Why God Did Not Create the Universe [Archive]

wet dog

09-05-2010, 09:13

...far from denying the existence of a creator, Hawking may be suggesting something greater than is dreamed of in most theologies.

Or maybe I've just had too much coffee....

When ideas are not founded in absolutes, (science), many subject themselves, in their own minds too, what is, (religion). While I believe science and religion are compatible, some do not. Early human history suggests that we, mankind, created God - because the thought of being alone in the universe is a tough cross to bear, sort of speaking.

What if we, humans, are mere spirtual creatures having an earthly experience, not simply hosts of clay trying to understand the spirit realm? Not, "Who am I, but what am I?".

The susject of religion is often avoided because there is just to much area of, "we don't know". Science has the same problems, but it is easier to discuss since we do not venture into one's sensibilities or risk offending someone. I avoid religious discussion with most outside of my immediate family, children and a few friends, which makes me not a good example of "letting my light so shine for the world to see", but I try to show the world by my actions, what I believe.

I believe the universe is endless, continually expanding. What it is expanding into, I do not know. After my probation on earth studying "Terraforming" is complete, I hope the Viking Mother ship returns to pick me up, and I can get into some of that "world building" myself. I would create a solar system with a single sun, like ours, some really cool moons, and an earth similar to this one for just me, with endless rivers, mountains, lakes and oceans. On another earth, I'd put all the kids to figure out how to cooperate, negociate and problem solve. I might occassionally visit them and intervein on some's behalf.

My question for Hawking would be, "In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded, right?" For matter can not be created, but simply moved, changed, and organized. What if a version of a Time-Space Continuum is concurrent, what if everything is happening simultaneously as we exist? The Romans are building, leaving evidence of their "existance", while at the same time, we are living, breathing today, viewing the "history" left behind. It looks old, but it is not. Of course, the builder of such viewing would see all of this in the present, and view the future just as easily, perhaps even allowing others to view the future, (in vision).

I'm moving back into my lane and search the Comedy Zone, the Mosque at Ground Zero, maybe immigration in Arizona.

JJ_BPK

09-05-2010, 09:25

A fascinating article by Stephen Hawking

I have read and admired Hawking for some 25 yrs. I am continually amazed at the way he perceives the universe.

I am happy that while I read his papers, I can understand maybe 40-50 %, while believing that I can span the the gaps in my inability to understand the rest.

I don't agree nor disagree with his writings for a simple reason. He's perception of the universe is a singular view that is beyond most of my comprehension.

It's about like telling Michelangelo that David should have looked to the right instead of the left.

Or telling Leonardo da Vinci that it is obvious the Mona Lisa painting is a thinly disguised self-portrait of himself in drag..

Or telling Mary Shelley she got it wrong, Frankenstein should have had a happy ending...

You can't,, You just sit with your mouth open and wonder..

:munchin

dadof18x'er

09-05-2010, 10:02

..........what if he's wrong?

How long is one of God's days?

To someone who is timeless and ageless why do we limit Him to 24 hours?
in regards to Hawking's article it would take as much (or more) faith to believe that than it would to believe in intelligent design :rolleyes:

Kyobanim

09-05-2010, 10:27

No it wouldn't.

zauber1

09-05-2010, 10:37

Pascal's Wager

olhamada

09-05-2010, 10:39

Hawking is not saying "There is no God". Rather, he is saying that God did not create this universe - as in, this particular universe.

I disagree. In this editorial, Hawking himself says, "Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation". As a self-pronounced atheist, and in the same statement, Hawking once again tries to prove that the only "Creator" and "God" is man while at the same time stating that we are too puny and insignificant to matter. This is COMPLETELY counter to the entire message of scripture on both counts.

As Tony Campolo once said, "In the beginning God created man in His own image - and now we have decided to return the favor".

Hawking has a brilliant mind, but he's wrong. Theologically he is a humanistic atheist. Of course, he's going to say God didn't create the universe or man, that the OT is a compilation of ancient myths, that Genesis holds no scientific credibility, etc.....

There are many others who are just as brilliant who can "prove" just as well that this cosmos could not have come into being without the intervention of an intelligent, intentional, and present God.

Buffalobob

09-05-2010, 10:46

After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots.

Still plenty of pot bangers in the world! :D

Many/most of the great physicists turned to philosophy in their later life.

One would have expected the classical postulation that we (homo sapiens) are what we are because we are in the set of laws that we observe. Hawkings reverses the postulation and makes it new and fresh.

dadof18x'er

09-05-2010, 10:50

Pascal's Wager

that's my bet

echoes

09-05-2010, 11:56

The title of this thread influenced my reasoning, thus, my veiw is that Mr. Hawking espouses very nice labels.:rolleyes:

I stopped reading after the first sentence;

"Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world."

Good on you, Mr. H, for being published. (Tell me something I don't know!)

This is akin, IMHO, to a any Cook who thinks that their dish is better than the other guys because his uniform was starched clean! Maybe I'm wrong, but....

JMHO,

Holly

Penn

09-05-2010, 12:01

Echoes, whats it like out there on that limb?

echoes

09-05-2010, 12:16

Echoes, whats it like out there on that limb?

Chef,

Am just a person. But am striving to learn, learn, learn!

Holly:munchin

wet dog

09-05-2010, 12:45

Not quite, Big Bang theory holds that in the beginning, all matter, space, and time was compressed into a singularity, which then expanded outward at great speed;) (how time has a "beginning" is beyond me though:confused:).

IMO, I think the whole notion of theorizing about multiple universes continually forming and expanding like bubbles in water is rather silly. It is fantasizing to an extreme degree I think. YES, it could maybe be true, but it's just so far out there. When Hawking says:

As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.

Okay, so who wrote these "laws" of cosmology and gravity that allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing? Are those spontaneous too? I think this is a prime example of how our brains are simply too limited to understand this subject beyond a small amount.

On God's existence, I think the arguments FOR a Creator are flawed (because who created the creator? The proponents say the Creator exists outside of these "rules," and thus doesn't need a creator, well why can't the universe then? The universe itself isn't subject to rules, things within the universe are subject to rules). That is also inadverdently what Hawking is saying. HOWEVER, I also think the arguments against a Creator are flawed as well. To say that all the matter-space-time in the beginning was just "there" and no one or nothing created it, that nothing wrote the laws of physics, etc...that sounds silly as well.

Again I think it just shows the limits of our brains and the logic we use to understand the universe.

I believe if there is such a Creator, it is be something far more grandious and unimaginable then any of us can possibly conjure up. Right now I think humans trying to figure this stuff out is like chimpanzees trying to learn nuclear physics---it's beyond the capability of their brains.

:munchin

I'd make a bad Si-Fi author, another failed attempt so I'm going to stick to my strengths. Maybe God was once like us.

T-Rock

09-05-2010, 13:24

Richard

09-05-2010, 13:29

RE: Post #17

Perhaps a little more exploring and reading - the more recent Hubble discoveries which actually do show events such as star formations, neighboring galaxies, and on-going changes within the universe might be of particular worth.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/

Gutes lesen.

Richard :munchin

cold1

09-05-2010, 13:59

I am not qualified to debate Hawkings thoeries, but the people I work with/for are. Theology comes up from time to time. There is a great divide between the Physical sciences and Biological sciences. On the Physical sciences side there is an abundance of non believers, on the biologies side there is an abundance of Intelligent design. This divide has been attributed to a few items of difference between the two fields.

In the physical sciences most of the phenomina that is oberved has hard physical boundaries, IE.. "if this, then that". These postulates end up being repeatable and quantifiable. There are exceptions that IMHO prove that some of this form of science is consentual BS on a grand scale.

In the biological sciences there are few hard and fast rules on complex systems. The beats are hedged with statistical data. Even simple systems will throw a curve ball every now and then. In the biological sciences you will find PhDs that will admit that for as much as they know they are still in their infancy of understanding (these have my admiration).

I will give a couple of examples to think about.
Until about two years ago it was it was believed and taught that no cosmic xray burst could possibly last for more than 30 seconds. This had been proven time and time again mathmatically. Then one day and cosmic xray burst was observed that lasted for several hours.

As a noted MD, PhD and general expert in his area of expertice once told me "its called practicing medicine for a reason, we still cant get it right 100% of the time"

Richard

09-05-2010, 15:17

What if the Earth wasn’t in its current orbit and we were 1/4 mile closer to the sun :eek:

:rolleyes:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=331

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

T-Rock

09-05-2010, 15:20

In the biological sciences there are few hard and fast rules on complex systems. The beats are hedged with statistical data. Even simple systems will throw a curve ball every now and then. In the biological sciences you will find PhDs that will admit that for as much as they know they are still in their infancy of understanding (these have my admiration).

I haven’t kept up with current studies lately but what baffles my mind is “genomic equivalence” where a skin cell is different from a muscle cell, which is different from a nerve cell, yet all these cells contain the same genes as a fertilized egg. If the genes contained in these cells are the same, why are the cells so different :confused: Ultrabithorax doesn’t solve the paradox because it means that genes are being turned on or off by factors outside themselves. What regulating factors outside of the DNA are controlling the genes :confused:
It’s puzzling to say the least :confused:

wet dog

09-05-2010, 15:20

I believe Microbiology has thoroughly debunked the theory of “Spontaneous Generation” - which debunks the theory that life arose from inanimate matter - nothing can originate from a sterile environment and if life started from nothing, from where did it come?

No matter what one believes, we can’t even cure the common cold…LOL…so we’re reduced to one common denominator which is faith….faith in whatever theory you believe in…testing theories against the evidence will never end (a good thing), and if contradictory evidence turns up, the theory must be reevaluated or even abandoned, otherwise it is not science, but myth…

What if the Earth wasn’t in its current orbit and we were 1/4 mile closer to the sun :eek:

I heard either we would burn up or freeze to death, depending on the earth placement by less than 1/4 mile. In my younger days, I could throw a rock that far, not really, buy you get the point.

500 years ago, everything we knew about the earth, the sun, our known solar-sytem, well, we were wrong. I'm interested in thinking what our future generations might learn in the next 500 years.

It's nice being in a room with some really smart people.

Thanks, WD

Penn

09-05-2010, 15:28

Being a child of the sixties; Timothy Leary explained it this way; you're god, everything your think is created and infinite, and ceases, when the thought is no longer present. The universe you know is the one created by and for you by others. Thus religion is due more to geographic circumstance than to the existence of quantifiable data.

T-Rock

09-05-2010, 15:55

I’ll see your orbit…:D
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=331

And raise you..:D
(Now, just to make sure we don't mislead you, the Earth's overall orbit or distance from the sun would make a difference if it were located say where Mercury is or where Pluto is. As Dr. Jack Hall from ecology.com's Dr. Jack's Natural World says: "It's the three bears syndrome. We're not too close to the sun, and we're not too far away. We're j-u-u-u-u-st right!)

http://ecology.com/features/tiltingearth/
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html

ETA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/seasons-orbit/?searchterm=Milankovitch%20theory

Kyobanim

09-05-2010, 15:55

I'm interested in thinking what our future generations might learn in the next 500 years.

Just give me a warp drive.

ReefBlue

09-05-2010, 16:39

I believe Microbiology has thoroughly debunked the theory of “Spontaneous Generation” - which debunks the theory that life arose from inanimate matter - nothing can originate from a sterile environment and if life started from nothing, from where did it come?

No matter what one believes, we can’t even cure the common cold…LOL…so we’re reduced to one common denominator which is faith….faith in whatever theory you believe in…testing theories against the evidence will never end (a good thing), and if contradictory evidence turns up, the theory must be reevaluated or even abandoned, otherwise it is not science, but myth…

What if the Earth wasn’t in its current orbit and we were 1/4 mile closer to the sun :eek:

Earth's orbit isn't a perfect circle with the Sun in the center. It moves us about 3 million miles further from the sun during the summer months.

94 million miles in July, 91 in January.

Additionally, the Japanese conducted experiments after some discoveries that meteor impacts would create the building blocks of life.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/12/12/did_meteorite_impacts_help_to_spawn_life

One of those articles mentions a "Miller–Urey experiment" which seems to be the de-facto experiment regarding the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/

dr. mabuse

09-05-2010, 18:10

One wonders what Hawking's motivations truly are. Many know his feelings as do his followers, yet he insists on producing these same types of articles for what purpose? For the enlightenment of whom?

As for high I.Q. folks, sorry, I'm not at all impressed.

Hawking supposedly said, "People who boast about their IQ's are losers" yet I haven't seen him hesitate when questioned about his I.Q.. :rolleyes:

He's placed his bet, come what may.

Have a good 'un.

T-Rock

09-05-2010, 18:31

Earth's orbit isn't a perfect circle with the Sun in the center. It moves us about 3 million miles further from the sun during the summer months.

The tilt of its axis is the key in orbit, check out the Milankovitch Theory
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

One of those articles mentions a "Miller–Urey experiment" which seems to be the de-facto experiment regarding the origin of life.

Not really. The experiment failed to simulate conditions on the early earth and has little to do with the origin of life because it depends on life’s building blocks by lightening, and the composition of earths early atmosphere. Check out the Oparin-Haldane scenario, a theory in crisis. Oxygen that is essential to aerobic respiration is often fatal to organic synthesis, nevertheless, an electric spark in a container of swamp gas with just a little O2 will cause an explosion. Miller assembled a closed glass apparatus in Urey’s laboratory and pumped out the air (O2), and the two simplest amino acids he produced do not occur in living organisms. Miller knew that Oxygen would destroy any amino acids (the building blocks of life) that might be produced, yet as scientists dig into the Earth's crust, they find oxidized rock, indicating the Earth has always had an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Millers research was inconclusive:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller-Urey+inconclusive&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=40000000001&as_sdtp=on

olhamada

09-05-2010, 18:58

Hawking supposedly said, "People who boast about their IQ's are losers" yet I haven't seen him hesitate when questioned about his I.Q.. :rolleyes:

He's placed his bet, come what may.

Have a good 'un.

I'm curious - What does he claim his IQ is?

dr. mabuse

09-05-2010, 20:41

IIRC, it was ~ 160 or so.

Team Sergeant

09-05-2010, 20:49

Oh you silly silly homo sapiens sapiens, first you worship trees, the sun, rocks, etc. then move onto multiple gods, then one god. And now you're going to debate ones "man's" theory of how the universe was created?

Do you see something childish in this?

Those of us with a very high IQ already know the Norse Gods invented the universe. ;)

Can we move on now?

Team Sergeant

rdret1

09-05-2010, 20:54

Personally, I refuse to believe that " Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe." That would be like winning Powerball and MegaMillions at the same time, several times. I don't buy Erich von Daniken's theories either but they make just as much sense as that article.

Erich von Daniken did have some things right that I think Mr. Hawkings overlooks. If, as Mr. Hawkings states "Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world", how did the Mayans develop such accurate calenders? How did ancient civilizations construct such amazing buildings as the Great Pyramids, the Mayan Pyramids, the Nazca lines, etc. etc., which modern engineers state they would have trouble recreating, which also appear to be linked to the astonomical bodies and/or seasons of the year?

As Pete stated, what is a day to God? A day on Jupiter is approximately 10 hours, but a year on Jupiter is over 11 Earth years. A day on Venus is 243 Earth days, which is also longer than a year on Venus which is 225 Earth days. Mr Hawkings has some brilliant theories, but he also limits himself. The statement of our being insignificant is the best one. Compared to God, we are. The ancients may not have our advantages, but they were in no way ignorant. In some ways, they were well ahead of where we are now.

incarcerated

09-05-2010, 22:53

Echoes, please clear a little space in your In Box so I can PM you.

Personally, I think TS just settled the issue…

Irishsquid

09-06-2010, 00:26

nmap

09-06-2010, 03:11

As an aside, for you amateur physicists out there, can you recommend any good place to begin my education on such matters? I don't exactly trust wiki.

There is a wealth of material available! You might enjoy Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos [Paperback] by Michio Kaku. It's written in clear non-mathematical terms.

Another one I liked a lot is In Search of Schrödinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality [Paperback] John Gribbin. Can a cat be both alive and dead at the same time? The answer may surprise you!

Irishsquid

09-06-2010, 04:30

There is a wealth of material available! You might enjoy Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos [Paperback] by Michio Kaku. It's written in clear non-mathematical terms.

Another one I liked a lot is In Search of Schrödinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality [Paperback] John Gribbin. Can a cat be both alive and dead at the same time? The answer may surprise you!

I have no problem with mathematical terms, as long as the mathematical theories behind them are explained. I'm a cryptographer, so math is, to me, the most elegant language in the world. Other than that, thanks for the recommended reading. I'll look into both of those.

99meters

09-06-2010, 04:33

As an aside, for you amateur physicists out there, can you recommend any good place to begin my education on such matters? I don't exactly trust wiki.

Get a copy of the Bible and read Genesis. Hawking's rants would'nt get you any closer to understanding shit about life.

Ret10Echo

09-06-2010, 08:11

This has been interesting to watch go by... :munchin

My faith is a very personal matter. It is not between me and anyone else on this earth. I am unconcerned of what you believe, for I fully understand what I believe.

Those that become overly concerned with the faith of others just might start cutting off the heads of those with a different opinion from theirs....

Just a thought.

R10

["Scientists of their day have determined that: The world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, Pluto is (or isn't) a planet, global warming and then there are those pesky animals that are "extinct" that really aren't any more....]

Penn

09-06-2010, 08:20

99, See, that’s what I like about America, you can equate the investigation of God, the Bible, and Stephen Hawkings in just one sentence, and in the process descriptively infer a synomious relationship with shit, and no one is offended.Now thats poetry, surly comparable to T.S. Elliot planting his lilacs in the in the dead land.

Richard

09-06-2010, 08:50

Lots of 'beliefs' out there in the world.

The Big Religion Chart

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

We used to 'thank Gawd' for sending us TAC Air whenever we 'prayed' for it on the radio...I hope 'gawd' he keeps answering those 'prayers' for those who need it now.* ;)

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

* Name since changed to Air Combat Command.

Paslode

09-06-2010, 09:30

I am not a religious man. I was once, but no longer. I have faith, and believe in the laws of physics. I/we don't know exactly what they all are yet, but they are what they are. That said, I also believe the laws of physics are far too elegant to be the product of an accident. I believe that there is some higher power...whatever that is, and that that higher power set the laws of physics in motion, and then sat back to watch what those laws would bring about. I also do not believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

As an aside, for you amateur physicists out there, can you recommend any good place to begin my education on such matters? I don't exactly trust wiki.

I believe in God, but I am not a Sunday go to meeting kind of guy. My downward spiral began at an early age when I was kicked out of a Baptist VBC for my heathen ways of kissing consentiing pretty blond girl and of course I was destined for HELL!

I find that most Preachers Faith and the Preachers of Science have the same flaw, which is their inability to accept the notion that their idea of creation may not be right. The Preachers of Science particularly bother me because they are infatuated with becoming creators of life.

And then there are the folks that buy one or the other (Faith or Science) who totally dismiss the other as folly.

The Believers of Science tend to be Liberal, extremely rude and vindictive about the those who believe in God. I haven't yet run into a Faith Believer that has been as toxic, though I am sure they exist.

I don't really care if I am here because a couple rocks smacked together or a higher being set it all together. Personally I think we should just be happy to be here ;)

T-Rock

09-06-2010, 09:43

I don't really care if I am here because a couple rocks smacked together or a higher being set it all together. Personally I think we should just be happy to be here

You can get an Amen from this hillbilly, life is good :cool: as an adoptee, I’m thankful not to have been clothes-hangered at an early age :D

nmap

09-06-2010, 10:48

I have no problem with mathematical terms, as long as the mathematical theories behind them are explained. I'm a cryptographer, so math is, to me, the most elegant language in the world. Other than that, thanks for the recommended reading. I'll look into both of those.

Well...I hear you...and the true language of physics is mathematics...but some years ago I went to the library and searched for a book on cosmology. I thought I knew a bit about math - but after the introduction, the book was well beyond anything I had seen. As nearly as I could tell, the equations focused on generalized n-dimensional spaces, and required a strong knowledge of topology, fields, and how those could be worked with in 10 dimensions. After doing some further poking around, I figured it would take me a minimum of 4 years of intensive study of that branch of math to begin to understand what the equations in the book represented. Needless to say, I concluded that was way too much work!

Here's a brief example of the sort of thing I refer to: LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory)

So my point about math was merely an acknowledgment of my own shortcomings....

Paslode

09-06-2010, 11:06

You can get an Amen from this hillbilly, life is good :cool: as an adoptee, I’m thankful not to have been clothes-hangered at an early age :D

That makes two of us ;)

GratefulCitizen

09-06-2010, 13:36

Well...I hear you...and the true language of physics is mathematics...

Math doesn't back up the idea of random generation of life,
nor does it refute the idea of a young universe.

Joao Magueijo discussed a particular issue going on with inflation theory in cosmology in his book: Faster than the Speed of Light.
Something to do with idea called "flatness" and how the numbers needed to be in just the right place.

If the numbers went too far one way, the universe became too old and everything fell apart.
If the numbers went too far the other way, the universe became quite young.

There was nothing wrong with the young universe according to cosmology.
He said that this wouldn't work, however, because it would make evolution impossible.

Rejection of a valid scientific conclusion because it doesn't match with a belief system.
Didn't know that scientists did such things...

Nevermind the fact that it isn't possible for the universe to be big enough or old enough to fit in evolution.
No problem. We'll just invent an arbritrary number of universes until it happens.

This is a variation of "affirming the consequent".

Concerning the universe not being big enough or old enough,
one of many articles from John R. Baumgardner:

<edit>
All of the assumptions Baumgardner makes are in favor of evolution...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/Baumgardner.asp

Dr. Baumgardner is a technical staff member in the theoretical division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Texas Tech University, an M.S. in electrical engineering from Princeton University, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Dr. Baumgardner is the chief developer of the TERRA code, a 3-D finite element program for modeling the earth’s mantle and lithosphere. His current research is in the areas of planetary mantle dynamics and the development of efficient hydrodynamic methods for supercomputers.

<snip>

This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos.

Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 10^80 as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos, 10^12 for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10^110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history.

Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about 1,000 protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1,000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavorable chemical reaction kinetics involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible nonliving chemical environment.

Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yields a 3-D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then in the order of 20^100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1,000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities.

cold1

09-07-2010, 09:26

I haven’t kept up with current studies lately but what baffles my mind is “genomic equivalence” where a skin cell is different from a muscle cell, which is different from a nerve cell, yet all these cells contain the same genes as a fertilized egg. If the genes contained in these cells are the same, why are the cells so different :confused: Ultrabithorax doesn’t solve the paradox because it means that genes are being turned on or off by factors outside themselves. What regulating factors outside of the DNA are controlling the genes :confused:
It’s puzzling to say the least :confused:

I was able to ask one of my friends this today. Her reply is that yes the cells are recieving outside signals as to what to differentiate into. These signals come in a large verity, from ionic to chemical to positional. Not all of the signal pathways are known at this time nor what controls these signals.

This is not her area of expertise, her research is in DNA repair.

PedOncoDoc

09-07-2010, 09:49

I was able to ask one of my friends this today. Her reply is that yes the cells are recieving outside signals as to what to differentiate into. These signals come in a large verity, from ionic to chemical to positional. Not all of the signal pathways are known at this time nor what controls these signals.

This is not her area of expertise, her research is in DNA repair.

This is a good -- if not oversimplified -- response.

Every cell has all of the DNA for the entire organism encoded in it - what gets turned on/off, exposed for transcription/translation (process of making protein), what gets coiled up tight and hidden away, etc is a result of this myriad of external/internal signals. This is why cloning is possible (regardless of ethics). Signals are brought from the outside environment (or from inside the cell) into the cell by receptors or other mechanisms, transported into the nucleus, or sending messages into the nucleus, where the DNA resides. The who process goes from there (again, a generalization, we are finding more and more exceptions to this assumption on a regular basis.) Even after the RNA (copies of DNA made for creating proteins in the cell but outside the nucleus) is translated into protein, there are several post-production alterations thaty can happen allowing for proteins to be changed to suit a specific function.

It is not a paradox - it is simple too vast for us to completely understand at this time. Science has been making a lot of progress in discovering all of the intricate interactions that lead to cell differentiation (and regression in some cases). But it all does fit together and it is humbling to try and understand the complexity of it.

craigepo

09-07-2010, 09:51

My good friends, you are all making this too complicated.

You have opposing theories. One will be right, one will be wrong. Neither are provable at this point in human existence.

The question that needs to be asked is, "what if you pick the wrong theory".

If you subscribe to a deity-based theory, and are wrong, you wind up at the same place as the other folks.

If you subscribe to the deity-excluding theory, and are wrong, you are screwed.

Enjoy your day.

Dad

09-07-2010, 11:07

dr. mabuse

09-07-2010, 11:30

Or as a dear old atheist friend of mine often opined, " Why can't people simply admit they don't want anybody, even God, to tell them what to do, and be done with it without all the posturing and tormenting of others? That's my position."

He was one of my professors at Stanford and passed on a few years ago. I miss his friendship and wonder about him from time to time.

gsaltis

09-07-2010, 11:38

Perfect!! Reminds me of WC Fields response when caught reading the bible shortly before he died. "Just covering all the bases, my friend."

The way I heard it, the quote is "I'm checking for loopholes."

1stindoor

09-07-2010, 12:02

I'm going to try and type slowly on this debate because it'll go on forever...long after we're gone.

My first question...and the most UN-PC one is this...I wonder if one of those other universes has a Stephen Hawking that has no noticeable disabilities and I wonder what he believes in?

As a Christian I look to the Bible, when I don't understand something something as basic as how the universe was formed, I think of Job 38:4.
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding
Personally, I refuse to argue with someone that has all the answers. My faith won't sway them...and their "solutions" won't sway me.

One of my earliest Team Sergeants, a very devout Christian, used to say if he was wrong...then at least he tried to live a good life in service to others. But if he was right...well...it'll be too late to warn others, but at least he was prepared, and so was his family.

1stindoor

09-07-2010, 13:44

This belief holds though when one makes the assumption that the deity will destroy you or throw you in a hell because you didn't believe in it while alive.

I don't think a true loving Creator/God would do that (my belief), I also don't think if one was an evil person, but otherwise decide to "believe" just to get into Heaven, that it will accept them either just like that. I think such a deity will judge people by what kind of person they were, not by whether or not they believed.

I hold to the theory that if I'm to believe in a God and Heaven, that is a Judeo-Christian God and the Bible being His word...then I have no other choice but to believe in Satan and Hell. I choose to lay my foundation on the Bible, old testament, new testament, Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus, the whole nine yards. "Science" can't convince me that God doesn't exist. Yet, I'm convinced daily that God does.

I'm not going to say I've always been a good person, nor have I always done the "right" things...matter of fact those that know me can attest to my wild misspent youth...but my belief in God has never faultered.

GratefulCitizen

09-07-2010, 14:45

The multiverse idea may as well be "God".

The argument goes:
we get as many universes as it takes to get the necessary luck to achieve the desired results.
(It's kind of like loaning as much money as it takes to keep companies which are "too big to fail" from failing :D)

Fine.

I propose that one of these universes in the multiverse spawned a life form which evolved to where it became omnipotent.
Once the lifeform became omnipotent, it went back in time and recreated the history of the multiverse.

The recreated history just happens to match up with my beliefs.
After all, anything can happen in this multiverse.

Penn

09-07-2010, 14:51

Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life

http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/25.full

GratefulCitizen

09-07-2010, 15:08

Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life

http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/25.full

The negatively-sloped correlation is unsurprising, particularly to those who read the Bible.

1stindoor

09-07-2010, 15:15

Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life

http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/25.full

That's an interesting read.

From my perspective, based on my own observations...general happiness is more evident in those well grounded in their church/community/religious activity. The only difference the SES played was in their ability to help, either with their time or their money.

nmap

09-07-2010, 17:14

The results are ambiguous. On the one hand, we have studies that indicate intercessory prayer isn't particularly effective: LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html). Other studies suggest that religion may have a positive effect on health. LINK (http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal?page=2). Of course, the placebo effect could affect the outcome of the second study.

Perhaps the real question is whether God, however defined, makes arbitrary changes to reality - and what would cause such interventions.

Re: Proverbs 30:8....actually, I wouldn't mind some riches...a couple billion would be sorta nice... :D

Defion69

09-07-2010, 18:28

I subscribe to the popcorn theory.....still writing the paper :D
:munchin

PRB

09-07-2010, 19:28

Methinks our Genius takes himsalf a tad to seriously...he's also recently said that our Alien space friends are not peaceful and will not come in peace...so maybe he's alluding that they are Islamic in behavior.

Penn

09-07-2010, 21:52

I think that any intra-stellar Aliens would indeed be hostile, if the physical world is about anything, its territory and resources. Humans have never show benevolence to one another, why would we expect it from a technical superior species.
If and when we are capable of leaving this planet, I can not image us behaving any differently than Cortez the killer meeting the Aztec's. It's our DNA.

A brief comment on the threads topic. I think there is truth linked to low SES response and to religious fervor. Additionally, if the the correlation between Low SES and education is a uncontested fact, would you not agree that a low SES affords any ideological leadership to remain in power and manipulate its believers for its own interest.
imho, the current confrontation with the religion of peace reflects this fact.

GratefulCitizen

09-07-2010, 22:28

A brief comment on the threads topic. I think there is truth linked to low SES response and to religious fervor. Additionally, if the the correlation between Low SES and education is a uncontested fact, would you not agree that a low SES affords any ideological leadership to remain in power and manipulate its believers for its own interest.
imho, the current confrontation with the religion of peace reflects this fact.

Excellent point.

So what happens when there is a simultaneous increase in reason and religion?
Such as the Enlightment and the Great Awakening...

A nation unlike others before it might be born.

Is the USA a religious nation? -I would say yes.
Is the USA a secular nation? - I would say yes.

The supposed division between religion and reason is a fiction created by those who would set the people against one another.

Those who seek to create such division, whether it be from the camp of "reason" or "religion", have the same goal: power.

incarcerated

09-07-2010, 22:58

If I was in his shoes, I might not believe in God, either.
I'd be sorely tempted to be pissed at God.

SAXON 88

09-08-2010, 04:27

No way, TS, it's turtles -- all the way down. Everybody knows that. :D

I love that one. That Bertrand Russel, what a card!

Although Hawking's conclusion that God is not necessary for the creation of our perceived reality may be true, it is an entirely different matter to believe that God did not produce it. I'll take that Pascal wager and raise you.

Although "Christianity's" metaphysics amounts to a poorly done watercolor its ethics is, in general, well done and promotes domestic tranquility. It is unfortunate that Christians do not (see in general "burning the Quran").

6.8SPC_DUMP

09-08-2010, 04:58

Please post more often Sir.

Dozer523

09-08-2010, 05:44

Requirements for Life (as we know it)
1 right kind of star, type of emitted radiation; size.
2 regular, circular orbit around that star
4 right distance from that star
5 planet rotation perpendicular to orbit (north pole up, south pole down)
6 planet rotation not to fast not to slow
7 mean temperature between 32F (freezing point of H2O) and 152F (point where protein begins to cook)
8 planet needs a molten iron core -- produces an magnetosphere that will protect from the star.
9 volcanoes, produce water and atmosphere
10 a moon to swish the ocean around
11 spark of life. God puts it there, it rides in on something from somewhere, or it "evolves".

cold1

09-08-2010, 06:01

1stindoor

09-08-2010, 07:23

Requirements for Life (as we know it)
...

And a healthy sense of humor by the inhabitants.

bigcat524

09-08-2010, 08:43

Not sure if any of you are familiar with Ken Ham and the Creation Museum, but he is a wonder speaker and the museum is as impressive.

creationmuseum.org

Dozer523

09-08-2010, 08:59

You may want to google extremophiles. They are class of organisms that have been found in areas that were thought not to be condusive to life. The key phrase being: as we know it.
The whole sentient being star Trek gig . . . even though, I doubt the clams living near the volcanic vents ever care (I'm human-centric, sorry) . . . but if they do I bet they would agree with the list.

I really have to get over that upright, bi-pedal, opposable-thumb, time-aware, tool-making, speech-enabled, "superiority" thing.

spherojon

09-08-2010, 13:26

Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.That right there tells me, there is intelligent design. Laws of the universe are not created out of chaos. It just doesn't happen. My understanding of the multi-universe theory goes hand and hand with Quantum Physics and String Theory. Stephen Hawking sounds like he is endorsing string theory.

Anywho, since we are on the subject here are 2 series of videos that I recommend. The first is a very interesting video on the 10 dimensions and discusses multi-universe. The second, is well...probably the most interesting video I have seen on Quantum Physics. Hope everyone enjoys this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o&feature=channel

"What the Bleep Do we know?" Series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU

nmap

09-08-2010, 15:40

In order for them to be able to create extremely advanced technologies would likely require them to have developed a market economy, and with it probably liberal democracy of some type.

So...the aliens come here with better technology. And probably more sophisticated financial products, too - right?

And they do deals. Just like we did with some of our notional securities with mortgages....which we sold around the world....like to Finnish pension funds. Those securities then failed. Meaning we got their money with nothing but a winning smile and a confusing disclosure document.

Thus, on the good side, we'll get to labor in the alien sweatshops. On the bad side, they'll take everything we have before we know we've been conned.

Rhetorical question: By the way - are market economies and liberal democracies the evolutionary endpoint? Or is that only the perception of our limited little minds?

greenberetTFS

09-08-2010, 16:42

This I understand holds true to today............:)

The Cambrian fossil record. Charles Darwin realized that the fossil evidence did not support his theory of gradual, step-by-step evolutionary development. He hoped that future generations of scientists would make the discoveries necessary to validate his ideas. Today, after more than 150 years of exploration fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Organisms that embody almost all of the major animal body plans that exist today. This remarkable explosion of life is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence..................:)

Big Teddy :munchin

nmap

09-08-2010, 21:54

Yeah, but we didn't know that our real estate market which those securities were based on would completely fail.

Really? Housing prices were far above the norms in terms of income. The loans included in the packages literally required no proof of income, no proof of employment, and no proof of assets. The disclosure documents approached 100,000 pages. The statistical models made specific assumptions within narrow limits.

What could possibly go wrong? :eek:

GratefulCitizen

09-08-2010, 22:12

Dr. Hawkings is one of many people who have studied and written on origins.

One of the most comprehensive works on origins was produced by a man named Walt Brown.
It includes the life, physical, astronomical, and earth sciences.

He has a standing offer for strictly scientific written debate concerning origins.
Over several decades, there have been no takers.

Evolutionists usually object to the exclusion of religion from the debate.
If they can't make ad hominem attacks on his religion, they can't make a competitive case.

Dr. Brown puts his efforts into educating future generations, rather than shouting matches.
The online version of his book is free.

See for yourself.
Look for the errors in his science.

creationscience.com/onlinebook/[/url]

lksteve

09-08-2010, 22:24

I subscribe to the popcorn theory.....still writing the paper If you need someone to proof read it, I'm available most Tuesdays...

Irishsquid

09-08-2010, 22:38

My replies would be...

People who said this at the time got the following reactions:

":rolleyes: You are just a Chicken Little." Maybe so.

"You don't care about helping the poor." Sure don't. I'd rather they show some ambition, get a job, and help themselves.

"Housing prices always go up." Only if we artificially drive them up...

"We just went through a spectacular bubble with the Dot Com boom, and now you're telling me we're in ANOTHER bubble!? Please:rolleyes: Why is that so hard to believe?

"We have reached an era where serious recessions are a thing of the past." You, sir, are an idiot, and not worth wasting my time in a debate.

"Housing is not in any bubble." Your head is in the sand. My IQ is now lower for having spoken to you.

:cool:

GratefulCitizen

09-08-2010, 22:39

Will check it out, however, cannot one argue that God created evolution?? God wrote the laws of the universe, could not it have written the laws that govern evolution as well?

From a scientific standpoint:
In the sense that every step along the chain of evolution would be a miracle requiring divine intervention, yes.

I've studied the math.
Evolution takes more faith than I have.

From a religious standpoint:
For some religions, specifically the ones which advocate the sacrifice of Christ as the necessary and sufficient condition for remission of sin,
evolution is 100% incompatible.

Evolution requires death as its driving force (natural selection).
Since death precedes man, there was no original sin.

If there was no original sin, Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary.
Hence, the religious objections to evolution from many.

But that's just one of many religious views.

The scientific side is quite interesting and more easily discussed.
Don't take someone else's word for it, see the arguments for yourself.

<edit>

On the subject of religion, I am wondering, does anyone here believe in astrology?? (like that it is tied to religion?) :munchin

FWIW, the "Magi" who visited Christ as a child were supposed to have been astrologers of a sort... :munchin

nmap

09-09-2010, 05:00

I agree, the problems were so many didn't see it.

There were some well-respected economists who conducted a study saying housing was not in a bubble. Barney Frank also said it wasn't.

Ben Bernanke gave a speech around 2005 or 2006 talking about how we had reached a "new era," where the financial system could allocate capital brilliantly and major recessions were a thing of the past (this actually might have been true, the problem was no one dreamed the national real-estate market would collapse).

And those same folks are making predictions today. They're telling us that recovery is coming and all is well. Don't worry, be happy.

cold1

09-09-2010, 07:08

On the floods, I don't think modern science denies the Earth has flooded, just it doesn't believe in the story of the massive global flood that is said to have occurred. However, couldn't this flooding have occurred from the ice ages? Multiple ice ages have occurred, and at the end of each, mass melting of ice occurs, which leads to various areas flooding. Thus, much of the Earth I'd imagine did experience a flood at some point.

Yes, science has strong evdience that there was a massive flood. Did it cover the entire world? No.

It did cover the entire ancient "world". That "world" was not as big as ours today. It was defined by the ancient humans knowldege of how far they could travel.

nmap

09-09-2010, 13:16

Aw, hell, why not? I mean if we're screwed either way...

Because it's fun being a bear, especially when you get to say "Told ya so!"

:munchin

Team Sergeant

09-09-2010, 19:30

As a young SF soldier one thing that we're taught early on is a cultural awareness of the individuals we would be working with. It's part of our "area study" that we do prior to infiltration/deployment. One of the areas we take a hard look at is religious or tribal beliefs of the individuals we will be engaging. We have a long list of "don't's" in regard to many of the countries we deploy to, don't look at their women, or don't laugh in their face when they tell you they have a "werewolf" problem, don't place your hand on a child's head, or don't make fun of the individual that's sporting a boars tusk, cross, hexagram etc. and thinks it's equal to level three body armor, don't make fun that they pray five times a day to a rock....

And now you see why we don't mess with individuals tribal beliefs, cause if we do it shakes them to their core. We know why one should never shake a baby and we should learn not to shake some individuals to their core, cause when that happens you never know how they are going to react. Some will strap bombs to their own children to blow up the non-believers, some will go on the warpath and blame gays for all the world's problems, some will cut off their own genitals then commit suicide others will just drink the kool-aid.

They all have one thing in common, a very strong tribal belief, so strong that some are willing to die for it while others willing to kill for it.

After reading this thread it should be pretty clear why most of us steer clear of this topic.

Personally I have one tribal belief and that is not to piss off the beer gods. And for your own personal safety, don't ever get between me and my beer else I may do any or all (and more) of the fanatical things I described above.

If you, or someone else cannot poke fun at your tribal beliefs without you starting a jihad you should seek therapy.

Team Sergeant

GratefulCitizen

09-09-2010, 21:10

Personally I have one tribal belief and that is not to piss off the beer gods. And for your own personal safety, don't ever get between me and my beer else I may do any or all (and more) of the fanatical things I described above.

Team Sergeant

To the beer gods! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elms8GN3aIQ

dr. mabuse

09-10-2010, 15:02

The group of people who led them to the gorillas the gorillas knew, but the new people, the gorillas would put through a series of tests. On the first test, they met the gorilla group leader. They had to stare at the ground. No one could look directly at the leader, especially in the eye, or he and the gorillas would run them all out of there.

After passing this test, and the gorilla "chieftain" decided to let them in, they would then have to pass a second test. In this, the gorillas would bring out the baby and children gorillas and let them go up to the people. The people were instructed NOT to reach out and touch or make any contact with the adolescent gorillas whatsoever, if so, then the gorillas would run them out of there.

After passing this test, then the gorillas decided they were okay and would let them in.

Broadsword, this sounds suspiciously like a lobbyist trying to gain access to POTUS during a WH "duck" and "goose" soiree.:p

Team Sergeant

09-12-2010, 10:55

On a completely unrelated (but neat!) note, your post Sir reminds me of an article I once read about when a group of people went to visit a group of mountain gorillas in Africa. They too had to adhere to some big don'ts.

The group of people who led them to the gorillas the gorillas knew, but the new people, the gorillas would put through a series of tests. On the first test, they met the gorilla group leader. They had to stare at the ground. No one could look directly at the leader, especially in the eye, or he and the gorillas would run them all out of there.

After passing this test, and the gorilla "chieftain" decided to let them in, they would then have to pass a second test. In this, the gorillas would bring out the baby and children gorillas and let them go up to the people. The people were instructed NOT to reach out and touch or make any contact with the adolescent gorillas whatsoever, if so, then the gorillas would run them out of there.

After passing this test, then the gorillas decided they were okay and would let them in.

There's a big difference in gaining a groups trust and/or looking at a tribal female and in doing so breaking one of their tribal "beliefs" that is based on the notion their "god" doesn't think it's a good idea.

Staring into the eyes of "pack" animals will be taken as a challenge, and evolution, not stupid "tribal" beliefs led to not staring directly into the eyes of the leader else you might be on the days menu.

Apples and oranges.