Intelligent design, The Big Bang Theory, and how the argument doesn't matter anyway.

reply to post by creatednotEvolved


This is a common argument posted by people do not understand evolution and this only indicates your ignorance.. The crux of the theory of evolution is inter-species migration and if you do not understand this then you do not understand evolution at all.....

Originally posted by Leonardo01
reply to post by creatednotEvolved

 

This is a common argument posted by people do not understand evolution and this only indicates your ignorance.. The crux of the theory of evolution is inter-species migration and if you do not understand this then you do not understand evolution at all.....

edit on 31-5-2011 by Leonardo01 because: (no reason given)

So what you are saying is that evolution does not explain the beginning but only inter-species migration?
Then what is the point of even discussing it? That is like reading the middle of a book, not caring about the beginning and then trying to discuss and sort out the part you did read.

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved

Originally posted by Leonardo01
reply to post by creatednotEvolved

 

This is a common argument posted by people do not understand evolution and this only indicates your ignorance.. The crux of the theory of evolution is inter-species migration and if you do not understand this then you do not understand evolution at all.....

edit on 31-5-2011 by Leonardo01 because: (no reason given)

So what you are saying is that evolution does not explain the beginning but only inter-species migration?
Then what is the point of even discussing it? That is like reading the middle of a book, not caring about the beginning and then trying to discuss and sort out the part you did read.

Evolution is just the genetic change within a population; specifically the allele frequencies. That is a fact, I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept. Now, the theory of evolution is just a way of correlating and interpreting the facts. This can be summarized in two words: natural selection.

Science does care about the beginning of life. To my current knowledge, science has already produced two of the four base pairs in RNA through naturalistic means. It was on NOVA: they had to create the right mixture (like baking a cake from scratch without knowing the proper mixtures, only the ingredients) for Adenine and once they completed that, they subjected it to natural light and VOILA, they had Uracil.

"Evolution is just the genetic change within a population; specifically the allele frequencies. That is a fact, I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept. Now, the theory of evolution is just a way of correlating
and interpreting the facts. This can be summarized in two words: natural selection."

Precisely.....

"Science does care about the beginning of life. To my current knowledge, science has already produced two of the four base pairs in RNA through naturalistic means. It was on NOVA: they had to create the right mixture (like baking a cake from scratch without knowing the proper mixtures, only the ingredients) for Adenine and once they completed that, they subjected it to natural light and VOILA, they had Uracil. "

On the contrary, science does care about the beginning of life but evolution is not a theory that explains the origin of life as it is often misconstrued....

reply to post by creatednotEvolved


Um...why discuss it? Because it's interesting. Because it helps us with medicine, agriculture, programming, and all sorts of other fields. It is the foundational theory of biology because without it, as someone else said, biology is just butterfly collecting.

Abiogenesis is about the beginning of life.
The Big Bang Theory is about the expansion of our universe into its present form

Neither of those has anything to do with evolution.

It's not like a book that you're just getting the middle of, it's like getting the edges of a puzzle before you do the whole thing.

reply to post by addygrace

What do you want me to do, spend an hour on a reply, only to have my integrity questioned by a poster who clearly knew I wasn't hiding a quote, he thought should have been in my post?

How about apologizing for using dirty tricks and evading the issue? How about apologizing for the premeditated use of arguments that you know in advance are false – because their falsity has been shown to you many times on ATS? This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you in this forum.

It is no secret that religious faith corrupts, but it’s depressing to have the evidence for it rubbed in one’s face over and over again. If you will not apologize for your ethical malfunction, at least have the grace to accept the censure of it in decent silence. Thank you.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
Can you flesh out this question a bit further. I have found that nothing has been beyond my ability to grasp though daily I find much that is, some of which is nothing.

Nothing is a pain to wrap our minds around... yeah. Because our entire framework is built upon the concept of nothing being surrounded by something, etc.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
What is your take on the nothing everything something dance? For me the whirling of the nothing/everything two step can only be approached by the nothing/everything/something three step. I seem to need something in between.

In a way it's similar to the idea tossed out by guys like Stephen Hawking regarding a "quantum fluctuation" kick starting the big bang. It's infinity containing the potential (as used in energy discussions) for consciousness of itself as infinity... yet not existing except as potential until the potential is "put to work" to visualize everything. See my comment below regarding a fractal.

The thing between nothing and everything is consciousness. Nothing exists without consciousness... yet consciousness is... well... nothing.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
Which simply leads to, can we approach either everything or nothing by either adding or subtracting somethings?

From my perspective you can't have something without nothing, and you can't have nothing without something. You can't add or remove from either, you can only change the nature/form of visualizing it. A fractal equation is simultaneously *everything* (within its potential for visualization) yet it is also nothing but an "idea"... or a "thought".

Addendum: Imagine a fractal that is so complex portions of it become self aware. Now when we visualize via a computer this fractal we "created" this self awareness. But did we really? Hasn't the *potential* for that fractal always existed? Just waiting for a consciousness to put it to work? Now scale back to a bigger picture of us... and view infinity (which as a concept we know exists). The entities within the self aware fractal will only be aware of *their* infinity. This is akin to the Flatland story. They live within infinity... have consciousness within their infinity... had a clear "start" yet always existed in potentiation.

Our problem is we fail to treat infinity as actually infinite... we always place limitations on it that fit our visualization. Infinity is *truly* infinite... which includes consciousness taking an idea from infinity and visualizing it into reality. It was always there, always will be there, and like the Mandlebrot has no "time"... yet has the ability to be viewed and explored in many many different ways.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


BTW... I chose my words fairly carefully as they do carry multiple perspectives/meanings. The phrase "Nothing is too difficult for God" can be read two different ways. Please try to apply the same sort of Necker Cube method of reading to my comments.

In fact the whole enterprise of language and communication becomes clearer when one approaches it as a Necker Cube.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

Time to stop beating around the bush

Let's ignore the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, or the primordial soup theory etc for the moment and place emphasis on the "big bang" theory since it is "crux" of everything that exists. It is also because I grow weary of the "intelligent design vs evolution" argument, which is what every thread of this kind eventually boils down to.

Regardless, the big bang theory is something that was supposedly meant to explain the origins of the universe and instead it only elucidates on how the universe expanded into the state that it is in today. It ignores how the first particle came into existence altogether...since "Nothing comes from nothing"(creatio ex nihilo as they say in latin).

To answer the Op's question, I reckon that this something that eludes even contemporary science. One must understand that it's only been a short while since man acquired cognizance of the nature of the universe and we can only draw inferences from what little of the known or visible universe that our senses depict......For certain things go beyond even human ken.

Originally posted by Leonardo01
Regardless, the big bang theory is something that was supposedly meant to explain the origins of the universe and instead it only elucidates on how the universe expanded into the state that it is in today. It ignores how the first particle came into existence altogether...since "Nothing comes from nothing"(creatio ex nihilo as they say in latin).

Particles and antiparticles pop into existence from vacuum all the time.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Would you be good enough to cite a few references of where such a phenomenon has been observed? Does it explain as to what causes the existence of particles in a vacuum?.....If this is the case then our perception of nothingness is incorrect and as I have previously stated that we view the world through the finite number of senses we carry and a vacuum isn't actually nothing(To define nothingness:The absence of anything)....What exactly does galvanize the creation of such manner of particles in a vacuum?The origin of light and energy in space is also something of an enigma....

reply to post by Leonardo01

May I, Rhinoceros? Here you go, Leonardo:

Virtual particles

Casimir effect

Hawking radiation

But then again, ‘in modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.”’

reply to post by Astyanax


Thank you. As you can see the big bang theory is something that has always eluded me and it is perhaps the overbearing prejudice that encompasses the human persona that prevents us from considering alternate ideas. I reckon resorting to a belief in god is only an attempt to reconcile with our meager understanding of things....It circumvents the human imagination........However a lot is still unexplained and there are somethings we may never truly know.

reply to post by Leonardo01

Thank you. As you can see the big bang theory is something that has always eluded me and it is perhaps the overbearing prejudice that encompasses the human persona that prevents us from considering alternate ideas.

Not understanding an idea or the evidence for it isn’t a very good reason for considering simpler alternatives. It is a mistake to think that natural phenomena always reduce to simple elements. Nature is complicated. Knowledge is hard to come by. Understanding the more so, but the difficulty should not make us abandon the effort and resort to explanations that, while simpler, are also simply wrong.

I reckon resorting to a belief in god is only an attempt to reconcile with our meager understanding of things

It’s one reason for why such beliefs exist, certainly.

.However a lot is still unexplained and there are somethings we may never truly know.

A thought that troubles the wise even as it comforts the unschooled.

Originally posted by Lynexon
Everything is a theory but the big bang theory is getting harder to hold up. I started this as a reply in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, I found myself not really replying to the person but saying something I wanted to say anyways. I couldn't find anything disputing the theorized age of the Great Sloan Wall Galaxy cluster but I'd be open to a discussion about it. But when the equation used to calculate the theorized age of the universe is similar to the type of equation used to calculate the time for the wall to form, they are going to have a chance to conflict. These ginormous galaxy walls are new discoveries and new discoveries are supposed to conflict with current theories. There is just too much to take into account when trying to explain these things when we only have so little information to go off of.

The big bang theory itself is based on equations and measurements we take through looking at space. We can't test it and I've always had the opinion that saying that a gigantic explosion created all of existence that we can see is not that much different than believing that a higher being created existence. Even the big bang theory doesn't account for what existed before it, because something had to explode and space had to exist for something to explode in. So it can't fully be said to be the beginning of everything. The same can be said about an intelligent designer for the universe because if one existed, it can be left to assume that he came into being some-how, so that's an entire origin story that is never calculated.

One theory I have is that space itself is probably infinite. Even by standard expansion theories, the universe has to be expanding into somewhere.

I just have the belief that we can talk all we want about how everything came into existence but we will never truly know unless we find out more information from either out there in space or from God. Because when you truly think about religion, they are our beginning stories so that leaves room for God to exist having created other life elsewhere.

Anyways i thought this would be a good discussion and I want to hear some opinions.

I think that Bertrand Russell kinda put Intelligent design theory into perspective with his quote that 'MATTER!' is not a part of the ultimate material of this world but merely a convenient way of collecting events into bundles. A hint at UFO materials And as far as the phenomena of things coming into existence out of nothing is concerned I believe that the scales of justice have been tipped. Our government obtained UFO tech before the big bang ever happened and all the while just trying to avoid the inevitable. Politics is no longer the art of the possible it is now more the act of attempting to avoid the inevitable!

Once again, it's all about creationists attacking science, instead of spreading their religion honestly and positively. Denying the big bang, from a creationist standpoint is absurd. If there was an all powerful creator, how exactly you do think he'd created a universe? Big bang? Hello? Instead of arguing against it, you should be pondering about how a creator could still exist, and its simple. He caused the big bang. (I'm not saying I believe that, but there's nothing wrong with that belief).