Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[Eyes to See]

That is slander, and its also insupportable.

I am not sure what you are referring to. To the fact that people use the term "Chance" to explain the universe, or my statement that they do so.

If the first, of course. If the second. No. You are wrong. I've been in long conversations with many people who blindly believe in evolution. And you will realize that's what it is, a blind belief because when you start pointing out scientific facts to them, over and over and over again I have had many people excuse it all away to chance.

For example the chance of one human protein folding onto itself correctly is 1 in a billion billion billion (10^27). And there are around 50,000 human proteins. The chances of just one folding onto itself correctly by chance, you would need not an primordial soup the size of the earth, but the size of the universe, and then you would still need billions times billions of years. The young age of our universe, only 13.8 billion years old would not nearly give us enough time for one single human protein to fold onto itself correctly by chance. But we are told it would happen over and over dozens of thousands of times, along with so many other things. Such as the formation at the exact instant of time of DNA and RNA and all the proteins needed. For if you don't have any one of the components the human cell does not exist and does not reproduce. This is called irreducible complexity. Where you need several complex components all happening at the exact same instant, all with their mind-boggling complex components in order for it to have existed and continued.

Yeah, but you don't' understand that is chance. It is all chance. Chance, blind chance. I've heard it over and over and over. It all boils down to blind chance, a chance far far far more fantastical and fairy-like than the proof and observable evidence of an intelligence behind the written code in life. DNA is an alphabet in digital code that, for example, in the human cell, written out would fill encyclopedias the size of the Grand Canyon. The code does not code itself or attribute to itself meaning. The coder has to. But it all happened by blind chance.

Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.


People who accept an absurd natural interpretation of evolution talk about things like environmental pressures. Environmental pressures don't create the parts that just happen to work together. Environmental pressures and natural selection are things that happen AFTER THE FACT. They happen after the designed parts reach the environment.

Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together?

The reason these absurdities are accepted is because of blind belief. A natural interpretation of evolution supports their atheism or scientific materialism and if there's an intelligent design it shatters their whole worldview and way of life and they have to ask: is the intelligent designer God? So they will blindly accept the absurd in order to maintain their belief.

 

[exchemist]

People who don't believe in God per se still believe in "God." They just change his title to "Chance." Their Chance is the magical miracle that makes everything happen. All by Blind Chance! It's a way to accept God without calling him by his real title.

No, it's not chance at all. On the contrary, it is the order in nature that science believes in.

The whole of science is based on the conviction, borne out by experience, that there is order in nature which we can uncover and understand and which will enable us to account for what we observe.

Now it's true that people like Einstein and Spinoza more or less identified that order in nature with God. So if you want to say that, I doubt too many people will be offended. But not "chance", please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's not chance at all. On the contrary, it is the order in nature that science believes in.

The whole of science is based on the conviction, borne out by experience, that there is order in nature which we can uncover and understand and which will enable us to account for what we observe.

Now it's true that people like Einstein and Spinoza more or less identified that order in nature with God. So if you want to say that, I doubt too many people will be offended. But not "chance", please.

I have noticed that the only ones arguing "chance" are creationists.

 

[exchemist]

I have noticed that the only ones arguing "chance" are creationists.

Ah, that's because it is an article of faith with creationists to avoid understanding the concept of natural selection.

Just look at the new screed of rubbish from @Eyes to See

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of extremely high density and high temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia

The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions. If gravity was too much greater than expansion, the universe would collapse back onto itself. If the force of expansion was too much greater than gravity, the universe would fly apart.

The precision of the balance between the forces is 10 to the 60 power. That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

I just read something about the gullibility of Christians for having faith in intelligent design. Of course it would have been written by someone who apparently has no problem in believing in such mind boggling and overwhelming odds in the "chance" appearance of our universe. It would also be by "chance" that an explosion would end up with sentient beings that could even ponder said explosion.

So who is taking what by blind faith?

<Sigh> So it's back to the Fine Tuning Argument then? Whereas 10 to the 60th power is a big number, then chances of getting a PERFECT deck of cards dealt to you (ace through king in spades, then hearts, then diamonds and then clubs) is 8.0658e67!!! That 52! or 8.0658 to the SIXTY SEVENTH power!!! An even larger number! Now here's the catch... We go, "WOW!!! That's a miracle" when things like that happen yet fail to recognize EVERY HAND OF 52 has the exact same probability!

The human brain is set to recognize patterns. Just because something seems exceedingly unlikely or a "miracle", hardly makes it one. Douglas Adams has the perfect analogy so I don't need to reinvent the wheel...

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am not sure what you are referring to. To the fact that people use the term "Chance" to explain the universe, or my statement that they do so.

I don't think believing that there is chance makes a person godless. I also don't think its fair to label people (including myself) as someone who has exchanged chance for God.

If the first, of course. If the second. No. You are wrong. I've been in long conversations with many people who blindly believe in evolution. And you will realize that's what it is, a blind belief because when you start pointing out scientific facts to them, over and over and over again I have had many people excuse it all away to chance.

There is a strong belief in Judaism that people experience luck, and there is a passage in Ecclesiastes which says we experience luck in our lives. 9:11 "...but time and chance happen to them all." Luck is something which this implies and that maybe every single thing isn't predetermined from the point of view of Ecclesiastes...whoever writes it. It is worth considering at least. Fortune, randomness, luck. Good luck or bad luck I don't believe in, but luck I accept is real.

For example the chance of one human protein folding onto itself correctly is 1 in a billion billion billion (10^27).

Lets stick to topics I understand. If I start talking about protein folding its partly hear-say. If Quintessence does then its something she has invested time in. That time investment is honorable.

The reason these absurdities are accepted is because of belief. A natural interpretation of evolution supports their atheism or scientific materialism and if there's a intelligent design it shatters their whole worldview and way of life and they have to ask is the intelligent designer God. So they will blindly accept the absurd in order to maintain their belief.

People don't listen. No one listens to anyone else. You can talk all day, and no one listens. I won't go into all the reasons I think so, but I think so. One day I also realized that this applied to me, too. I have never been a listener but not because I didn't want to listen. I've tried to listen but have always ignored a lot of terrific advice and not on purpose. I've always meant to be someone who took advice and followed it very seriously. People don't listen. They don't recognize good advice. Sometimes there are exceptions but in general people do not.

Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together?

My understanding is that the randomness is taken away...or controlled... by the mechanism of survival of the fittest.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Big Bang not happening by chance doesn't mean God did it.

If we suppose that "X" created Big Bang, and then look the qualities of such "X" who could do it , will it make it easier? Right, please?

Regards
_____________
I am an ordinary man in the street.

 

[blü 2]

People who don't believe in God per se still believe in "God." They just change his title to "Chance." Their Chance is the magical miracle that makes everything happen. All by Blind Chance! It's a way to accept God without calling him by his real title.

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say "God"?

What's the objective test that will tell me whether my keyboard is God or not?

I keep asking these questions but no one seems to know the answer.

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

I am not sure what you are referring to. To the fact that people use the term "Chance" to explain the universe, or my statement that they do so.

If the first, of course. If the second. No. You are wrong. I've been in long conversations with many people who blindly believe in evolution. And you will realize that's what it is, a blind belief because when you start pointing out scientific facts to them, over and over and over again I have had many people excuse it all away to chance.

For example the chance of one human protein folding onto itself correctly is 1 in a billion billion billion (10^27). And there are around 50,000 human proteins. The chances of just one folding onto itself correctly by chance, you would need not an primordial soup the size of the earth, but the size of the universe, and then you would still need billions times billions of years. The young age of our universe, only 13.8 billion years old would not nearly give us enough time for one single human protein to fold onto itself correctly by chance. But we are told it would happen over and over dozens of thousands of times, along with so many other things. Such as the formation at the exact instant of time of DNA and RNA and all the proteins needed. For if you don't have any one of the components the human cell does not exist and does not reproduce. This is called irreducible complexity. Where you need several complex components all happening at the exact same instant, all with their mind-boggling complex components in order for it to have existed and continued.

Yeah, but you don't' understand that is chance. It is all chance. Chance, blind chance. I've heard it over and over and over. It all boils down to blind chance, a chance far far far more fantastical and fairy-like than the proof and observable evidence of an intelligence behind the written code in life. DNA is an alphabet in digital code that, for example, in the human cell, written out would fill encyclopedias the size of the Grand Canyon. The code does not code itself or attribute to itself meaning. The coder has to. But it all happened by blind chance.

Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.


People who accept an absurd natural interpretation of evolution talk about things like environmental pressures. Environmental pressures don't create the parts that just happen to work together. Environmental pressures and natural selection are things that happen AFTER THE FACT. They happen after the designed parts reach the environment.

Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together?

The reason these absurdities are accepted is because of blind belief. A natural interpretation of evolution supports their atheism or scientific materialism and if there's an intelligent design it shatters their whole worldview and way of life and they have to ask: is the intelligent designer God? So they will blindly accept the absurd in order to maintain their belief.

For anyone to utter the phrase, "evolution is nothing but blind chance" demonstrates they simply do not understand evolution. I also find it exceedingly funny that whereas "Evolution" is simple too incredible to even consider, an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnisapient, omnitemporal, transcendent" entity... SURE!!! WHY NOT!!!!

 

[Eyes to See]

For anyone to utter the phrase, "evolution is nothing but blind chance" demonstrates they simply do not understand evolution. I also find it exceedingly funny that whereas "Evolution" is simple too incredible to even consider, an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnisapient, omnitemporal, transcendent" entity... SURE!!! WHY NOT!!!!

Well if you look at things objectively, life always only comes from previous life. That is the only scientific fact we can draw on. Never anywhere has life been shown to originate from non-life. Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence. And something cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you are like the adherents to Dawkins "nothing is something."

 

[Left Coast]

If we suppose that "X" created Big Bang, and then look the qualities of such "X" who could do it , will it make it easier? Right, please?

Your question assumes the cause of the Big Bang is a "who" instead of a "what." But that hasn't been demonstrated, has it? Right, please?

 

[blü 2]

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of extremely high density and high temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia

The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions. If gravity was too much greater than expansion, the universe would collapse back onto itself. If the force of expansion was too much greater than gravity, the universe would fly apart.

The precision of the balance between the forces is 10 to the 60 power. That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

I just read something about the gullibility of Christians for having faith in intelligent design. Of course it would have been written by someone who apparently has no problem in believing in such mind boggling and overwhelming odds in the "chance" appearance of our universe. It would also be by "chance" that an explosion would end up with sentient beings that could even ponder said explosion.

So who is taking what by blind faith?

I can't recall any useful contribution that theology has made to cosmology. It was cosmology, not theology that found the problem, for example, and cosmology, not theology, who are actively working to find the answers.

On the cosmology side, I don't see where "blind faith" comes into it at all.

Instead I see ongoing reasoned enquiry around some unanswered questions about unexpected phenomena.

That is, "dark energy" is the name of a problem, a question, and not (at the present time) a thing or acknowledged explanation.

And as you know, "don't know" does NOT imply that God, or any purported sentient being, tinkered with the universe so as to make it as it is. The God of the Gaps has been in a retirement home for a long time now.

"Don't know" simply means that at this time we don't know the explanation for the particular phenomena we've observed.

However, since it's the cosomologists, not the theologians, who are working on it, the prospects of finding the best explanation aren't nearly as bad as they might be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if you look at things objectively, life always only comes from previous life. That is the only scientific fact we can draw on. Never anywhere has life been shown to originate from non-life. Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence. And something cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you are like the adherents to Dawkins "nothing is something."

What do you mean? Intelligence is an emergent property. Do you think that you were intelligent the moment that you were conceived? And life only comes from other life now. We understand why that is the case. This does not refute abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if you look at things objectively, life always only comes from previous life. That is the only scientific fact we can draw on. Never anywhere has life been shown to originate from non-life. Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence. And something cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you are like the adherents to Dawkins "nothing is something."

Casimir effect, an observed example of "something" coming from "nothing". I am sorry if you think that was a good video. It only demonstrates the utter ignorance and dishonest of the person that made it.

 

[paarsurrey]

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say "God"?
What's the objective test that will tell me whether my keyboard is God or not?
I keep asking these questions but no one seems to know the answer.

I am an ordinary man in the street, I have no claim to scholarship and piety. We may together find the answer.
I find in the thread following suppositions:

blind faith solution, blind chance solution, "x" did it solution.

In the next step we assume as to what sort of attributes/qualities/characteristics should such claimants/power have. Then we ponder which one of them could do it and eliminate the impossible ones . Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am an ordinary man in the street, I have no claim to scholarship and piety. We may together find the answer.
I find in the thread following suppositions:

blind faith solution, blind chance solution, "x" did it solution.

In the next step we assume as to what sort of attributes/qualities/characteristics should such claimants/power have. Then we ponder which one of them could do it and eliminate the impossible ones . Right, please?

Regards

Who is claiming "blind chance solution"? You forgot another possibility. Your argument is a failed strawman.

 

[blü 2]

I am an ordinary man in the street, I have no claim to scholarship and piety. We may together find the answer.
I find in the thread following suppositions:

blind faith solution, blind chance solution, "x" did it solution.

In the next step we assume as to what sort of attributes/qualities/characteristics should such claimants/power have. Then we ponder which one of them could do it and eliminate the impossible ones . Right, please?

Regards

But we haven't the faintest idea what we're looking for. If God is real then [he] must have a necessary and sufficient description, just as a dog or a cactus or light in the green band does.

If God is not real [he] can be anything anyone wants [him] to be. All have won, and all must have prizes, as Alice's Dodo bird said. But if everything is true, nothing is true, an idea that greatly appealed to the outgoing president of the USA.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Big Bang not happening by chance doesn't mean God did it.

The Big Bang did not happen by 'chance.' Chance is not a cause. The Big Bang was Caused by Natural Laws underlying Quantum Mechanics..

 

[Polymath257]

I am not sure what you are referring to. To the fact that people use the term "Chance" to explain the universe, or my statement that they do so.

If the first, of course. If the second. No. You are wrong. I've been in long conversations with many people who blindly believe in evolution. And you will realize that's what it is, a blind belief because when you start pointing out scientific facts to them, over and over and over again I have had many people excuse it all away to chance.

Then I would submit that you have been talking to people who don't know about evolution.

For example the chance of one human protein folding onto itself correctly is 1 in a billion billion billion (10^27).

This is simply wrong. The folding pattern is determined by the amino acids sequence. Proteins spontaneously fold because of the interactions of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids in their chains. And, in fact, most proteins spontaneously fold correctly because of these interactions in less than a second.

And there are around 50,000 human proteins. The chances of just one folding onto itself correctly by chance, you would need not an primordial soup the size of the earth, but the size of the universe, and then you would still need billions times billions of years.

Given that you lead with a blatant falsehood, the rest of your claims don't hold water either.

The young age of our universe, only 13.8 billion years old would not nearly give us enough time for one single human protein to fold onto itself correctly by chance. But we are told it would happen over and over dozens of thousands of times, along with so many other things.

Since you wildly underestimated the probability of a protein folding, the rest of your probability calculations and estimates of expected times is way off as well.

Such as the formation at the exact instant of time of DNA and RNA and all the proteins needed. For if you don't have any one of the components the human cell does not exist and does not reproduce.

Again, this is simply false. it is quite possible for some of the components to not exist and for the cell to quite readily reproduce. In fact, part of how biology research can proceed is to knock out certain proteins, or even stretches of DNA and see how the properties of the cell differs.

This is called irreducible complexity. Where you need several complex components all happening at the exact same instant, all with their mind-boggling complex components in order for it to have existed and continued.

Except that no actual example of irreducible complexity has ever been produced. ALL the examples proposed have been found to be *reducibly* complex.

Yeah, but you don't' understand that is chance. It is all chance. Chance, blind chance. I've heard it over and over and over.

Nope, it is NOT chance. it is the properties of the chemicals themselves that make certain arrangements more likely to happen.

It all boils down to blind chance, a chance far far far more fantastical and fairy-like than the proof and observable evidence of an intelligence behind the written code in life. DNA is an alphabet in digital code that, for example, in the human cell, written out would fill encyclopedias the size of the Grand Canyon. The code does not code itself or attribute to itself meaning. The coder has to. But it all happened by blind chance.

All this shows that you know nothing about how evolution actually proceeds. yes, there is a chance *component* to it. But there is also a very crucial part that is NOT based on chance. That is the difference in survival rates due to the genetics and is the basis of natural selection. And that is determined by very definite properties such as energy usage, ability to find mates, etc. Those are NOT chance alone.

Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.

Yes, and the differences between different types of atoms, and different resulting portions of molecules, is what gives the necessary structure for that self-arrangement.

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

And that appears not to be true as well. It is quite possible to produce self-replicating RNA that does, in fact, spontaneously assemble.

This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.

Except, of course, you are looking at the end result of a long sequence of improvements, taken step by step via mutation and selection. The original chemicals of life are not the same as the ones now. They were far less precise and tightly linked together.

People who accept an absurd natural interpretation of evolution talk about things like environmental pressures. Environmental pressures don't create the parts that just happen to work together. Environmental pressures and natural selection are things that happen AFTER THE FACT. They happen after the designed parts reach the environment.

Yes, and it is mutation of the structures that existed in earlier life that produces the structures that are selected for. Mutation increases the variability of a population and natural selection moves the average properties.

Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together?

Because the earliest organisms were much, much simpler than those of today and the parts did not have to fit as precisely as those today. Once reproduction, along with mutation and selection, got started, the changes became much easier both to produce and to fix in populations.

The reason the absurdities are accepted is because of blind belief. A natural interpretation of evolution supports their atheism or scientific materialism and if there's an intelligent design it shatters their whole worldview and way of life and they have to ask: is the intelligent designer God? So they will blindly accept the absurd in order to maintain their belief.

Nope. There are biologists who study evolution that are also theists. A good example is Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, who also defends what is known about evolution against creationists and ID demagogues. He has been quite willing to tell people that the absurdity is in the ID and creationist side, and not on the side of evolution.

The point is that evolution is science that is supported by a large range of observations, experiments, and has passed multiple tests over the last 150 years.

Maybe you need to update your information?

 

[Polymath257]

Well if you look at things objectively, life always only comes from previous life. That is the only scientific fact we can draw on. Never anywhere has life been shown to originate from non-life. Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence. And something cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you are like the adherents to Dawkins "nothing is something."

Actually, the scientific fact that we can draw on is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. And, from what we know of those reactions, there is no reason to suspect that any outside influence was required for them to start up.

Today, the reason that 'life only comes from life' is that the environment is quite different (because of the action of living things) than it was when life got started AND because any of the basic chemicals that would arise today would be devoured by the life that is already there. That short circuits the long process that happened 4 billion years ago leading to the earliest life.

Intelligence is something that developed LONG after the first life. It is a result of the complex information gathering abilities of brains.

And, yes, through quantum effects, it *is* possible for 'something to come from nothing'. In fact, in the Casimir effect, it has even been observed.

Maybe you need to update your information?