The Universe is not an accident

Argonavis (William) · #1 12-02-2006, 12:13 PM

I think the ID thread was seriously OT and should have been moved some time ago, but it did generate a bit of discussion.

Where ID is coming from is to see the creation and evolution as too preposterious to be an accident, so it must have been designed. Both are wrong. Th univese is not an accident. It evoluted following known physical laws without any outside intervention, or at least all the evidence points this way.

The organic chemistry in the interstellar medium, the miller-urey experiment that created amino acids from some fairly basic chemistry would all indicate that the chemistry of life can self assemble and replicate. There is now a substantial body of science on this. Precisely how is still a problem, but it needs a scientific approach of falsifiable hypothesis and experimentation to find this out. Belief will not help.

The diversity of life and the winnowing impact of natural selection directs evolution in certain directions. Again, it is not an accident. Convergent evolution of different species has been proved, and there is documentation of how some species have changed and evolved both during historical times and through the fossil record. That is why creationists spend so much time and money on trying to "disprove" the fossil record. Viruses, with thier short generations, evolve in response to natural selection. Bird Flu, anyone?

The mechanisms of evolution have been observed. It is a very small step to assume that this accounts for our own origins.

stinky · #2 12-02-2006, 01:12 PM

I was seriously enjoying the other thread until censorship prevailed again. It was great to hear some different, even if - heated, points of view. (They did this to Galileo too - but were later big enough to apologise).

I think the point you have raised a classic! Bird Flu - evolution at work. As I understand evolution ONLY operates by mutation, the mutations that add an element of survivability carry on. Need, tidy and logical. You could hardly describe Philosophers as an accident! I agree whole heartedly that this occurred through reasonably well understood scientific principles.

There are some fundemantals in science and we are only just starting to understand why they have come about. These times are just to exiting to bury ones head. We know a lot and I'm sure there is even more to know - Luckily we as a species have evolved curiousity!!!

Rodstar (Rod) · #3 13-02-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argonavis

Where ID is coming from is to see the creation and evolution as too preposterious to be an accident, so it must have been designed. Both are wrong. Th univese is not an accident. It evoluted following known physical laws without any outside intervention, or at least all the evidence points this way.

The mechanisms of evolution have been observed. It is a very small step to assume that this accounts for our own origins.

You have a lot more faith than I do. I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the universe itself came from if there is no Creator.

Orion · #4 13-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodstar

You have a lot more faith than I do. I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the universe itself came from if there is no Creator.

Yep...

Nic · #5 13-02-2006, 08:18 PM

Amen.

stinky · #6 13-02-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodstar

You have a lot more faith than I do. I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the universe itself came from if there is no Creator.

There may well be, or not. As yet there is no 'test' to find out. It however does not change the validity of sciences explanation of the universe post singularity.

iceman (Mike) · #7 15-02-2006, 07:51 AM

This thread was closed pending moderation.

The moderators have discussed it, and we've decided to re-open the thread. Please ensure discussion is kept on topic, and ensure your replies contain no personal attacks or insults.

Argonavis (William) · #8 15-02-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodstar

You have a lot more faith than I do. I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the universe itself came from if there is no Creator.

Well, where did the Creator come from? Is the creator material, or supernatural?

It appears to me that you either accept that the hydrogen, helium and lithium was created in the Big Bang, other elements higher on the periodic table were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars and seeded into space from supernova explosions, and organic chemistry (and the possibility of life) is widespread throughout the cosmos, OR you propose a supernatural explanation for the Universe.

The first explanation accords with known observations and is testable by being falsifiable (ie can be shown to be incorrect through observational evidence and/or experimentation), the second requires a lot of belief that appears contrary to the observational evidence.

Accepting that the Universe arose from a known physical process does not preclude the existence of a God, who would necessarily inhabit a spiritual realm separate from the physical Universe that we inhabit. However this is all speculation. I can speculate that humans are like spiders who know all about their web, but nothing a a bigger reality beyond it. Science cannot test this type of speculation. It will forever stay in the realm of belief and opinion. The history of science has established that the only way to learn about our Universe is through observations and experimentation.

ving (David) · #9 15-02-2006, 02:52 PM

true, there are so many holes in both theories that I dont actually have a clear cut opinion... big bang/ creation, I think I'll just flip a coin.

good thread, I hope no one draws blood over it.

avandonk · #10 15-02-2006, 04:44 PM

If there are holes in a theory then it is up to us to fill them. The century before last science thought that the Sun shone with the energy due to the release of potential energy due to gravitational collapse. They did not know anything of nuclear energy. This also set an upper limit to the age of the Sun. Not billions of years! How far have we come?

In my lifetime Fred Hoyle worked out where the Elements came from. Before the big bang theory this was not even a problem just a minor inconvenience.
By the way Fred should have got the Nobel Prize.

Even the Earths central core should have cooled down to equilibrium ie not molten over the last four billion years! The reason that the Earths core is molten is due to the energy released by it's radioactive constituents. The sums have been done.

This again can all be tested and measured and checked by anyone who is interested.

All our questions and all our thinking can only lead to more questions. We are finite the Universe is most probably not.

Bert

sheeny (Al) · #11 15-02-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodstar

You have a lot more faith than I do. I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the universe itself came from if there is no Creator.

Rodstar, whether you believe in a creator or not is up to you. All the stuff Argo Navis is talking about is testable by scientific method. The creator is not.

What existed before the big bang? Maybe something, maybe nothing. We don't know. It is beyond out ability to detect, and possibly beyond our ability to comprehend. The concept of infinity is not easy to grasp... it has no beginning and no end. We have developed minds that like to think in finite terms: boundaries and "starts" and "ends".

As long as our scientific methods and tools are limited to this side of the big bang we won't know what was the other side (if there was anything). Does that really matter?

Not sure what the initial point of this thread was... it almost seems like I'm looking at the end of a partial thread, so I don't know what if anything went before... (bit like the big bang really!

), but I agree with Argo Navis' points - well expressed in a nut shell.

I will confess to being an atheist, if it is relevant, but please don't let me or anyone else tell you what to believe. I am happy to accept the scientific method as a sound, repeatable way to develop knowledge. I am also happy to accept the limitations of our (and particularly MY) knowledge.

I find joy in learning... and intellectual exploration.

Al.

Dennis · #12 15-02-2006, 05:20 PM

If no thing existed “before” the Big Bang
Where did “it” come from ?
What did “it” come into ?
Who was there to see “it” ?
Who was there to know “it” ?

If everything that is, “came” from the Big Bang
Then the mind, intellect, reasoning, scientific method, thoughts and analysis
Arrived “after” the Big Bang
Can these finite instruments ever understand what “came” before them ?

If the Universe is infinite
It must have always been so
It can not have begun
Because then there would have been a “time” when “it” was not
Therefore “it” would be limited by its beginning
And it’s ending
Therefore not infinite.

Just some ramblings……

Cheers

Dennis

avandonk · #13 15-02-2006, 05:25 PM

Reply to Sheeny
How dare you be a better atheist than me! I am shocked. I know I am bordering on the agnostic, but that is no reason to feel superior!

Just joking!

Folks this cannot be about blind faith. It is about Science. I am the first to admit we do not know everything. But this is the best we have.

Of course there is no ultimate correct answer (like 42) the reason is the question is still indeterminate.
We still don't know what the question is! We have to work that out slowly and carefully. Look at all the past disasters!

Bert

RB (Andrew) · #14 15-02-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodstar

You have a lot more faith than I do. I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the universe itself came from if there is no Creator.

I agree with Rod.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #15 15-02-2006, 05:58 PM

As Argo pointed out already, invoking a creator just shifts the question of the existence of the world onto the at least equally difficult problem of the existence of the creator. It solves nothing as far as I'm concerned. I can paraphrase Rod here: I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the Creator itself came from...

Edit: I mis-stated the name of the poster I was attempting to mis-quote.

It was Argonavis, but I said "Astroman"

avandonk · #16 15-02-2006, 06:22 PM

You are quite correct janoskiss. We can not put back our ignorance back to something mythical. That is not satisfactory to me.

It could be the way of the world at the moment as nobody in supposed control knows what really went on!

Sorry folks, you are responsible for your ultimate path in life.

Bert

Argonavis (William) · #17 15-02-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ving

true, there are so many holes in both theories that I dont actually have a clear cut opinion... big bang/ creation, I think I'll just flip a coin.

good thread, I hope no one draws blood over it.

Ving - I don't know of any holes in the Big Bang theory. All the evidence, the expansion of the Universe, the cosmic background radiation, the composition of the Universe (75% hydrogen, 25% helium - just as the theory predicted) all indicate that this event is irrefutable and actually happened some 13 billion years ago. There is some argument about the inflationary epoch, but even this is generally accepted scenario by cosmologists. What holes were you thinking of?

And there really is no other scientific theory of how the Universe came to be and accounts for the observational evidence. Sure, there are a lot of people out there that seemingly cannot accept that the Universe has a beginning and an end. I once received a letter from a gentleman telling me about the "evergreen" universe. He is not alone in thinking that the accepted and tested story of our origins, built up painstakingly over the last 60 years, is wrong. However, none appear to provide evidence for an alternative. Nor is anyone prepared to put in the hard yards to gather evidence for any alternative view. Most likely, because such evidence does not exist. If there was, I am sure the 10,000 plus members of the American Astronomical Association would be happy to change their mind.

mickoking · #18 15-02-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janoskiss

As Astroman pointed out already, invoking a creator just shifts the question of the existence of the world onto the at least equally difficult problem of the existence of the creator. It solves nothing as far as I'm concerned. I can paraphrase Rod here: I cannot get past the question of where the ingredients of the Creator itself came from...

The problem is that the Universe exist's it must have got here some how God of no God? I am a firm believer in the big bang but the nagging problem (for me anyway) is what caused the big bang? and if this is the only universe and time started with the big bang, how did all the matter in the universe get here?

I have thought quite hard about these questions and these are some of my personal conclusions,

1, there are other universes, possably infinite universes.

2, Looking as the universes as a collective (not individually) time has no beginning and no end.

3, There are more than 4 dimensions.

Cheers

janoskiss (Steve H) · #19 15-02-2006, 11:05 PM

Just briefly... sort-of

Argo, there are plenty of "holes" in the "Big Bang" model. The most relevant one for this discussion is that it does not go back as far as the "Bang" itself.

Micko, if more universes exist that just proves we do not understand the universe we live in. As far as I am concerned, by definition, the Universe contains everything... (stars, planets, black holes, "extra dimensions", God or gods, EVERYTHING).

ving (David) · #20 16-02-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argonavis

Ving - I don't know of any holes in the Big Bang theory. .

oh ok, i am not a scientist, cosmologist or in any way religous. My knowledge of the topic is extremely limited but I actually have problems with the pre-big bang. my understanding is that there was nothing before the big bang, so what caused it? I dont believe that someone created the elements for the BB but I am struggling with how these element came into being from what is supposed to be nothing.... maybe someone can explain this.

like i said, my knowledge is near 0