposted 13 years ago
As to your original question aka-dj, I would answer it in the following way. . .

Everyone, including atheists, are in awe of the complexity and order of the natural world. However, the answer theists give for why this order and complexity exist is highly problematic. Hopefully, you can see the irony in claiming that the only thing that could explain the complexity and order of the natural world is a designer that itself would be unimaginably complex and ordered. Where did it come from, and if the answer is that "It was always there" (which is purely conjecture), then how could that not be true of the universe?

Both prospects - a universe capable of engendering complex and ordered systems, and a complex and ordered creator that has somehow always existed in a fully formed state - are terribly difficult for our minds to grasp. However, I really don't see how the creator hypothesis has more plausibility than the other scenario. They are both absurd. However, one is true and the other false.

Can you give me a good reason why the creator hypothesis has more plausibility than the other?
reply report
1. 65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Both absurd" is your claim. I say yes, because neither can be proven correct/true or false/incorrect.
  Based on our observation, as intelligent, rational beings, we have discovered a huge amount of knowledge about our reality. We can only observe it all in the present. Not the past, and not the future.
  Our knowledge is limited by our three or four dimensions, and anything outside of that is mere speculation. The reason a creator model is more plausible (for me) is that we have shown, by the laws of physics that operate in the same here and now (time/space) that it (all of known creation) is not eternal. It has beginning.
  Hence the hypotheses of "HOW".
  
  Yours and many others real challenge is not "could God have done it?" but rather "Who is this God, that may have done it? What is this God like?" For Him to be perceived, or understood to be an old, grey haired man, that peaked in power and popularity before the Middle Ages, you'd be justified in dismissing it.
  
  However, if you understand Him from the revelation of Jesus Christ, you would rather be inclined to give it (creation hypothesis) a whole lot more respect.
  
  I agree, that ultimately, it's a matter of faith, which you believe to best fit the evidence. Something most, if not all, atheists deny. Their point of view IS a matter of faith. You accept one, or the other.
  
  Is this plausible to you? I don't know. You have to answer that for yourself. I can't make anyone believe my way. Nobody made me believe. In fact, I was taught all the evolution stuff at school that everyone else did. I had no religious bias at the time either. I chose my position based on the evidence that I have encountered, and continue to encounter. To date nothing has come along to shake that conviction.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In other words, you jump to the conclusion some sort of magical being did the creating, the "HOW"... even though the laws of physics and mountains of evidence do not support that conclusion.
  
  No, you do not accept one or the other, you only accept the conclusion of magical being, the one without any evidence to support it.
  
  Yet, there is no evidence to support your convictions. None.
  reply report
  68
  simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I chose my position based on the evidence that I have encountered, and continue to encounter."
  
  What evidence could you cite in favor of your viewpoint that is not an anti-evolution statement? Saying something like "there are missing links" is an argument against evolution but not an argument in favor of creation. Arguing against one thing is not the same as arguing in favor of something else.
  reply report
81
skyfireposted 13 years ago
ROFL. First sentence assumes that god exist and fails to give proof as usual. Perceive god ? Sure, god who sends his mortal son who can't defend himself in this realm is supposed to be taken seriously ? and are we supposed to ask our own species questions like 'what is this god like' ? that must be height of delusion.

By following jesus christ and bible model of creation, there are more chances people will not respect creationism. For many reasons, for example salvation isn't necessary if all species are mortals and if universe is as vast as we're perceiving now. Because entity behind creation of this universe can delete any species or planet any time it wishes and entity behind this universe becomes single source and so the stories like satan are debunked easily. That way there is no need to show love towards the entity and no reason to hate it either. It becomes un-interfering entity. Another point is, son of god gets killed on cross like helpless cat shows the level of power that your biblical 'assumed god' can have who created humans in his image.

Respect comes only in superiority of intellect, power and empathy. Intelligent Humans don't show respect to weaklings who claim themselves to be savior and get pwnd on cross like weak animals.
reply report
50
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
[21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

The Big Bang is mentioned in the above verse of Quran by the Creator-God in so many words and there has been no other claimant.
reply report
1. 81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  by what stretch of imagination that looks big-bang to you.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why it does not look like a big bang to you? In easy form which everybody could understand; it is like big bang.
  reply report
  81
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  BS. You gotta be deluded to make big-bang out of that.
  
  It's manipulation of words. Try to write Norton's theory in poetic language in a way people can understand
  
  Problem with your type of people is that they assume everything that is written in their religious book holds some scientific meaning but in reality it's not.
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
pennyofheaven wrote:

Logically thinking though, if scientist says energy cannot be destroyed only changed. Then it would have had to have existed prior to the big bang. Wouldn't it have?
- - - -
Beelzedad wrote ..
Not necessarily. The aftermath and result of the Big Bang was energy. What scientists say about it does not include what happened prior to the BB.
= == = == = == = == = ==

Jerami

Beelzedad ?? What do you mean by "Not necessarily" ?
0seems to be sidestepping the issue !
==========================================================

pennyofheaven wrote:
If so, for the big bang to occur, it makes sense that to create the bang it would have to use its stored energy from the point of singularity. So that point of singularity was alive.

- - - - - -

Beelzedad wrote ..
Again, there is no reason to suspect or assert that. As well, stored energy is just stored energy. It doesn't mean anything is alive.

= == = == = == = == = ==

Jerami .. sidestepping again ?? pennyofheaven didn't nention anything being alive, she simply mde a statement of scientific fact.

===================================================
pennyofheaven wrote:
It doesn't make sense if energy came into existence after the big bang. That would invalidate the scientists findings that energy is indestructible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why doesn't it make sense energy came into existence after the BB and why would that invalidate what scientists have to say about it?

= == = == = == = == = ==

Beelzedad; It is amazing how you can argue and not really say anything. OR in other words ; What point were you attempting to make ??
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is a point made to clarify a claim may have more than one possible resolution, notwithstanding the claim being made.
  
  Sorry, but I did not see that scientific fact, please point it out.
  
  Clarity of any point in a discussion requires agreement from all parties. I was simply moving for clarification.
  
  Is that okay with you, Jerami?
  reply report
81
skyfireposted 13 years ago
Big Bang theory explains about formation of universe and not about the condition prior to BB. Is it hard to understand,jerami ?

0 doesn't seems to be sidestepping when you have evidence to BBT. If you claim about anything before 0 then be ready to prove it rather than attempting to debunk BBT with mere words of yours.
reply report
1. 59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So are you saying that nothing was required to cause
  THE Big Bang?
  I have never disputed the BBT. But the absolutely nothing caused it part? Not even energy ?
  Nothing ?
  
  Talk about blind faith !
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So god dunnit then?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You keep getting the answer right, but you just don't believe it!
  
  One day you will say it and really mean it!!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Only after a lobotomy.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That can be arranged.
  
  Are you implying.....???
  NAH, not you. You wouldn't be that mean???
  
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  SOMETHING dunit IF it got done. ya think ???????
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Big If - still - you have the answer DONCHA?
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was walking down the road one day nd saw a turtle laying on its back up on top o a fence post.
  
  I don't have any answers as to how it got there..
  
  But I'm pretty sure that it didn't get thee by itself.
  reply report
84
gamergirlposted 13 years ago
Did I really just see someone try to compare proof of God's existence to proof of a spouse's love?

Seriously?!

Let's see. There has yet to be, and is unlikely to ever be, proof to validate the claims of intelligent design. However, the love between a husband and wife (or wife and wife, or husband and husband, or two beings aligned in love no matter their romantic relationship) is easily verifiable. People express their love (or lack of love) in visible and quantifiable ways every moment of every day. Getting proof is as simple as opening your eyes.

However, to reiterate, there has yet to be any proof of a quantifiable, visible nature regarding the existence or not of God.

The other point that really has me scratching my head is the concept of a process of transformation of creatures/cells/organisms/particles that happens in a complex and fabulous way can be lumped down to "just" happening. That would be like saying to someone with no education "You 'just' get your Ph.D. No really, it 'just' happens!"

But, I forgot. Intelligent design is the truth, really, just look at how a banana fits in a human hand.
reply report
1. 67
  Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  god was in fact the originater of marriage, was he not?
  reply report
  60
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where did this fact come from?
  reply report
  67
  Joy56posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  the bible
  reply report
2. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No.....the discussion went like this.
  
  There is no proof of God ...........just as you cannot prove to me your wife loves you.
  
  Or something like that...but thats the context in which I understood it.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So - yes, some one did compare the two. Hilarious.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok if you say so.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - you did.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How so?
  
  aka, was once again, repeating himself saying there is no proof of God. Because someone asked him to prove it. To illustrate his point that there is no proof... not to compare...he said what proof can you give that you wife loves you. Prove it.
  
  That is illustrating how futile it is asking him to prove Gods existence. Not comparing proof of Gods existence with proof of a wifes love....because he said he cannot prove Gods existence.
  
  Maybe you are seeing something else. Only he will know what he was talking about. That is how I understood it. If you or the other person understood it another way. So be it. We could all be wrong. We won't know till he posts again.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When you have no more argument left in you
  you simply give us all these laughing smileys.
  
  Very intelligent, logical and rational!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you need proof that I found what she said funny?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, not really.
  But you can try and give me some proof.
  That should prove to be interesting!
  reply report
84
gamergirlposted 13 years ago
The concept of marriage is older than Christianity.
reply report
67
Joy56posted 13 years ago
hi Mark, one pound of ripe tomatoes please.
reply report
65
aka-djposted 13 years ago
Where's beelzedad?

I haven't seen you post any proof that your wife (if you have one) loves you!

Waiting...waiting...waiting...
reply report
84
gamergirlposted 13 years ago
God is an invention of the mind. Being that there is no outward sign of God in the universe, and that nobody who believes in God can provide evidence of a clear outward sign, that means..

*drumroll*

God is a creation from the thoughts and words of man.

If this is the season of goodwill, then why perpetuate lies?
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thats is like saying.....The "mind" cannot be proven to exist. Being that there is no outward sign of the mind in the universe. And anyone who believes in the mind cannot provide a clear outward sign that it exists. So the mind is an invention of...?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not true. There is proof that the mind exists. The mind is simple the brain and conscious thought that is derived from it(brain).
  
  I've never liked the comparisons people try to use to manipulate their belief into being real.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So where is the evidence? The brain is believed to be the vehicle or that which produces thought. But no one has evidence for thoughts that supposed come from the brain.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your post proves you lack the understanding of the mind, including the use of your own which produced the results of proof to begin with.
  
  WOW!
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? How so? Results yes. Proof no. According to you in one of our discussions I cannot prove God exists with results. Yet it is acceptable to prove mind exists with results?
  
  Edited to add: Oh my apologies I was referring to a discussion with someone else.
  
  So that should read as According to a discussion I had with someone else.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Did you or Did you not just post your thoughts? The thoughts you posted came from the mind, which were generated by the brain and human consciousness.
  
  Your actions, that put your thoughts, either spoken or written is literal proof of the mind.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I did. I agreed with you on that when I said "Results yes" My point was there is no tangible evidence that the thoughts or consciousness were generated from within the brain. All the tests show as far as I am aware, is that the brain reacts when it is thinking, sleeping etc. Indicated by a machine. These are still results.
  
  If that is acceptable and I say nature is as a result of Gods existence, is that acceptable too?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
84
gamergirlposted 13 years ago
No, that is not acceptable, because nature is a result of millions upon millions of years of evolution of species both plant and animal alike. You cannot logically use faith to prove scientific fact.

The outward evidence of the mind is speech, behavior, reaction to stimuli. The outward evidence of the existence of God is still lacking.
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't think so.
  
  Who is using faith? Nature is not based on faith. It works. Just because it is a "result" of millions and millions upon millions of years of evolution it cannot be proof of God in your opinion? Does any one know God's age?
  
  If I say that is outward evidence and you say it isn't then what you say about mind is equally as invalid as my claim.
  reply report
2. 65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The evidence is you and I.
  
  Why can't people get that?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because that is not what the word "evidence," means dj. What you mean is "leap of faith."
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think you have confused evidence with proof, yet again.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because, it is a blatant fallacy of logic, regardless.
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because the fact that we exist proves nothing about how we came to exist.
  
  (It's "you and me" by the way, not "you and I")
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the correction.
  
  You also seem to confuse evidence with proof.
  
  Anyway, if you have an explanation for the op, please fill us in. It's all too easy to derail the topic with side issues of gramma, spelling and the like.
  
  TY.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I get it!
  reply report
  84
  gamergirlposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Our existence is not clear, defined evidence of the existence of a deity. In fact, using humanity as evidence of the existence of God is a rather bad circular bit of reasoning.
  
  God is real because the bible says so.
  The bible says God created man.
  Therefore man is evidence of God's existence.
  
  Doesn't really work that way.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why doesn't it work that way?
  
  We see animals live and die.
  We see fossils of dead animals.
  We say it's evidence for evolution.
  We assume it all happened accidentally, by chance.
  Yet, our own understanding of statistical probability tells us it's IMPOSSIBLE.
  Yet, we(well, not me ) promote it as fact!
  
  Doesn't work for me!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Odd - our understanding of statistical and mathematical probability quite clearly suggest that there is am almost-certain likelihood of intelligent life arising spontaneously, and Hawking has demonstrated how and why. We also understand how it evolved, although we do have a few gaps - most specifically "how" we became self aware. Therefore it is not IMPOSSIBLE.
  
  You have not used statistical probabilities to make an argument. You are simply upset that your Invisible Super Being has been shown to be superfluous.
  
  Funny that you think life can arise from nothing though. As long as a god dunnit. If you changed tack and sed - OK - it happened spontaneously, and I cannot deny the evidence for evolushun, but god dunnit when he give us self awareness - maybe that one would fly?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please let me refer you back to the OP.
  
  You are absolutely certain that all the necessary chemicals, and their highly complex relationships came about by chance. All at one moment in time. Remembering, that life of this description cannot be called life, if any portion of these chemical relationships are not in place, & functioning simultaneously.
  They constitute an irreducible complexity that will not "fly". (I mean live)
  
  The real "gap" in our knowledge is "how is information added, to make complex systems more and more and more complex, and yet still functioning".
  
  You, sir are the man of faith, way more than I.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps several gods got together and created life. It was a joint effort! Would you have a problem with this scenario?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am waiting for you to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE, not that it is statistically improbable, or that we were not there to witness the event with a handycam.
  
  As you are so certain it is not possible. You are the one wot sed it is IMPOSSIBLE. I thought you were referencing statistical probability. Let me reference u back to wot u sed:
  
  My mistake. Dear me. No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
  reply report
84
gamergirlposted 13 years ago
I am not sure if we are having a language barrier problem here, or if you just do not understand the discussion, but what you are suggesting is that because I can prove that the mind exists, and you cannot prove that God exists using the same argument, that neither one of us can be right.
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps we are I don't know?
  
  Using the same argument yes.
  
  We can both be wrong. We can also both be right.
  reply report
84
gamergirlposted 13 years ago
@penny -

He said "We don't know what existed prior to the BB (Big Bang)."

This means that there could have been anything prior to the Big Bang, and we don't know, and finding evidence of what existed prior is going to be quite difficult, given the many millions of years that have passed.
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I realize that. The point I was making is that if energy cannot be created or destroyed it would have existed before the big bang. If it didn't exist before the big bang, the belief that it cannot be created or destroyed goes out the window.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Energy can't be created or detroyed *now*. We can't assume the same it true before the universe was created.
  
  Honestly, trying to navigate these issus with no background research, a few assumptions and normal common sense doesn't work. It would be like trying to bake a soffle based on knowing two of the ingredients and having a camp fire at the ready.
  
  I would suggest trying something like Stephem Hawkings book to get some idea of what physicists have discovered about abiogenesis.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes have read a bit about that. Discussed a bit too.
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
Of course live things came out of non-live things. Energy and life are not the same thing.
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not according to Beezledad. How do you mean energy and life are different? Without energy we cease to exist as we know we exist for the moment.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Life processes are a form of energy, but there are types of energy that are not life. Fire, for example, is not alive. Gravity is not alive. Magma is not alive. Earthquakes are not life.
  
  Life is defined as metabolism, reactivity, growth and the capacity to reproduce.
  
  Whether you think it is God or evolution, non-life developed into life at some point.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes agree. At least what people will term as non life. Yes.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please don't put words in my mouth due to your confusion.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  These are your words not mine. From a previous post of yours....
  
  Even if your god did it, he would have had to have created life from non-life, no? And, that's not absurd and completely irrational?
  
  Perhaps I misunderstood in what context you were intending the above statement?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The context is that whether or not a god did it or it came about as a result of physics, life would have had to have been created from non-life.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh ok I think I understand. The Christian understanding of God is what you were referring to.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Any religion boasting a creation theme is no different.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why? Because it is called religion? Is the word "Religion" the problem here? Perhaps if religion did not have that much social stigma attached to it one might look at what it is pointing to rather than looking at the stigma itself.
  
  Evolution boasts the same. We and all things that exist came into being through an evolutionary process. If thats not a form of creation I wonder what it is then?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You can use the word "cult" if you wish, it's the same thing.
  
  We do look at religion for what it is, a belief in myths and superstitions from the Bronze Age. What more do you need?
  
  No, evolution does not boast an invisible being waved his magic hand and created everything in it's current form from nothing, which is what religions boast. Big difference.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Religion does not boast an invisible being waving a magic wand. .It is only understood this way by some.
  
  Genesis does not say that God was an invisible being. It is only those who wish to limit God or who have been taught such things that they boast God as such. That is limiting what is infinite.
  
  For sure it does not have a scientific explanation of how creation came into being. Yet neither did scientists in the days. If you take Genesis for instance and use 'evolution' instead of 'God' you might just see what it is pointing to or not.
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
If I remember correctly ,? he stated that matter just pops in and out of our reality.
At the very least, does that not suggest a reality outside of this one that our scientific investigations are at present limited to?.
reply report
1. 83
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would need a reference to even begin to know which of his ideas you are referring to. But no, I don't think it would imply that.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was watching TV interview with (I forget names) this guy that co authored several books with Mr Hawkins, and this was one of the points that he made.
  reply report
2. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'll bet the ancient goat herders could have explained it to you better than today's top learned scientists, Jerami. LOL!
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No I think it would take a Quantum Physics scientist.
  
  I'll just take his word for it.
  reply report
3. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. Science (Quantum physics I think) discovered at least 11 dimensions last time I was in a discussion about dimensions. They also discovered that two random particles that are unrelated can react to each other. Mirroring I think it was called no matter the distance.
  
  Not sure what the last bit had to do with your post haha. Haven't quite connected the dots.
  reply report
60
illeagleposted 13 years ago
There always one dimension that all these theories fail to incorporate---consciousness.

If we are not aware, then nothing exists. Before we can even choose to 'believe' something, the question we should be asking is, 'What exactly is consciousness?'. 'Does consciousness spring from life or is consciousness something that life is born into?'

'Is the universe conscious before living organisms exist?'

It was Deepak Chopra, I believe, in one of his books, who mentioned something along this order of thought. Perhaps the brain is just the organ that we use to receive the consciousness of the universe and not actually the originator of it.

Sumptin' to chew on!
reply report
1. 59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Believe it or not, .. I have ask my self that very question.
  
  I know that I have had thoughts or ideas that I know were not my own ... and wondered ... where did that come from?
  Knowing that I had never heard or read anything like that before??
  
  That is the kind of thing that the longer ya chew on it, ... the bigger it gets .... til ya can't swallow it.
  And ya can't spit it out.
  reply report
  60
  illeagleposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jerami, You just made my day!!! Lol!!!! Merry Christmas!!!
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And a great big Merry Christmas back atcha
  reply report
2. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deepak makes sense to me!
  reply report
3. 59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is unfortunate that people like Chopra profit by gleaning concepts from science and twisting and molding them into spiritual snakeoil to sell to the gullible.
  
  Yes, the Oprah crowd will gobble up Chopra when it comes to science, but will poo-poo Hawking and Dawkins.
  
  Deepak makes sense to me, too!
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
pennyofheaven .. Howdy

There is just so much that we do not know that it seems silly to consider ourselves all that smart, don't ya think ?
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I do agree!
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is just too much information available in the world today that a hundred of the greatest minds can not comprehend it all.
  
  We as individuals have to be selective in what we choose to absorb into our tiny little minds.
  And then we become overloaded before we get to really comprehend what little we have absorbed.
  
  I know that my age I have to forget ten things just to remember one new thing. Just joking ( Sorta )
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha and apparently if we lose all that we learned we would know "all that is". How paradoxical is that!
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds about right to me, as best as I can remember.
  
  I like to think that I am only forgetting the unimportant stuff.
  Maybe when I get to the end of my journey I will be left with only the good stuff also known as truth. (Hopefully)
  
  I think that paradoxical is a word worth keeping.
  reply report
  80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes not sweating the small stuff I have heard it said. Sifting out the unimportant seems like a worthwhile task. Perhaps ongoing but who knows till our journey does end.
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
So... he's not invisible, we just can't see him?

And if you put Evoltion in place fo God it would make any sense at all. Evolution doesn't do anything, it isn't a being--just a label for some natural processes. You can't ask who is evolution, or what does evolution want? That would be nonsensical.
reply report
1. 80
  pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes exactly. It describes a natural process. It is only nonsensical when you assign gender and a temporal or finite way of existing. How do you define what is infinite and how does one do this with a finite mind? Trying to describe something one does not fully understand because of our own limitations is lacking at best.
  
  One cannot however condemn those who did try to describe the processes.
  reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
The problem is when people divide the word into 'made by design' and 'occured by chance'.

Evolution is not a random process, that is the point. It is a process by which compexity and 'fit to environment' occurs in nature. It is spontaneous, but not random.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

This all just happened..

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

This all just happened..

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies