The Big Bang, evolution, and God!

[Ruby]

Hi again.

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?

What sort of proof is there for a big bang? What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.

Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

Thanks!!!!!;)

[roger]

age of the earth: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html


evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html



fossil huminoids: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

You'll find that there is a TON of stuff to read in those few links, but that is as it should be; you have asked very broad questions, and the amount of evidence for the scientific claims is very large. It will take a lot of time to assimulate it, but talkorigins is a very good place to start.

[roger]

Uncaused universe: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

big bang evidence: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

[Dub]

Originally posted by Ruby
Hi again.

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?

I have some knowledge of the main theories in cosomology, however, ultimately I would say I dont know. This is the problem I think many religious people have - they dont like not having an answer, so some, any answer must do.

We may never know exactly how the universe began. Some things may ultimately be beyond our knowledge.


What sort of proof is there for a big bang?

AFAIK quite a bit. The background radiation of the 'big bang' has even be detected and measured.

What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old.

Radio-metric dating (not carbon dating! :) ) is used to date the age of the oldest rocks. Again, from what Ive read its a pretty accurate measurement.


How do Christians argue that away?

From my experience, many christians argue the evidence away through half-truths, mis-understandings and down right lies. For exmaple, I ve heard christians mention carbon dating in relation to the age of the Earth. Cardbon datiing is only useful for dating aritcles upto about 70,000 years old - thus pretty useless for dating the age of the Earth. For longer time periods, isotopes with much longer half-lifes are used.


How can we be certain we descended from apes.

The evidence is written in mine, yours and every human being's DNA. Fossil evidence also shows the connections.

I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.

This is a half truth. The search for human origins has, like most high profile activities. attracted hoaxers. There have been several well know hoaxes, such as Piltdown man, in the past. However, most of these hoaxs were un-covered for what they were fairly quickly - and it was science that found the specimens to be fraudulent. Some Chrisitians seem to hold the hoaxes as evidence against human evolution - which is ridiculous. There are plenty of genuine fossil speicmens around.

This, chrisitian page, shows many of the incorrect notions that are often put forward
http://www.human--evolution.com/ I do like the domain name of the page :) Some of the points on this page are down right lies. For example it claims that Neandertals were just diesased humans with bad posture!! :D


I'd be happy to discuss with you any of the points this site raises.


Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

Thanks!!!!!;)

Asking questions = Good.
Asking lots of questions = even better! :D
Not asking questions = very bad.

I hope I was of some help. Ive only answered what I quickly as to some points I could remeber. If there's anything more specific or detailed you'd like to know, just ask. I'll answer what I can and im sure other people round here will also.

[Hexxenhammer]

Roger has good links there. Talkorigins is a great site. I'll give you my short 2 cents.

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator?
Don't know. It's that easy. The Big Bang (or as it should be called The Gigantic Space Kablooie) is the beginning. We can't know (yet) anything about what came before. But really, there was nothing before. No space, no time, no universe. Lots of people think God caused the Big Bang. I have no problem with this. It's kind of a deist blind watchmaker kinda belief.



What sort of proof is there for a big bang? Good proof. We detect the cosmic background radiation all around us in every direction. This is the leftover energy from the Big Bang (someone please, please correct me if I screw up here, I ain't no scientist).

What about the age of the earth We can date rocks (I mean tell their age, not DATE them, unless you're a geosexual I guess). The oldest rocks are about 4 billion years old. This jibes with what we know about stellar (star) formation and the age of the Sun and solar system.
How do Christians argue that away? They don't. They try, but they're wrong.
How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes. Despite what some fundies would have you think, the family tree of humans is very full, and there are no missing links. You can draw a (curvy) line from ape to human with no gaps. The planted remains they're talking about is the "Piltdown Man" This is a hoax from the turn of the century that Anthropology does nothing to hide. An English fossil hunter found a human skull and an Orangutuan jaw. I think the skull was old, but the jaw was stained to look old. Put them together and it looks like a smart (big skulled) ape-man (because of the jaw with no chin). This was revealed as a hoax over 60 or 70 years ago. No modern science uses Piltdown man in the human family tree.

Hope that helps.:)

[Hexxenhammer]

Dub, you beat me to every point I made. B@st@rd!;)

[Dub]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Dub, you beat me to every point I made. B@st@rd!;)

:D

[Suddenly]

There is a creator in that something or some process created what we call the universe, it's just that most religion insists on personifying this "creator" and give it moral authority. Once you think about it the whole parent/child psychological thing gets obvious.

Christians argue against science by assuming what they believe is right, and going forth explaining the apparent differences between religious teaching and scientific theory/fact. Fossils? Planted as a test of faith. Earth appears older than what the Bible says? God created it old as a test of faith. We can't prove that this isn't so, but at some point I questioned it enough and turned a corner where I realized just how much religious dogma affected my sensibilities. Once you abandon the overriding assumption that religious teaching is infallable, these explainations begin to seem absurd.

Religion gets away with this because people are emotionally invested and would rather believe an on the surface reasonable explaination than to think critically. I've been there. There is some part of the mind (my mind at least) that resisted the obvious because I felt like an idiot for believing that stuff in the first place. Admitting to myself I was "wrong", or at least that my beliefs were unfounded was brutal and difficult.

[arcticpenguin]

Ruby,

If there is/was a Creator, where did he come from?

Let me guess, "He was always there". Gosh, that just clears it all up for me. The competing explanations have to make sense, but the same requirement is not applied to the religious explanation.

[Bluefire]

You are assuming that the universe "came into being".

I would say that existence as such can't be created, nor destroyed. It is eternal.

Whether big bang was a result of some earlier state of universe, or a cause of some "super-universe" or some other possibility (I know of a couple of cyclical theories which don't have the entropy problems), science will eventually tell us.

[Ruby]

Thanks everyone!!!

I'll get back to this thread later as I need to go cook supper for now.;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ruby
Hi again.
Hi! :)

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.
Watch out for the people who say "The universe didnt just 'create' itself", they usually have a poor understanding of the beginnings of the universe, and somehow they tend to conclude "Well, the universe didnt just make itself, therefore proving creationism" (Thats a very common form of Flawed Logic).

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I dont know my early universe theorems like I should...) One of the things I've always considered was the First Law of Quantum Mechanics (It might be the first, it might be another... I've forgotten). The First Law Of Quantum Mechanics states something along the lines of "Energy can spontaneously arise from a vacuum". It sounds like it should be breaking the First Law of Thermodynamics, not quite. The Laws of Quantum Mechanics are Quantum Physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics are Newtonian Physics. But, I dont consider myself near qualified enough to answer the question, so dont quote me on it.

I have a book on Quantum Mechanics in the library downstairs, I'll see what I can fish out of it.

And if anything, we simply dont know how the universe came about, and it would be irresponsible and ignorant of use to try to invent a random fact like "God made the Big Bang happen" to explain unknown phenomena such as the Big Bang. (Keep in mind, there are other scientifically sound theories, not just the Big Bang.)

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?
No worries. People have survived every kind of cancer, accident, natural disastor, disease, and war that has ever happened. They just "survive", we dont need to invent something like "God let them survive", its not good to try to apply miraculous claims to clearly unremarkable events.

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?
I stand by a few philosophies (being a Philosopher and all...): All things in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, nothing in the universe can escape the laws of physics. Anything that does not hold true to those 2 criteria cannot and do not exist.

God has been recorded as performing events that exist outside of Physics, God himself (as an entity) cannot be explained in terms of matter. Using my Philosophizing, God doesnt exist.

Finally, to answer the question, the universe came about the way it did naturally, no deity required (not like one could exist in the first place).

What sort of proof is there for a big bang? What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?
I dont know enough, nor do I consider myself qualified enough to answer the first question. But, you have to remember, the Big Bang is a theory. In this case, The Big Bang theory is a large collection of widely accepted facts and laws to explain the formation of the universe.

The age of the earth is about 4.55 billion years old (+/- 1% or so).

We reach the conclusion that the earth is very old first via common sense. Its absurd to believe the earth isnt very old (Evolution is a very slow process, the formation of planets is a very slow process, the oldest rocks have been dated to be 3.8 billion years old and minimally you would expect the earth to be at least as old as the rocks formed on it). Second, we use U-235 and Pb-207 somehow or another to help us determine the age of the Earth. The number 4.55 billion wasnt just pulled out of the air, unfortunately again I dont consider myself qualified enough to answer it.

Christian apologetists have a habit of making of their own science to favor their own beliefs. For instance, I'm sure you've heard the absurd "dust that has accumulated on the moon" theory, it supposedly disproves Old Earth theories... yeah, only if accept pseudoscience as a means of reasoning. The most you can possibly get out of pseudoscience is "vaguely sounding scientifical".

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.
"If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" is a very common misconception. Evolution does not state nor imply monkeys evolved into humans, it states Humans and Apes have a common ancestor.

Take a real life example: If you have a kitty that has a litter of kittens, all the kittens have 2 direct common ancestors. Creationists have this confused with "The mommy cat evolved into the younger kittens" (do ya see what I mean... because I dont :D... )

Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

Thanks!!!!!;)
:)

[Landis]

Here's an excellent link to explain through physics why the Universe did not need a creator.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/stenger1.htm

"Every measurement that we make indicates that the total energy of the Universe is balanced between the rest energy that's in the matter, the kinetic energy that's in the motion of objects, and then this is balanced by a negative potential energy of gravity. And the total energy is very close to zero. So, if the total energy is zero, and if you had zero energy to begin with, there was no violation of energy conservation. There was no miracle that created energy at the beginning of the Universe (other than, perhaps, a little quantum fluctuation that is, again, in agreement with existing knowledge, and so would not be a miracle)." Victor Stenger - Particle Physicist

[Dancing David]

Ruby,
Please believe in your own personal deity, humans are the link between the worlds, thou art god. Or at least you have the phone number.

As for the created Universe, Steven Hawkings discusses this from the point of view of a physicist would like there to be a god.

Some of the more recent cosmologies say that our universe budded off another universe and that as long as all the universes balance out it doesn't matter.

Life is great, we exist, we can love and find beauty. Such is enough.

Blessed Be!

[Tony]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin


If there is/was a Creator, where did he come from?

Let me guess, "He was always there". Gosh, that just clears it all up for me. The competing explanations have to make sense, but the same requirement is not applied to the religious explanation.


From one of the links posted.

They argue that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the cause of the universe is God. This theory hinges on the assumption that it is obviously true that whatever begins to exist has a cause.


So its illogical that god doesn’t have a cause, buts it logical that the universe doesn’t have a cause? That's a convenient arrangement.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

We can date rocks (I mean tell their age, not DATE them, unless you're a geosexual I guess).
A Geosexual!?

:dl:

Best laugh I've had all day!
Now I know what to say to my geologist dad!

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Tony
So its illogical that god doesn’t have a cause, buts it logical that the universe doesn’t have a cause? That's a convenient arrangement.

Don't act stupid. It's obvious that's not what AP was proposing; he was criticizing a common theistic argument.

[triadboy]

I believe the Hindu idea of the universe is a cosmic egg expanding and then collapsing in on itself which causes it to blow up again! The period of time between the collapses are billions and billions of years. (if I remember right. Any Hindus here?)

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ruby
"How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself.

I'm merely a Kabibulator operator, but I believe Quantum Physics allows for the creation of matter out of seemingly nothing.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

God of the Gaps....along with Allah, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, etc

What sort of proof is there for a big bang?

Not only is everything rushing away from everything else (like dots on the surface of a balloon being blown up), but the 'echo' of the explosion can still be heard. And you can see it! Turn on your TV to a channel with 'snow' - those 'snow dots' are in the frequency range of the 'bang echo'! (I forget the range)


What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?

The important thing to realize is it's not just 'science' that determines this - it is all the varied disciplines within science: geology, astrophysics, biology, etc. They all come to the independent conclusion that the Earth is very old.

How can we be certain we descended from apes.

This is a common misconception - stemming from the Scopes Monkey Trial. Through Mitochondrial DNA mapping (This DNA is from the mothers side and remains unchanged) - we came from a woman in Africa (50,000+ years ago). Someone in her lineage, bore offspring that eventually became what we know as apes. We didn't descend from them - we are cousins.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Ruby
How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.


This essay (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy) gives a good example of the evidence we have supporting common descent of humans and our fellow apes.

Oh, and this page from NASA (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/sentinel/cobe.htm) discusses the COBE satellite and it's discoveries regarding evidences for the Big Bang.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Ruby
"How can the world come into being without a Creator".?
How can your creator come into being without a creator?

Once you figure that out, then why not just assume the world (I assume you mean universe) can do the same trick.

However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives.
Why should he? Just because he creates something does not mean he cares about it. Heck, maybe he got old and died. If you could show that the universe was created (which you can't) all that would tell you is that there was a creator. It wouldn't tell you if he was a nice guy, or cared, or was still alive.

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator?
I think if there was a creator, he was outside of the universe - which means he is necessarily absent! Once the inflationary bubble takes off, you can't get back in...

No, I don't think there was a creator. I'm just saying, even if there was, it would be indistinguishable from if there wasn't.

What sort of proof is there for a big bang?
Do atom bombs go boom? There ya go. Apparently our atomic theory is pretty dang accurate.

how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old.
A large variety of ways. The Grand Canyon, for instance. You can measure how fast the water cuts into the rock, and then measure how deep the canyon is. It's a very, very deep canyon.

How do Christians argue that away?
They don't. They simply assert that God created the world with the appearence of age. I don't know why they picked 6,000 years ago: God could have created the world with the appearance of age (including your memories, etc.) 20 minutes ago. Both arguments are equally valid. And equally compelling.

How can we be certain we descended from apes.
Because we share their genes to 98%, and we don't share that many genes with any other animal. Ergo, we are most closely related to the apes. Chimpanzees, actually. And we didn't descend from them, but from the same ancestor. BTW, we do share 50% of genes with ameobas. Which indicates we are related to them, too.

I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.
Just more lies.

Sorry for all the questions.
There's nothing wrong with questions.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I stand by a few philosophies (being a Philosopher and all...): All things in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, nothing in the universe can escape the laws of physics. Anything that does not hold true to those 2 criteria cannot and do not exist.

That is brilliant in its simple eloquence! I am going to plagiarize the $h!+ out of that. I may even take credit for it (if pretty ladies ask if I thought of it myself).

[Ratman_tf]

Here's a few of my personal fave creation/evolution websites. (Skipping stuff like TalkOrigins, that have already been posted.)

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html

And I'll give you my personal answers to your questions. Forgive me if I repeat what others have already posted.

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

I don't know how to answer this. I'm an atheist. Because of some of the questions you bring up, and other things.

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?

I find the current scientifical explanation of the universe (Big Bang hypothesis) to be the most logical to me.

What sort of proof is there for a big bang? What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/brian_miller/hub.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.

Here's a link to my own webpage about creationist claims, and how dense they are.

http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/ratman/Chick.html

Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

One thing to be aware of is that there are young earth creationists, old earth creationists, christian evolutionists, fundamentalists of many religions that support or deny the findings of science. Usually depending on what scientific finding is in conflict with their doctrine. ;)

[FireGarden]

Triadboy
Through Mitochondrial DNA mapping (This DNA is from the mothers side and remains unchanged) - we came from a woman in Africa (50,000+ years ago). Someone in her lineage, bore offspring that eventually became what we know as apes. We didn't descend from them - we are cousins.
:eek:
That's not true.

Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor much older that Mitochondrial Eve (who would have been an entirely modern (biologically) human). And no human has ever had descendants that were apes.
I believe the Hindu idea of the universe is a cosmic egg expanding and then collapsing in on itself which causes it to blow up again! The period of time between the collapses are billions and billions of years. (if I remember right. Any Hindus here?)
Unfortunately, this is another potentially lucky guess that looks like falling flat.
The most recent evidence indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. So the "Big Crunch" end to the universe seems unlikely.

Hexxenhammer

What sort of proof is there for a big bang?

Good proof. We detect the cosmic background radiation all around us in every direction. This is the leftover energy from the Big Bang (someone please, please correct me if I screw up here, I ain't no scientist).
Actually, the background radiation is a red-shifted image of the universe when it cooled enough for protons and electrons to join and form neutral atoms. The universe became transparent at this point. But the fact that it is basically uniform in all directions provides evidence that the universe occupied a small region at some point in history - to allow the temperature to become equally uniform throught the universe. (Large scale, obviously - everyone knows the sun is hotter than the Earth!)

The main evidence for the BB is the expansion of the universe.
When you apply models of how the universe developed and elementary particles formed and combined, you get models that predict the relative abundance of the light elements like hydrogen/deuterium and helium and lithium. (The heavier elements are made in stars). This applies only to gas clouds that haven't been contaminated - deuterium and helium are created and burnt up in stars.

As far as a cause for the BB is concerned...
How do you tell which is cause and which is effect if time itself is being created? You can't say "whichever happened first", because time hasn't been created to measure "first".

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Here's a link to my own webpage about creationist claims, and how dense they are.

http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/ratman/Chick.html


Excellent response. The final page of Big Daddy inspired my artistic side one night. Now, I'm not very artistic, so even inspiration cannot improve the skill level of the outcome. ;)

[MRC_Hans]

I see you already got good responses, Ruby!

What I would like to do is welcome you to the world of people who think for themselves.:th:

You are now a skeptic! This does not mean that you cannot have religion, but it means that you have taken the great step to dare to ask questions. Congratulations!

You will find that not all questions can be answered, but that should not stop you from asking them. Nor should it make you accept unfounded answers.

Hans

[Marc]

Didn't notice anyone mentioning how the Big Bang theory got started. I think it was from the simple observation that all the galaxies out there are moving away from each other. Extrapolate back in time and the further you go back, the closer, more compact the universe is. Eventually you get to a point where everything must have been in one spot.

Now the nature of the universe when everything on that spot, how it came to be and why it burst out sending this mess everywhere... still working on the details.

[Skeptical Greg]

What a great thread!!!

Thanks everyone for all these links...

There are so many great resources out there.. It boggles my mind to consider the ridiculous grip, that religion has on our culture...

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by calladus

A Geosexual!?

:dl:

Best laugh I've had all day!
Now I know what to say to my geologist dad!

:D

[Dub]

Originally posted by FireGarden

Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor much older that Mitochondrial Eve (who would have been an entirely modern (biologically) human). And no human has ever had descendants that were apes.


Humans are apes

http://www.chrismaloney.com/hobbies/books/ape-tree.gif

Image from: http://www.chrismaloney.com/seed/seed1.html

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Tony

From one of the links posted.

So its illogical that god doesn’t have a cause, buts it logical that the universe doesn’t have a cause? That's a convenient arrangement.
Boy, you mangled that one The theists are the ones demanding that the nontheistic answer be more logical than what their own answer can provide.

To go further, the theistic answer is an argument from ignorance. Even if the Big Bang is false, or is not the ultimate answer, that does not mean that Joe Creator is responsible.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Yahweh ]Hi! :)
Watch out for the people who say "The universe didnt just 'create' itself", they usually have a poor understanding of the beginnings of the universe, and somehow they tend to conclude "Well, the universe didnt just make itself, therefore proving creationism" (Thats a very common form of Flawed Logic).

Yes, this is one of the biggest arguments for the existence of God. In fact, it is the one thing that neither myself or my hubby can comprehend.....that is, how the world came into being without a creator.

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I dont know my early universe theorems like I should...) One of the things I've always considered was the First Law of Quantum Mechanics (It might be the first, it might be another... I've forgotten). The First Law Of Quantum Mechanics states something along the lines of "Energy can spontaneously arise from a vacuum". It sounds like it should be breaking the First Law of Thermodynamics, not quite. The Laws of Quantum Mechanics are Quantum Physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics are Newtonian Physics. But, I dont consider myself near qualified enough to answer the question, so dont quote me on it.

I have a book on Quantum Mechanics in the library downstairs, I'll see what I can fish out of it.

That's way over my head!!:-(

And if anything, we simply dont know how the universe came about, and it would be irresponsible and ignorant of use to try to invent a random fact like "God made the Big Bang happen" to explain unknown phenomena such as the Big Bang. (Keep in mind, there are other scientifically sound theories, not just the Big Bang.)

No worries. People have survived every kind of cancer, accident, natural disastor, disease, and war that has ever happened. They just "survive", we dont need to invent something like "God let them survive", its not good to try to apply miraculous claims to clearly unremarkable events.

I stand by a few philosophies (being a Philosopher and all...): All things in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, nothing in the universe can escape the laws of physics. Anything that does not hold true to those 2 criteria cannot and do not exist.

God has been recorded as performing events that exist outside of Physics, God himself (as an entity) cannot be explained in terms of matter. Using my Philosophizing, God doesnt exist.

Yep, that makes sense. I do get tired of the old "God works out of time" or "God's ways are not our ways".

Finally, to answer the question, the universe came about the way it did naturally, no deity required (not like one could exist in the first place).

I dont know enough, nor do I consider myself qualified enough to answer the first question. But, you have to remember, the Big Bang is a theory. In this case, The Big Bang theory is a large collection of widely accepted facts and laws to explain the formation of the universe.

The age of the earth is about 4.55 billion years old (+/- 1% or so).

We reach the conclusion that the earth is very old first via common sense. Its absurd to believe the earth isnt very old (Evolution is a very slow process, the formation of planets is a very slow process, the oldest rocks have been dated to be 3.8 billion years old and minimally you would expect the earth to be at least as old as the rocks formed on it). Second, we use U-235 and Pb-207 somehow or another to help us determine the age of the Earth. The number 4.55 billion wasnt just pulled out of the air, unfortunately again I dont consider myself qualified enough to answer it.

Well, you've done great so far.

Christian apologetists have a habit of making of their own science to favor their own beliefs. For instance, I'm sure you've heard the absurd "dust that has accumulated on the moon" theory, it supposedly disproves Old Earth theories... yeah, only if accept pseudoscience as a means of reasoning. The most you can possibly get out of pseudoscience is "vaguely sounding scientifical".

So it seems.


"If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" is a very common misconception. Evolution does not state nor imply monkeys evolved into humans, it states Humans and Apes have a common ancestor.

That's a fact I totally forgot about.

Take a real life example: If you have a kitty that has a litter of kittens, all the kittens have 2 direct common ancestors. Creationists have this confused with "The mommy cat evolved into the younger kittens" (do ya see what I mean... because I dont :D... )


:) [/B]

lol:wink8:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dub

I have some knowledge of the main theories in cosomology, however, ultimately I would say I dont know. This is the problem I think many religious people have - they dont like not having an answer, so some, any answer must do.
We may never know exactly how the universe began. Some things may ultimately be beyond our knowledge.
AFAIK quite a bit. The background radiation of the 'big bang' has even be detected and measured.
Radio-metric dating (not carbon dating! :) ) is used to date the age of the oldest rocks. Again, from what Ive read its a pretty accurate measurement.

Ah, that's good to know.

From my experience, many christians argue the evidence away through half-truths, mis-understandings and down right lies. For exmaple, I ve heard christians mention carbon dating in relation to the age of the Earth. Cardbon datiing is only useful for dating aritcles upto about 70,000 years old - thus pretty useless for dating the age of the Earth. For longer time periods, isotopes with much longer half-lifes are used.

There's some new theory from Creationsits about the speed of light playing into it. Know anyhting about that?



The evidence is written in mine, yours and every human being's DNA. Fossil evidence also shows the connections.

How do Creationists argue this away?



This is a half truth. The search for human origins has, like most high profile activities. attracted hoaxers. There have been several well know hoaxes, such as Piltdown man, in the past. However, most of these hoaxs were un-covered for what they were fairly quickly - and it was science that found the specimens to be fraudulent. Some Chrisitians seem to hold the hoaxes as evidence against human evolution - which is ridiculous. There are plenty of genuine fossil speicmens around.

This, chrisitian page, shows many of the incorrect notions that are often put forward
http://www.human--evolution.com/ I do like the domain name of the page :) Some of the points on this page are down right lies. For example it claims that Neandertals were just diesased humans with bad posture!! :D


I'd be happy to discuss with you any of the points this site raises.



Asking questions = Good.
Asking lots of questions = even better! :D
Not asking questions = very bad.

I hope I was of some help. Ive only answered what I quickly as to some points I could remeber. If there's anything more specific or detailed you'd like to know, just ask. I'll answer what I can and im sure other people round here will also. [/B]

Thank you very much!!!:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Suddenly
There is a creator in that something or some process created what we call the universe, it's just that most religion insists on personifying this "creator" and give it moral authority. Once you think about it the whole parent/child psychological thing gets obvious.

Christians argue against science by assuming what they believe is right, and going forth explaining the apparent differences between religious teaching and scientific theory/fact. Fossils? Planted as a test of faith. Earth appears older than what the Bible says? God created it old as a test of faith. We can't prove that this isn't so, but at some point I questioned it enough and turned a corner where I realized just how much religious dogma affected my sensibilities. Once you abandon the overriding assumption that religious teaching is infallable, these explainations begin to seem absurd.

That's for sure. I've felt downright anger at some of the nonsense Christianity filled me with.

Religion gets away with this because people are emotionally invested and would rather believe an on the surface reasonable explaination than to think critically. I've been there.

Yep, me too...of course......I came on here pretty much in that state of mind.


There is some part of the mind (my mind at least) that resisted the obvious because I felt like an idiot for believing that stuff in the first place. Admitting to myself I was "wrong", or at least that my beliefs were unfounded was brutal and difficult. [/B]

I't great to be free, isn't it? I am almost there.:eek:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Ruby,

If there is/was a Creator, where did he come from?
[quote]Let me guess, "He was always there". Gosh, that just clears it all up for me. The competing explanations have to make sense, but the same requirement is not applied to the religious explanation. [/B]

LOL. :D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Ruby,
Please believe in your own personal deity,

I'm finding that a bit pointless!!

:rolleyes:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Yahzi

How can your creator come into being without a creator?

Once you figure that out, then why not just assume the world (I assume you mean universe) can do the same trick.

That sounds logical.


Why should he? Just because he creates something does not mean he cares about it. Heck, maybe he got old and died. If you could show that the universe was created (which you can't) all that would tell you is that there was a creator. It wouldn't tell you if he was a nice guy, or cared, or was still alive.

I don't think I can accept that idea.


Do atom bombs go boom? There ya go. Apparently our atomic theory is pretty dang accurate.

A large variety of ways. The Grand Canyon, for instance. You can measure how fast the water cuts into the rock, and then measure how deep the canyon is. It's a very, very deep canyon.

They don't. They simply assert that God created the world with the appearence of age. I don't know why they picked 6,000 years ago: God could have created the world with the appearance of age (including your memories, etc.) 20 minutes ago. Both arguments are equally valid. And equally compelling.

Because we share their genes to 98%, and we don't share that many genes with any other animal. Ergo, we are most closely related to the apes. Chimpanzees, actually. And we didn't descend from them, but from the same ancestor. BTW, we do share 50% of genes with ameobas. Which indicates we are related to them, too.

Just more lies.

There's nothing wrong with questions. [/B]

Thanks!! Lots to think about here!:book:

[Chanileslie]

It always amazes me when people can't believe that the universe can't exist or have come into being with out a creator, but then don't question that if there were a creator, where the heck did that being come from? *Something* had to come from nothing in that scenario.

Also, let me state that we are apes, we are members of the Great Ape family, i.e. Primates and Hominidae. As for descending from apes, well, we didn't descend from the apes that are existant today, but from a common ancestor, which split off millions of years ago, and began the journey to what we are today.

It is definitely more plausible to me than say, some improbable being decided on a whim to create his/her/its/their own playthings; what a depressing thought to exist only for the pleasure and whimsy of some being that doesn't even bother to show up occasionally.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
[B]Here's a few of my personal fave creation/evolution websites. (Skipping stuff like TalkOrigins, that have already been posted.)

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html


Thanks for the links!!!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I see you already got good responses, Ruby!

What I would like to do is welcome you to the world of people who think for themselves.:th:

You are now a skeptic! This does not mean that you cannot have religion, but it means that you have taken the great step to dare to ask questions. Congratulations!

You will find that not all questions can be answered, but that should not stop you from asking them. Nor should it make you accept unfounded answers.

Hans

Thanks!!:D

[Peach Jr.]

Originally posted by Ruby
Hi again.

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?

What sort of proof is there for a big bang? What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.

Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

Thanks!!!!!;)

Hi Ruby,

Everybody else has answered your evolution/origin of the universe questions much better than I ever could.

But I will take a stab at a couple...

What sort of god would allow some people to be healed or rescued while ignoring others? The kind of childish, vindictive, arbitrary creature that I want no part of.

Why would a Creator not make himself know in our daily lives? Perhaps because he only exists in the pages of books and not in reality.

Bear in mind these are only my bitter, angry opinions. but they might be something to think about. Good luck with everything :)

[Peach Jr.]

Originally posted by Ruby
Hi again.

Some of the questions that my hubby and I wrestle with are things like, "How can the world come into being without a Creator".? While we can no longer believe in a personal God, we just can't fathom the Universe forming all by itself. However, this creates another dilemna because if we have to believe in a Creator, we have to ask why he is absent from people's lives. Why does he not make his presence clear and help us in our daily lives.

I realize that many Christians would say that God does help, heal, and rescue...........but as we all know...for every person who is healed or rescued, a thousand are not!! What sort of God is that?

So, how do you see the universe coming into being without a creator? And if you think there was a Creator, why is he absent?

What sort of proof is there for a big bang? What about the age of the earth............how is the conclusion reached that it's very very old. How do Christians argue that away?

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.

Sorry for all the questions. I am just at a place where I need the whole picture......not just what Christian apologetics has spouted off.

Thanks!!!!!;)

Hi Ruby,

Everybody else has answered your evolution/origin of the universe questions much better than I ever could.

But I will take a stab at a couple...

What sort of god would allow some people to be healed or rescued while ignoring others? The kind of childish, vindictive, arbitrary creature that I want no part of.

Why would a Creator not make himself know in our daily lives? Perhaps because he only exists in the pages of books and not in reality.

Bear in mind these are only my bitter, angry opinions. but they might be something to think about. Good luck with everything :)

[FireGarden]

Well, OK.
Humans are apes, then

Edit:
Actually, now I'm wondering if I've got the meaning of "lineage" wrong!

Is TriadBoy refering to someone in Eve's past or future?

Encarta98 say "lineage" = "ancestry" or "the direct descent from a particular ancestor"
I thought he meant the "line" from Eve onwards.

My bad!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ruby


I'm finding that a bit pointless!!

:rolleyes:

Well perhaps I can't discuss it rationaly.
Yet, I believe that we humans posses the ultimate gift in consiousness. And that if we use that gift to contact something 'sacred','devine','holy' or 'really cool', then we are creating the sacred space in our hearts and on earth.

So while the idea that there is some ulitimate power that interferes in human exoitance is self destructive, the idea of sacred beauty is not.

We humans are the bridge between the micro cosm and the macro cosm. If we invoke the devine, then it is manifest on earth. There is some debate on what is devine.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Ruby

I don't think I can accept that idea.

Hehe... better get used to it. The Real World doesn't particularly care what you feel about it. :p

I realize it is an emotionally unappealing idea, but it's logically valid.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Excellent response. The final page of Big Daddy inspired my artistic side one night. Now, I'm not very artistic, so even inspiration cannot improve the skill level of the outcome. ;)

:D I think it's pretty good. :D

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FireGarden
Triadboy
That's not true.

Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor much older that Mitochondrial Eve (who would have been an entirely modern (biologically) human). And no human has ever had descendants that were apes.

Yes I agree. I said someone in her lineage - and I meant further back in time. Maybe that was the wrong words. Sorry.

[Loki]

Ruby,

Yes, this is one of the biggest arguments for the existence of God. In fact, it is the one thing that neither myself or my hubby can comprehend.....that is, how the world came into being without a creator.
One thing to (try) and get your head around - "creation" is an example of cause and effect, and that requires "time". It's hard to think about issues like this because we humans are ruled by an awareness of time - it's a fundamental aspect of our existence.

Yet, if "time" itself as we know and experience it is also a result of the Big Bang, then the concept of "who created the Big Bang" makes no sense. What does "the act of creating" mean if there is no such thing as time? It's an undefinable concept.

Perhaps the easiest way to express this is to ask the question "what existed before the Big Bang"? If time is a result of the Big Bang, then the very question has no meaning, since the key word before relies upon a time-based relationship that doesn't exist.

Anyway, I think the real issue for you is not "how" did the universe get here, but rather "why"? If there's no god, there's no "why", and therefore no meaning. Well, I disagree - there's more "meaning" available to you personally than you can possibly fit into one life, so you really don't need a god-given universe to find (or build) a moral. meaningful and happy life. Well, works for me...

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FireGarden
Triadboy
Unfortunately, this is another potentially lucky guess that looks like falling flat.
The most recent evidence indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. So the "Big Crunch" end to the universe seems unlikely.

But you must admit - for a cosmology from the year 2000 BC to make a guess like that is eerie.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Hehe... better get used to it. The Real World doesn't particularly care what you feel about it. :p

I realize it is an emotionally unappealing idea, but it's logically valid.

I would rather be disappointed with the truth than consoled with a lie.

And having said that, I also think that we are the ones who give meaning to the universe. Regardless of the existence/non-existence of a God.

*edit*
Loki:
Well, I disagree - there's more "meaning" available to you personally than you can possibly fit into one life, so you really don't need a god-given universe to find (or build) a moral. meaningful and happy life. Well, works for me...

I agree! :)

[Moccomouse]

Originally posted by Ruby


There's some new theory from Creationsits about the speed of light playing into it. Know anyhting about that?


Uh...not sure what you're talking about specifically, or how it applies to radiocarbon dating, but one good argument that no creationist I've encountered has been able to even start to answer correctly is why we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away. The speed of light is finite, and thus the light from every star we see is old. The Andromeda galaxy is about 2 million light years away (I think) and so the light has been traveling for 2 million years to reach us. What we are actually seeing is what it looked like 2 million years ago.

The fact that we can see things Billions of light years away implies a minimum age for the universe.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ruby
There's some new theory from Creationsits about the speed of light playing into it. Know anyhting about that?


I believe the Creationists claim that light traveled slower the farther back in time you go. I'm not sure how this helps their cause, but it's good n'goofy.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Moccomouse
... but one good argument that no creationist I've encountered has been able to even start to answer correctly is why we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away.

They counter with the idea that their god created everything in place. Not only were the stars created, but the lights journey was created too.

He is a trickster god. He is planting clues to throw off the non-believers. Only believers have the faith to ignore reality.

[Moccomouse]

Originally posted by triadboy

I believe the Creationists claim that light traveled slower the farther back in time you go. I'm not sure how this helps their cause, but it's good n'goofy.

I think it's that light has been slowing down since the start of the universe, but if that were true, wouldn't it still be slowing down? Why would it more or less arbitrarily stop and become a constant speed?

He is a trickster god. He is planting clues to throw off the non-believers. Only believers have the faith to ignore reality.

I wonder why god would create an illusion that makes the universe appear older than it "is"? I'd think that would just be begging for people to assume that he didn't actually create anything.

[Voob]

- "creation" is an example of cause and effect, and that requires "time"...
Yet, if "time" itself as we know and experience it is also a result of the Big Bang, then the concept of "who created the Big Bang" makes no sense. What does "the act of creating" mean if there is no such thing as time? It's an undefinable concept.

Perhaps the easiest way to express this is to ask the question "what existed before the Big Bang"? If time is a result of the Big Bang, then the very question has no meaning, since the key word before relies upon a time-based relationship that doesn't exist.


Good one! Nicely put.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Moccomouse
I wonder why god would create an illusion that makes the universe appear older than it "is"? I'd think that would just be begging for people to assume that he didn't actually create anything.

This may be off the subject slightly, but I had a Jewish Humanist friend, who told me of the time he was in Jerusalem and saw an old Hebrew Bible laying open (in a museum or something). He said the thing that struck him odd was the word for "In the Beginning" in Hebrew (Beresheet) looked like a proper name. So it could be translated "Beresheet created God, the heaven and the earth..." weird huh?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ruby
There's some new theory from Creationsits about the speed of light playing into it. Know anyhting about that?


I believe the Creationists claim that light traveled slower the farther back in time you go. I'm not sure how this helps their cause, but it's good n'goofy.

I think "Dr. Dino" has something on his site claiming that light can go as slow as 34mph or some such bull-plop. That's even more outrageous than man and dinosaur living at the same time.

[Peter Jenkins]

I know that other people have addressed the evolution concerns in other posts, However, I came across this piece which I wrote for alt.religion.mormon, a while back. It's cobbled together from a couple of different sources (researched rather than plagiarised :) )

These are some of the reasons why I believe that Humans have evolved from a common ancestor with the apes.


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

1) The Evidence of Genetic Biology.
Amino acid sequencing of homologous proteins, and immunological and
electrophoretic methods of protein comparisons have demonstrated that human
polypeptides are more than 99% identical to those of the chimpanzee (king
and Wilson, 1975). There is a great similarity between the 46 chromosomes of
Humans and the 48 chromosomes of the great apes (Chiarelli, 1972 & Moore,
1977).
Karyotypes of Man, Chimpanzee and Gorilla are so similar that it is
difficult to establish their evolutionary distinction (Miller, 1977) in
fact, The gorilla is much closer to Human, evolutionary speaking, than it is
to the Chimpanzee.
Blood proteins of primates have been analysed and compared (Goodman, Coen,
Barnabas and Moore, 1972) to the Human. The serum proteins can be seen on a
sliding scale of similarity from the prosimians – New world Monkeys – old
world monkeys – apes to Human.

2) The evidence of the digestive system.
The alimentary tract of nearly all the primates is similar. (Clarke, 1973).
While the liver of the monkey is located in a slightley different place to humans, The Apes and Man have the
liver attached in the same place (Strauss 1936).

3) The evidence of parasites
The great apes and man are host to more of the same parasites than man
shares with any other mammal (Dunn1966). Again, predictably, Man shares most
(over 50%) of these with the chimp and the gorilla.
The malarial parasites of man and every one of the apes has evolved from a
common ancestor. This indicates that the hosts did likewise.

4) Evidence of dentition
One of the most important indications of a link between man and ape is the
dental formula. The more primitive new world monkeys have a strikingly
similar dental formula. In the Old world Monkeys, Great apes and Man the
dental formula is exactly the same, i.e.
2.1.2.3
2.1.2.3

5) Evidence of vision
Most primates, including Man have two kinds of photoreceptors, Rods and
cones. The former permitting dim-light vision, and the latter permitting
colour vision. Maximum scotopic (rod) and photopic (cone) sensitivity have
been founds at 510 nm and 550 nm for both apes and man (king and Forbes
1974). Stereoscopy and detailed acuity are two primate features, which
probably evolved as a result of an ancient arboreal habitat.
Colour vision is exceptionally good in primates, unlike most other mammals –
possibly as a result of early fruit bearing trees.

6) Evidence of audition.
Auditory ability probably changed during evolution as evidence by the
following.
Animal Max hearing freq.
Prosimian 75,000
New world Monkey 46,000
Old world Monkey 45,000
Chimp 26,000
Man 20,000

It should be noted that, while 20,000 hz is about the maximum sensitivity
that man can hear, his best sensitivity is around 3,000 hz, the same as the
apes. (Forbes and King 1977)

7) Evidence of the grasp response
All primate infants, including Human babies possess an involuntary grasp
response, this possibly evolved as a result of a need to cling to a parent
in an arboreal habitat
Once again the grasp response is on a sliding scale according to the
‘development’ of the primate. Rhesus monkeys can cling for up to 30 minutes.
Chimps can cling for up to 3 minutes. Humans can cling for up to 2 minutes

Evidence of the brain
Primate brains are distinguished from those of other mammals by an increase
of the size of the occipital lobe. The higher intelligence of apes is
probably related to the increased cerebral convolutions, which permit more
efficient use of cranial capacity. Mankind’s convolution patterns are
similar to that of the apes, but with a larger overall capacity the
increased cortical representation for vision versus the decreased olfactory
representation, the increase in the frontal lobe size and, above all, the
increase in complexity of cerebral convolutions, which reach a high degree
in apes and man, indicate an evolutionary linkage.

9) Evidence of intelligence
A controversial word, however it is accepted that chimps are the most
intelligent of the non-human primates. They have been trained in symbol
representation and ASL and have shown evidence of ‘true’ language (the
manipulation of words and concepts – for example the use of two concepts
like ‘water’ and ‘bird’ to represent duck)
The great apes undoubtedly exhibit a most advanced intelligence, similar to
that of mankind. This, along with all other evidences is a further
confirmation of an evolutionary link between Man and primate.

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


I think "Dr. Dino" has something on his site claiming that light can go as slow as 34mph or some such bull-plop. That's even more outrageous than man and dinosaur living at the same time.

Far be it from me to add any legitimacy the rantings of crazy creationist wackos... but to play devils advocate here, perhaps this dr. dino, who ever he is, is distorting the research done by Dr. Lene Vestergaard Hau in which she was able to slow light down to not 34, but 38 mph.


link (http://dustbunny.physics.indiana.edu/~dzierba/P360/Week13/light/story2.html)

link (http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun02/OSR0201.html)


Dr. Hau (http://www.physics.wsu.edu/Announcements/Upcoming/Hau.html)

[metacristi]

Uncaused universe:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libr...smith_18_2.html


Actually Hawking's proposal is a simple speculation,there is no law that the universe appeared 'uncaused' or even stronger 'uncaused-out of nothing'.Moreover I am unaware of this 'Wave Function of the Universe' scientific law.Even if it existed I still have no idea of why should we accept this as being a 'scientific law',for that we need some predictions which to be confirmed 'aposteriori',maybe there is an infinite number of hypotheses compatible with the observed facts (having also explanatory power not only being merely neutral).

Some scientists proposed that the positive energy of matter match exactly the negative energy of the gravitational field so that our universe appeared out of pure nothingness in a 'quantum fluctuation' (this has at basis the speculation that the so called energy of the vacuum is exactly 0).Unfortunately for its sustainers we do not have a proof that the energy of the vacuum is indeed 0.Moreover there are logical constraints against the pure nothingness theory:from 'pure nothingness' cannot appear 'something'.

Anyway the majority of physicists do not equate the so called 'pure nothingness' of philosophers with the 'nothingness' from which our universe appeared in a 'quantum fluctuation' (this quantum fluctuation hypothesis is based on the predictions of quantum mechanics standard formalism+the Copenhagen Interpretation).The 'nothingness' of the majority of physicists is still 'something';technically it is possible,indeed,that our universe appeared in a 'quantum fluctuation'.

Having no real basis to sustain the 'out of nothing' hypothesis (intrinsically uncaused also) remain to see whether our universe could have appeared 'uncaused' from the initial 'nothingness' (still something however) in the same way how the decay of a radioactive element seem to be intrinsically uncaused (there does not seem to exist a cause for the decay though no appearance 'out of pure nothingness' is involved) or at least to propose a 'non intelligent purpose' valid hypothesis.

For the first of the above hypotheses,again,we have no good reasons to prefer it since it is interpretation linked:indeed the seemingly 'acausal' decay of the radioactive nuclei is fully compatible with the existence of determinism at quantum level (as in Bohm's fully causal interpretation).In fact we do not know whether our universe is really inherently random (indeterminacy inbuilt in nature).The existence of mere uncertainty at measurements is another thing,so that Hawking's hypothesis has no compelling support either.

For the second proposal there are some interesting hypotheses,extensions of the 'clasical' now inflationary theory (which says nothing about the Big Bang itself or what happened before the Big Bang).Exactly this is the way the majority of cosmologists adopt now.Indeed in the last 10 years more and more scientists became dissatisfied with the old cliches that 'it is futile to ask what was before the Big Bang since time itself is linked with the Big Bang' or that 'the universe appeared out of pure nothingness'.

This type of hypotheses postulates the existence of an infinity of 'bubbles' (universes) so that there is nothing suprising that life appeared in our universe:we just exist in an universe that is fully compatible with life as we know it.

See at www.pbs.org the 'infinite bubbles' hypothesis as Alan Guth proposed it (Andrei Linde made another,basically similar,proposal).


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/uns_guth_1.html


Anyway these hypotheses do not advocate acausality (how we define it in quantum mechanics):all they advocate is that there might be causes but not inteligent design.The usual argument used to back them is similar to that given in the Scientific American:'

Although we cannot interact with other Level II parallel universes, cosmologists can infer their presence indirectly, because their existence can account for unexplained coincidences in our universe. To give an analogy, suppose you check into a hotel, are assigned room 1967 and note that this is the year you were born. What a coincidence, you say. After a moment of reflection, however, you conclude that this is not so surprising after all. The hotel has hundreds of rooms, and you would not have been having these thoughts in the first place if you had been assigned one with a number that meant nothing to you. The lesson is that even if you knew nothing about hotels, you could infer the existence of other hotel rooms to explain the coincidence.

.................................................. .......

Such observer-related selection effects are referred to as "anthropic," and although the "A-word" is notorious for triggering controversy, physicists broadly agree that these selection effects cannot be neglected when testing fundamental theories.

What applies to hotel rooms and planetary systems applies to parallel universes. Most, if not all, of the attributes set by symmetry breaking appear to be fine-tuned. Changing their values by modest amounts would have resulted in a qualitatively different universe--one in which we probably would not exist. If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they could decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. If the electromagnetic force were 4 percent weaker, there would be no hydrogen and no normal stars. If the weak interaction were much weaker, hydrogen would not exist; if it were much stronger, supernovae would fail to seed interstellar space with heavy elements. If the cosmological constant were much larger, the universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form.

Although the degree of fine-tuning is still debated, these examples suggest the existence of parallel universes with other values of the physical constants [see "Exploring Our Universe and Others," by Martin Rees; Scientific American, December 1999]. The Level II multiverse theory predicts that physicists will never be able to determine the values of these constants from first principles. They will merely compute probability distributions for what they should expect to find, taking selection effects into account. The result should be as generic as is consistent with our existence.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=4&catID=2


I think we are entitled to be skeptics here,even to disbelieve...to state that we can infer the existence of other universes from the 'anthropic principle' is ridiculous.Why should be so with necessity?.The universe is not a hotel and probabilities are mere probabilities...we need additionally experimental 'confirmations'.

The only base for the above conclusion (that anthropic principle points out toward the existence of many universes) is that since from nothing cannot appear something and naturalism (including 'no personal God hypothesis') has always worked so far the multiverse hypothesis is the most probable to be true.Or this is simply not enough in order to prefer it,to consider it really superior.Indeed tradition is never a proof or a sufficient argument.

As a conclusion the 'personal God hypothesis' is as valid as our best scientific hypotheses (admited as being speculative even by some scientists).All we are entitled to say now (in what objective knowledge is concerned) about the appearance of the universe is that 'we do not know'.
Indeed we don't have compelling 'objective',scientific,evidence,for the moment at least...

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Ruby

How can we be certain we descended from apes. I was always told that some of the ape findings were planted and the others were skeletal remains of Orangutans or other apes.


I don't have time right now to see if someone else posted this specific link (I saw lots to talkorigins, not surprisingly), but it's fantastic at showing some of the relations shared by all life:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html

did

[Ossai]

Ruby
There's some new theory from Creationists about the speed of light playing into it. Know anything about that?
On the speed of light.
From what I've read on some creationists sites (including Dr. Dino), they [creationists] claim that the speed of light is decreasing. They say that it traveled faster during the past and has now slowed to it's present, and conveniently stable, speed. The numbers they use to back their claim are half-truths at best. They take some of the original measurements for light speed and compare them to what is measured today without filling in the blanks. {I was going to show it directly but then I would have to go look up the old measurements and other variables - anyone that wants to do so is more than welcome :) , so I'll use an analogy instead.}

For example: a car speeds past on a long flat stretch of road every day at the same speed and you want to know how fast it's going. To start with you take a paint can and brush and place two markers 10 miles apart. When the car comes by you count. Plug in the figures and you calculate that the car was moving at 50 mph. Well since you couldn't directly see when one tire passed the mark and you can't be certain that your count was 100% accurate and some other uncontrollable variables so you naturally include a margin of error. You actually publish that the car was going at 50 mph plus or minus 15.
A few years later someone comes up with the bright idea of using a watch to gauge the speed of the car. This time you work out the equation and get that the car was going 48 mph plus or minus 10. A much closer reading but still not perfect.
Another couple of years go by and this time you use a stopwatch. Readings indicate 47 mph plus or minus 5.
The actual speed of the car is 46.879… mph. Which is within the original measurement's margin of error.


Now the creationists look {and only acknowledge} the main number published. They ignore the margin of error and how the numbers were arrived at as well as the technological advances that allow a more accurate measurement.

Ossai

[-=Vagrant=-]

The latest thing from the creationist front is the RATE-project. It "proves" that the Earth must be only 10'000 to 6'000 years old.
I think it took them five years to slap together, and one day for the experts to refute.:D

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by LawnOven


Far be it from me to add any legitimacy the rantings of crazy creationist wackos... but to play devils advocate here, perhaps this dr. dino, who ever he is, is distorting the research done by Dr. Lene Vestergaard Hau in which she was able to slow light down to not 34, but 38 mph.


link (http://dustbunny.physics.indiana.edu/~dzierba/P360/Week13/light/story2.html)

link (http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun02/OSR0201.html)


Dr. Hau (http://www.physics.wsu.edu/Announcements/Upcoming/Hau.html)

Hahahaha, that's funny. If the creationists are using this as an argument, I think the word "desperation" comes to mind. These experiments use Bose-Einstein condensates of atomic gases cooled to billionths of a degree above absolute zero, using magnetic traps, lasers, big vacuum pumps, the whole shebang. These things can only be produced in the laboratory, and don't occur naturally. Also, this speed arises from huge refractive indices which corresponds to the special properties of the gas concerned. It doesn't correspond to the speed of light in the vacuum, which, alas, is always c.

I wonder if Lene Hau knows about this...

[Marvel Frozen]

There's some new theory from Creationists about the speed of light playing into it. Know anything about that?

Some creationist took a bunch of measurements of the speed of light, and from them concluded that the speed of light has been exponentially decreasing over time. Conveniently his calculations showed the beginning of the universe at 4004 B.C. Of course, the calculations relied heavily on two measurements taken in the 18th century (which remarkably were pretty accurate, though not as accurate as modern measurements). On top of that, he fudged around with the numbers until he got the results he wanted (a creation time of 4000 B.C.).

As for why the speed of light stopped decreasing around 1960, that's obviously a sign that the end times are near. Why else would the speed of light suddenly stop decreasing?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ossai
Ruby

On the speed of light.
From what I've read on some creationists sites (including Dr. Dino), they [creationists] claim that the speed of light is decreasing. They say that it traveled faster during the past and has now slowed to it's present, and conveniently stable, speed. The numbers they use to back their claim are half-truths at best. They take some of the original measurements for light speed and compare them to what is measured today without filling in the blanks. {I was going to show it directly but then I would have to go look up the old measurements and other variables - anyone that wants to do so is more than welcome :) , so I'll use an analogy instead.}

For example: a car speeds past on a long flat stretch of road every day at the same speed and you want to know how fast it's going. To start with you take a paint can and brush and place two markers 10 miles apart. When the car comes by you count. Plug in the figures and you calculate that the car was moving at 50 mph. Well since you couldn't directly see when one tire passed the mark and you can't be certain that your count was 100% accurate and some other uncontrollable variables so you naturally include a margin of error. You actually publish that the car was going at 50 mph plus or minus 15.
A few years later someone comes up with the bright idea of using a watch to gauge the speed of the car. This time you work out the equation and get that the car was going 48 mph plus or minus 10. A much closer reading but still not perfect.
Another couple of years go by and this time you use a stopwatch. Readings indicate 47 mph plus or minus 5.
The actual speed of the car is 46.879… mph. Which is within the original measurement's margin of error.


Now the creationists look {and only acknowledge} the main number published. They ignore the margin of error and how the numbers were arrived at as well as the technological advances that allow a more accurate measurement.

Ossai

Oh thanks...that's good info.

[Ruby]

Thanks everyone. You are GREAT!!! I appreciate all the info, links and comments. I'm sorry I don't have time right now to respond to everyone!!:(

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Hahahaha, that's funny. If the creationists are using this as an argument, I think the word "desperation" comes to mind.

quite right :)

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
I know that other people have addressed the evolution concerns in other posts, However, I came across this piece which I wrote for alt.religion.mormon, a while back.


Very nice Peter.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
That is brilliant in its simple eloquence! I am going to plagiarize the $h!+ out of that. I may even take credit for it (if pretty ladies ask if I thought of it myself).
I feel special :).

You have my expressed written consent to plagiarize as much as you feel like until your hearts content.

(If I know women... and I should having been married for a few years... nothing impresses them more than Philosophy... except maybe Philosophy in French...)