Walk into a room ...

[Guest Sora]

I have one thing to say, let's say you walk into a room, and you see a chair sitting there.

 

Now evolutioist or creationist you know that chair didn't just create it's self right? Right. Well then how can something as simple as a chair not just have a BOOM or BANG or lightning and make the chair. That's not possible.

 

Yet people belive that in a "Big BANG" Theroy were the whole universe just made it's self. So ... explain that.

 

Plus evolution ... explain how people evolve the human eye?

 

You do that, and then maybe I'll think about chaning my views on Evolution. Sure I belvie in Surviale of the fittest, but that's totaly different. I mean I don't mean any disrespect but I want to know your views on this.

 

Thanks for any replys.

 

- Sora

[NSX]

Sora said in post #1 :

Yet people belive that in a "Big BANG" Theroy were the whole universe just made it's self. So ... explain that.

 

IT's exactly that, a theory of our origins some many years back. What's there to explain?

[VendingMenace]

Now evolutioist or creationist you know that chair didn't just create it's self right?

 

Not quite. If you really want to split hairs. I do not know that the chair did not create itself. Rather, i strongly suspect that the chair did not make itself. In fact, unless i either watched the chair being made by a person or whatched it just "pop" into existance, i know nothing about its origin. However, my experiences have taught me that it is quite unlikely that a chair will just pop into existance out of nowhere. Thus, i assume that the chair did not appear out of nowehere. So strongly do i belive this, that i do it uncounsciencely, just out of habit, despite the fact i have not seen the creation of the chair.

 

Where am i going with this? As far as the creation of the universe is concerned, we know nothing about what happened to cause it. What is more, we never can. THere is no possible way to observe or measure something that existed before the universe as we know it did (asa the cause of the universe must have). As such, it is open to any conjecture that we wish --and more, they are all equally valid. Or at least they are all equally unprovable. I can say that the universe created itself via quantum fluctuations. I could say that the cristian God created the universe. Or i could even claim that is was little green three headed men/donkeys from the planet proto-pluto that created the universe as an acidence when the blew up their mother''s vacum. And all three of these theories can be investigated to the same amount, that is, none.

 

Why then does science put for the big bang? For the same reason that i assume the chair did not create itself -- a trained resonse. Sciece nessesarily must reject all supernatural forces, becuase if such forces existed then the universe would not be consistant. If the universe is not consitant then meaningful study of it is impossible. As such, science is forced to work within the confines of a ubiquitous, consistant set of rules wich govern how hte universe works (it is the aim of science to figure out and describe these rules). This need to reject the supernatural causes creation by a being to be rejected. So, sceince must turn to the best possible explination that does not use such a being. As of right now, this theory is the big bang.

 

I hope that helps somewhat. All theories concerning the beggining of the universe must be equally valid. However, despite this equality, internal constraints of various systems will fource of to reject some of these views. In the case of science we are forced to reject the existance of a supernatural being.

 

However are we really? NOt quite. It is indistuiguishable to differentiate between the big bang and the creation of the universe by a being that then removes himself from his creation. Thus, science really rejects the idea that there is a bieing that created the universe and still continues to take an active part in it.

 

I think that makes sense.

 

Yet people belive that in a "Big BANG" Theroy were the whole universe just made it's self. So ... explain that.

 

Well i hope that i at least shed some light onto the reasons that people belive in the big bang. Effectively, believing in the big bang is equivilant to beliveing in a being that creates the universe and then divorces himself from it. Thus, people that believe in the big bang sans a being are actually believing that there is no supernatural being that activily participates in the universe.

 

Plus evolution ... explain how people evolve the human eye?

 

As far as evolution is concerned. A series of random mutations occurred in the genome of proto-peoples. SOme of these mutations were beficial, some where not. Those that added a greater fitness to their "oweners" were increased in frequency. If just so happens that many of these mutations, when all summed up added up to the human eye. In effect, the human eye was evolved through baby steps, many many tiny baby steps.

 

Really, i find this idea much less difficult to swallow than say, life evolved from lifeless chemicals. At least once organisms existsed, theree was a form through wich the mechanism of evolution through natrual selection could function. Before life, there was no such intety for this mechanism to function. Thus, the first life form had to arise purley from chance. And what is more, one this most improbable event happened, there was most likely only 1 thing alive. Nessesarily, it must have survived to reproduce, and its offpring as well.

 

Crazy, if you ask me. But then again, i could be thinking about this all wrong.

 

Anyways the answer to your questoin is this. The human eye evolved over many (way more than you care to count) mutations that occred over the course of several million/billion years. At least that is what teh theory proposes.

 

I mean I don't mean any disrespect but I want to know your views on this.

 

None taken. It is quite benificial for scienctists to be thick skinned, so that we can accept attacks on our theories. And we need to be rational, so we realize that they are attacks on our theories and not on us. So the practive is good! And what is more, as i was stating on a different thread, it is a scientists duty to continually question science and examine its claims. So it is always good practice to try and defend them and try to explain them.

 

Anyways, hope that helps some. I am sure that other people will be willing to give you their thoughts as well. Feel free to ask more questions too and welcome to the boards!

[blike]

Sora said in post #1 :

I have one thing to say, let's say you walk into a room, and you see a chair sitting there.

 

Now evolutioist or creationist you know that chair didn't just create it's self right? Right. Well then how can something as simple as a chair not just have a BOOM or BANG or lightning and make the chair. That's not possible.

 

Yet people belive that in a "Big BANG" Theroy were the whole universe just made it's self. So ... explain that.

 

Although I'm a theist, that is a horrific argument because the same thing can be said about God. "Who made God?"

[jordan]

I have to agree with blike. This seems too commenly forgot. Mabey because the "Big Bang Theory" theorizes about the very begin of the universe while religions tend to focus on the beggings of Earth.

[YT2095]

jordan said in post #5 :

I have to agree with blike. This seems too commenly forgot. Mabey because the "Big Bang Theory" theorizes about the very begin of the universe while religions tend to focus on the beggings of Earth.

 

the beggings of Earth, Never a Truer Word said!!! don`t change it, you were right 1`st time!

[Pinch Paxton]

Well it's a long list from the big bang to a chair. It's a long list from the transformer to the computer. I can break the list down a bit to the creation of a chair.

 

Big bang..strings...electrons...atoms..gravity...Planets...water.. ameba .. germ... ant..

 

(Strings probably come before the Big Bang..I don't know how accurate my list is.)

 

When we get to ants or before that, things start to get made by the simplest forms of intelligence....ant hill. But the intelligence is still part of the building structure of the universe.. electric energy. So in a way, even intelligent life is part of the building of the universe......

 

....human...chair!

 

 

Pincho.

[jordan]

YT

 

What do you mean don't change it?

[YT2095]

didn`t you mean "the beginnings of earth"?

[Pinch Paxton]

Beggings is a mis-spelling.

[Pinch Paxton]

Oh by the way, I'm just explaining the theory of evolution, I don't actually believe in it.

 

Yeah, and it's a bigger jump from nothing to a God, than it is from nothing to a chair!

[YT2095]

ROFLOL, that was such a worthy "Freudian slip" I may just add you to my buddies list, I can`t knock off laughing here

 

the last classic one liner I read is in the moderators holding area, it went something like this: There couldn`t have been such a thing as the Big Bang because it would have destroyed everything.

I nearly wet myself when I read it

[Sayonara]

The new MEGACHAIR 3000, lovingly crafted by God.

[YT2095]

that aint the same one I`ve seen at a special 15% discount in K-Mart is it?

[Sayonara]

You don't pay for MEGACHAIRs, they just appear.

[YT2095]

must be a different one then, I could have sworn it also said if you bought Two, you could have a free picture of the Deity of your own choice to hang above them?

 

not to worry, not my kinda shop anyway

[Hades]

VendingMenace said in post #3 :

Really, i find this idea much less difficult to swallow than say, life evolved from lifeless chemicals. At least once organisms existsed, theree was a form through wich the mechanism of evolution through natrual selection could function. Before life, there was no such intety for this mechanism to function. Thus, the first life form had to arise purley from chance. And what is more, one this most improbable event happened, there was most likely only 1 thing alive. Nessesarily, it must have survived to reproduce, and its offpring as well.

 

this i find rather interesting to comment on solely b/c u can grasp the fundamentals of evolution, and adhere to its possibility without much doubt, yet somewhat shun the concept that the very first lifeform on this planet arose from chemicals.

This is why: u initially said many minute mutations in the genes of an organism led to development of an eye. A precise eye. The bad ones led to most likely inferior outcomes thus causing the organism to die out, however the beneficial mutation caused a thriving, so to speak. If somewhere along this chain of events a bad mutation that became permanent, the same would happen as the beforementioned causing its inevitable fate.

This leads me to my idea that over the course of millions of years, the appropriate chemical composition, AND quantity of such enabled perhaps.... the very first organic compound, a monosaccharide. this conglomeration of elements probably occured in a hot spring of sorts, where these three elements were abundant. Among the simple sugar, a lipid could form. With some nitrogen and sulfur a protein, altho highly improbable so early in the game, COULD exist.

In this plethora of primordial (i love that word) molecules, several may have been put together to create the ver first organism.

The jump from nothing, to a chair is not easy to believe. But if there were other steps... it would be more likely, correct?

It is known that the prokaryotic cell was the very first lifeform to exist. Such a complex organism if u think about the depth it has....

peptidoglycen.... one chromosome, however minute, STILL relays data throughout the cell via rna. My god! !

But was it the first? There must have been something before this b/c evolution from a chemical into a tangible, living cell is just as difficult to swallow as creationism.

lost my concentration turkeys done. happy thanksgiving

[mooeypoo]

Every theory should stand the test of logic and reality.

 

The BIG BANG theory - as any other theory in our world, by the way - is unproven. However, the theory DOES stand the test of reality - we CAN use it to explain phenomenas we see in space and the universe (such as the rotation of stars, the similarity between planets and stars and so on). Yes, someone can jump up in the next 200 years (or even tomorrow, who knows) and claim it's all a big *BS* and show us a different theory--

But if we want to ACCEPT that theory, we will put it AGAIN through the same tests: does it fit the phenomenas in space, does it explain them, and - does it HELP me in any way.

 

About your chair.

 

No, no one can clame that he is 100% sure the chair wasn't made up in thin air within seconds through a huge bang in the room. You can't be sure, since you haven't SEEN or WITTNESSED the making of the chair -- in order to say it was braught there, you are using your logic --- chairs don't go "PUFF" from thin air, someone makes them, therefore - this chair was made by someone and put inside the room.

 

If you want to say the chair was created by a devine force - you may, but you still need to ask yourself two major questions:

 

1) Can I support this theory with reality phenomenas?

2) Does it matter?

 

Since both answers would probably mean "NO", no self-respecting scientist would accept your chair theory.

 

The universe' BIG BANG theory, however, answers to the first question in a huge YES (as i said in the beginning of the post, rotation of stars and all) and to the second an even bigger yes: WE WANT to know our creation so we could understand the rest of our life and existance.

 

At the same type of question, I can always ask you this:

 

How can you be sure that our existance wasn't created with our own false memories and experiences by a higher being - the almighty GOD himself - only Tuesday last week at 14:52 EST.

 

You can't prove that God didn't, and you certainly can't CLAIM he didn't since he's almighty.

 

However - this doesn't explain ANYTHING and it also doesn't give you any other information. It gives you NOTHING. Therefore, its meaningless.

 

The big bang went boom and created a universe of questions.

Creation went "Puff" and gave us a SINGLE answer to all questions.

 

I personally preffer the first one.

 

 

~mooeypoo

[VendingMenace]

The big bang went boom and created a universe of questions.

Creation went "Puff" and gave us a SINGLE answer to all questions.

 

I personally preffer the first one.

 

You may prefer any that you wish.

 

The fact of the matter, however, is that both make equally valid statements about the instant the universe began. The begginning of the universe (the exact instant of it) is what is known as a singularity in science. This is just a dressed up way of saying "we can never know." So science can extrapolate back to the very instant before the big bang, but the actuall hypothesized big bang is beyond the relm of science.

 

Of course, this doesn't really matter, but i just wanted to point out that if you wan't to be a responsible scientist you can make no claims about the instant of the begging of the universe. Of course if you want to be a philosopher-scientist (who doesn't man?) then you can say whatever you wish, just don't expect scientific data to back you up.

 

Cool

[mooeypoo]

You're half right -- I see your point but think of this -

 

Science, unlike the creation, allows us to explain physical phenomenas in space THROUGH the theory of the big bang. Creaetion only lets us explain through tautology.

 

BTW - look what I said. I didn't say one created a universe and one created a world, i said that one is the QUESTION and one is the ANSWER.

 

If you want to have an ultimate answer, no matter how tautological it may be - chose religion. If you chose to question you sometimes get more questions than answers.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To explain the question "Where did it come from" there is a theory that there was a previous universe that for some reason contracted to a TINY dot, then did the Big Bang. That nullifies that there are "incompressible" substances because to explode from a tiny point they WOULD be compressed.