The Big Bang and Evolution

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Something cannot come out of nothingness.

Wrong on two points:

1) the Big Bang theory of how the universe started, never ever claims "something from nothing".

Scientists leave the "something from nothing" to Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 1-3.

2) If you create a hard vacuum? And observe it at the quantum level? You discover particle-pairs appearing and vanishing, constantly.

Apparently? Something does come from nothing-- all the time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Something cannot come out of nothingness.

You've got a logical problem here. One of two things, both apparently impossible, must be true given that there is a physical reality rather than nothing at all.

Whether this universe derived from another source like a multiverse or a god, or not, something apparently exists that has already spanned an infinite amount of past time to reach this moment, or something created itself from nothing and without cause.

Unless you can come up with a third possibility, pick one of those. You're going to be forced to choose something apparently absurd, so that cannot be a criterion for arbitrarily disqualifying only one of the two choices.

It's very common to introduce a special pleading fallacy here - a double standard for what is necessarily true for a universe and what is necessarily true for a god. Rigorous logic will be required in the first case, and faith based assertions in the other.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you or science explain that the only recorded accounts of something created out of nothing was Jesus fed the 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish. And that was not an isolated incident. Jesus demonstrated that the power of God can create something out of nothing.

What's recorded is the claim of an act, not the act itself. Why should such a story be believed?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

At least 2 problems. The don't really know what the first life form was.

What problem do you see there?

Even if they are right( as single celled blob), the laws of genetics will not allow it to become something more complex.

What laws of genetics? What genetic law could prevent DNA from becoming more complex?

When DNA was discovered, it is utterly impossible for something that complex to have originated by accident.

You'll need to alert the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) and the NAS (National Academy of Sciences). They seem to think otherwise. Why do you suppose that is?

How did you come to this knowledge of what is impossible - knowledge that apparently still eludes the scientific community? How could it be that some lay people would know more about science than the community of experts in the field?

Also, it is impossible for life to have its source in lifeless elements.

The opposite is self-evidently true. Lifeless molecules are organizing themselves into living cells by the millions in your own body right now under the direction of other lifeless molecules.

Do you consider a god - lets say your god - to be a living organism? Some people claim that He is a living god. Do you?

 

[Thumper]

An old book is irrelevant. It is verified by 4 honest men who considered bearing false witness a sin. Where is you evidence that the Bible is in the same category as the books you mentioned. Keep in mind that opinions are not evidence.

4 "honest" men? If by that you mean Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. It is well established that these are not the real authors of the Gospel, so we already have "bearing false witness" before reading the first word.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Scientists are absolutely unable to explain how it all began in a way which does not involve a Creator. But they will keep on trying. Jesus demonstrated that with God the seemingly impossible is possible.

Science is based on explaining what we observe, not what we haven't found or don't know yet. There is no valid argument against science based on what remains to be discovered or understood.

Positing a creator explains nothing. It solves no problems, but does introduce a lot of new ones.

Saying that "God did it" has no more explanatory power than saying "Norman did it" or "It did it itself." They're all claims until you add in supporting evidence and an explanatory mechanism. If lack of ability to explain is your criterion for unbelief, I suggest that you look away from religion to science. Science has explained much. It has predicted much.

And its explanations and predictions have improved the human condition. Religion doesn't do that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science is no closer to explaining the origin of life that it was in Darwin's time.

That's incorrect. Science is constructing a putative chain of events leading from simple molecules to the first replicator. Many links are still missing, but the form of a chain is becoming apparent. Some people have speculated that the chin will be complete within our lifetimes. Being in the last third of my life, I don't expect that.

If you care to find out what the state-of-the-art is, I recommend Google.

The Bible explains spiritual truth, not scientific truths, and they are just as important as scientific truths, especially if they are true.

What do you consider a spiritual truth? Something true about spirits like gods, demons, and angels?

Or maybe all Christian dogma is what you mean such as that man is born a sinner.

Or maybe you are talking about beauty or art. The Bible doesn't offer a lot of meaningful ideas there, so I doubt that that is what you are claiming that the Bible is a good source for.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unless you can explain how matter, energy and life created itself out of nothing, you don't even have a single standard. Only a pitifully, unscientific guess.

I think we're pretty satisfied with what we have. We need no such explanation. If we never have one, we will still be using the scientific method to understand our world. The proof is in the pudding: Science works. We won't be abandoning it for religion.

And though self-creation from nothing is a candidate hypothesis for the solution to the origins problem, and the one Krauss makes, it is not the only one, and he has no basis to rule out other possibilities. The scientific position is that we don't know what happened, not the one you are staking out for science.

These arguments against science based on what is not yet known are effete, and are more powerful against a god hypothesis, where absolutely nothing is known.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Since the vast majority of scientists who study genetics and evolution disagree with you - are they idiots who don't understand their subjects or is it an international conspiracy?

One of several questions that never gets an answer. The silence speaks for itself.

Has anybody ever discovered what a "kind" is, or what prevents evolution from doing what the faithful call macroevolution? Those are two more questions that seem to elicit cricket.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

G

God explains Himself. When Moses asks who shall I say sent me God says 'tell them I AM sent me.'

'Nuff said, right? I like to give that answer myself. What more explanation do you need?

It's like, "Who's there?"
"Me"
"Who?"
"I am"
You am what? Where are you?"
"Here"

You would be amazed at what this religion looks like from the outside. I understand that you are forbidden to entertain thoughts like these, and try not to think about such things. Your job is to find some kind of deep meaning in "! am."

But I can just look at the words and judge them on their merit without such presumptions. It doesn't seem so deep from here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Amazing then, that there are more Christians in the world than any other religion. Hard to imagine this being so if the Bible was a book of fables

Not at all. One of the religions has to be the biggest, and they all have fables. It's hard to imagine the biggest religion in the world not having fables.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A

And just how did the alleged primordial soup ( if it ever actually existed) come into existence.

Google is your friend. Look it up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When all of the scientist agree, get back to me. Evidently you do not know that basic law of genetics---Genes determine the characteristics the offspring will have. Characteristics in the offspring can only come from the genes in the gene pool of it s parents.

Is that true of false? If you say "false", explain where the characteristics come from

Of course that's false. What genes direct the production of fetal alcohol syndrome? None It's acquired in utero.

How about the microcephaly caused by Zika? Where is the microcephaly gene in the gene pool?

Toxins, infections, strangulation of the fetus by the cord, poisons, radiation - they can all potentially contribute to the characteristics of the offspring absent genetic mechanisms. How is it that you are unaware of that, but keep citing the laws of genetics as if you have authoritative scientific knowledge about the topic?

Mistakes like these tend to undermine your implied claim of authoritative knowledge.

I learned an interesting and helpful concept while studying argumentation that you might benefit from. It's called ethos, and refers to how the source is perceived apart from his message itself:

"In the study of argumentation, ethos refers to how the writer or speaker is perceived by his audience. It's a combination of perceptions such as, Is he knowledgeable about that which speaks? Is he fair? Does he have any unstated purpose? Is he polite? Can he be trusted? - in short, his character, credibility, and motivations. This is all separate from the argument or message itself (logos)."

You want to protect that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An old book is irrelevant. It is verified by 4 honest men who considered bearing false witness a sin.

You don't know that, and neither of us has a reason to believe it.

Keep in mind that opinions are not evidence.

Exactly.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are claiming that the vast majority of scientists who study generics either don't know or understand the "laws of genetics" or they are lying about them.

Which do you think it is?

Predicted response:

< sound of a pin dropping in the next room >

Inconvenient questions are ignored.

 

[Thumper]

Of course that's false. What genes direct the production of fetal alcohol syndrome? None It's acquired in utero.

How about the microcephaly caused by Zika? Where is the microcephaly gene in the gene pool?

Toxins, infections, strangulation of the fetus by the cord, poisons, radiation - they can all potentially contribute to the characteristics of the offspring absent genetic mechanisms. How is it that you are unaware of that, but keep citing the laws of genetics as if you have authoritative scientific knowledge about the topic?

Mistakes like these tend to undermine your implied claim of authoritative knowledge.

I learned an interesting and helpful concept while studying argumentation that you might benefit from. It's called ethos, and refers to how the source is perceived apart from his message itself:

"In the study of argumentation, ethos refers to how the writer or speaker is perceived by his audience. It's a combination of perceptions such as, Is he knowledgeable about that which speaks? Is he fair? Does he have any unstated purpose? Is he polite? Can he be trusted? - in short, his character, credibility, and motivations. This is all separate from the argument or message itself (logos)."

You want to protect that.

In one of my "argumentation & debate" classes my friend and I argued the aesthetic qualities of the Egyptian Arabian horse vs. the Polish Arabian horse (we co-owned a ranch at the time).

When we posted the topic, we left off the word "horse" so by the time we had the debate, the room was standing room only. The outcome was a tie and we had a blast. PS: Egyptian Arabians are prettier.

 

[sayak83]

A

And just how did the alleged primordial soup ( if it ever actually existed) come into existence.

Answered in the thread-posts below:-

Definition of Life
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

RNA world
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Prebiotic Chemistry
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

To origin of first cells
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Recent Advances
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

 

[leibowde84]

If evolution was true, the vast majority of fossils would be intermediate and to date you have zero, zilch, nada.

All fossils are intermediate. Species have constantly changed through random mutation and natural selection, and still continues to do so now. You just have to take in the immense time that evolution occurs over.

 

[omega2xx]

You are claiming that the vast majority of scientists who study generics either don't know or understand the "laws of genetics" or they are lying about them.

Which do you think it is?

When you answer my question I will answer yours.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[omega2xx]

So is your god not "something"? If it is, then, according to you, it needs a source...

Everything that is not eternal needs a source. God is eternal.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.