The Can of Worms!!!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
In every thread i open i get hammered with questions about how can god? why would god? why should i believe? what is the proof?
now i want to ask questions that i feel have to do with gaps in the secular evolution theorys! and i would like them to be taken in context to the laws of thermodynamics,
#1 Matter can be altered or (converted), but not created (from nothingness) nor destroyed (reduced to nothingness). matter cannot spring forth from nothing without cause, nor can it simply vanish!
#2 the Second Law states that entropy ( disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.
# 3 Although you can approach absolute zero as closely as you want,
no one can actually reach this limit.

THE CAN OF WORMS!
what was the beginning? (the genesis) what was the first thing? the very first thing?where did it come from?( if you believe there was a bang! then where did the stuff for the bang come from?)
Where did matter come from?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
How did the intermediate forms live?
Which evolved first? The digestive system, or the food to be digested?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
How could the first living cell begin? Thats a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into a man?
Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? it takes 2 to tango if you know what i mean!

going off of the three laws stated above, my thought is this,
Law # 1 would demand, one of two possibilities about the nature of the universe, and life therein, One would be that it has always existed, having never come from nothingness. The other possibility is that it did not come from nothingness, but from a transcendant ( outside the universe) creator who is not subject to the laws within the universe. I believe god was the genesis, i believe everything we know of could not have come from nothing!
Your thoughts??????????????






Mod Edit: to remove ALL-CAPS from thread title.


[edit on 8-1-2005 by kinglizard]




posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
In every thread i open i get hammered with questions about how can god? why would god? why should i believe? what is the proof?
now i want to ask questions that i feel have to do with gaps in the secular evolution theorys! and i would like them to be taken in context to the laws of thermodynamics,
#1 Matter can be altered or (converted), but not created (from nothingness) nor destroyed (reduced to nothingness). matter cannot spring forth from nothing without cause, nor can it simply vanish!
#2 the Second Law states that entropy ( disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.
# 3 Although you can approach absolute zero as closely as you want,
no one can actually reach this limit.

THE CAN OF WORMS!
what was the beginning? (the genesis) what was the first thing? the very first thing?where did it come from?( if you believe there was a bang! then where did the stuff for the bang come from?)
Where did matter come from?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
How did the intermediate forms live?
Which evolved first? The digestive system, or the food to be digested?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
How could the first living cell begin? Thats a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into a man?
Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? it takes 2 to tango if you know what i mean!

going off of the three laws stated above, my thought is this,
Law # 1 would demand, one of two possibilities about the nature of the universe, and life therein, One would be that it has always existed, having never come from nothingness. The other possibility is that it did not come from nothingness, but from a transcendant ( outside the universe) creator who is not subject to the laws within the universe. I believe god was the genesis, i believe everything we know of could not have come from nothing!
Your thoughts??????????????




what was the beginning? (the genesis) what was the first thing? the very first thing?where did it come from?

The beginnging was the big bang, the first thing along with the only thing could be wat scientists call *strings*, either that or sub atomic particles

Where did matter come from?

The point of singulatiry

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

when... Its impossible to know exacally when life first *come from non-living matter*, but ill assume you mean here on earth, and that would be approx 3.5Billions years ago, thats whats generally accepted by scientists.
where... Its impossible to know exacally where life first showed up, *from non living matter*. it could be here on earth or it could be millions of light years away, could of been another dimension 10000000billion years ago. Life could of *come from non living matter* right here on earth, it might of travelled here by chance on a asteroid (This theory is called Panspermia), which would mean that this life could of originated on another planet/moon. It could of came from another planet/moon and evolved into an advanced civilisation, and then the seeds of life may of been planet here on earth, who knows. Alot of research indicated it most probably would of first showed up in water, if it did originate here on earth
Why... well these first first life forms where only prokaryotic cell organisms (organism with a distinct nucleus), and its believed that *why* they showed up was just a matter of 'chemical reactions', they had no purpose, they, where just a result of certain chemicals mixing in certain conditions.
how... as ive said in one of my other posts a few days ago, Chemosynthesis

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
When, impossible to say, like my above point. Life may of been reproducing on other planets before here on earth.
Where, Impossible to say yet again, could be here on earth or in be on another planet, or even from another dimension. Its impossible to know.
why, Why did it learn to reproduce itself. It didnt learn to reproduce itself, it was bound to happen because it was always going to be the driving force in nature because evidentually it would be the best way to survive- natural selection.
how did life learn to reproduce itself? mutations in its DNA, allowing it to carry out specialized functions to make copies of itself, the first reproduction would of been asexually in a process called mitosis, where there would have been no genetic variation, unless of a mutation

what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Single cells arent capable of sexual reproduction, well atleast not on this planet, they are only capable of asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction only occures in multicelled organisms

Which evolved first? The digestive system, or the food to be digested?
This is a hard quesiton, mainly because the question itself isnt very persific. the first kinds of life on this planet used photosynthesis to obtain energy, this would of involved non organic marterials being its food, so in one way the materials needed for photosynthesis would of exsisted before the photosynthetic organisms themselves, and the *non orangic materials* didnt really evolve... Can you please try and refraise your question because im not sure if your meaning, food in general or food for the persific digestive system. (eg, apple to a humans digestive system

The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Both, life has a drive to reproduce, it wants to survive, but yet it needs the ability to reproduce in the first place(why would reproduction of occured on a large scale if there wasnt a drive, and how could it occur if there was no ability to reproduce?). Biologically speaking, reproduction/survival is the first priority.

Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
no i believe everything came from something. Im guessing this question is in concern with the big bang theory... Some scientests believe that the universe expands then collapes in on itself, this then creates another *big bang* and so the cycle never ends. BTW, *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing ninki?* If God created the universe? yes? then nothing would of exsisted before the *creation*, besides god that is...

How could the first living cell begin? Thats a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into a man?

Chemosynthesis, as i said early, the first living cell wasnt anything special, it is a prokaryotic cell you could basically discribe it as a chemical reaction in a bubble(membrane), it wasnt until about 1.5billion years that eukaryotic cells arose, which have a nucleus and where much more complex.
But need i say, there is alot of contriversy on what the definition for *life* acturally is, traditionally, they define life by listing several features characteristic to life, including metabolism, growth and development, responsiveness, and reproduction. because of its central importance in evolution, many emphasize reproduction. is an enzyme alive? is a virus alive? is a cell alive? the ability to reproduce... So its hard to actually answer your question, there to much variation in definations for life, but i did it best i could. it really just depends on who your talking to. i personally believe that probability of man evolving is far less then the probability of the first cell arising...

Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? it takes 2 to tango if you know what i mean!
yes i have heard about them, i think i posted something a while back to you about them... i dont acturally understand what your asking in this question.



[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
ps: why are you so fond of *laws of thermodynamics*. when you arent really fond of any other scientific theorys? you do understand this dont you? thermodynamics laws cant be 100% (beyond resonable doubt) correct. Its the same case with evolution.
Why do u trust in thermodynamics?


[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
CHEESER- i do not trust in anything other than jesus christ, but i regard the laws of thermodynamics to be very credable, as to your above answers,thank you!~ but they fall very short of what i am looking for!
i feel you just add time to anything that is impossable,"well that could never happen" we will just add 100 million years to it then maybee!
the other point that you missed is where is the genesis (the beginning)? how could everything come from nothing? Scientists have not been able to generate a life form out of non-living substances, and yet you maintain that this is how life began on earth. i dont think so!
you say you believe that we came from non living matter right?
like what dirt? chemicals?
it is funny to me that you believe in the beginning there was dirt, and the dirt got real smart and created the life around us as we know it!
what to you makes that more believable than in the beginning there was a god creator? and he created the life as we know it!?
I believe god was the genesis, i believe everything we know of could not have come from nothing! nor dirt nor chemicals!
do you understand the laws of thermodynamics?
you cannot get something from nothing, and when you do have something, it will wind down eventually unless there is an outside power source that intervines. (god is all powerful)
so again i say, The First Law would demand, one of two possibilities, about the nature of the universe. One is that it has always existed, changing form maybee but never having come from nothingness.
The other possibility is that it did not come from nothingness, but from a transcendant (outside the universe) creator who is not subject to the laws within the universe.
i will quote you on this "the first cell was not anything special" WHAT????
do you have any idea how special a cell would have to be to do what you said it did?????
so lets talk about cells, To claim that all of the wonderful balances inside the human cell,and our bodies, came to be in the course of time by chance, would fly in the face of scientific fact and logic!! because In order for a living thing to survive, its whole system and all its organs must come to be at the same time! why a mouth with no stomach? why a heart with no blood? why a brain with no nerves? why a kidney with no bladder? why a liver with no stomach or intestines? rather i should ask how????
do you want to know how complex one human cell realy is?????look it up for yourself or go to this site www.harrypottermagic.org...

"Each of the trillions of cells in the body is a LIVING ORGANISM living protoplasm and in order to carry on life processes they must convert food, air and water into energy and tissue and food for tissue. These elements must be changed into such a form that they can be absorbed as food and be carried to all parts of the body. This process is called DIGESTION. Air must enter the body to oxidize foods; this is called RESPIRATION. Altered food and oxygen are dissolved in the blood and carried through the body to hungry cells. The heart pumps the blood to all parts of the body; this is called CIRCULATION. Waste products, like the ashes of a furnace, must be removed; this operation is known as EXCRETION. All of this highly complicated performance must have directing intelligence, and this is in the Central Nervous System, assisted by the Autonomic Nervous System. Working closely with the nervous system are the DUCTLESS GLANDS which pour hormones into the blood stream when needed for the control of various activities."

on a last note, please do not just drag my post down to yours! i know what i said, so do you! just respond dont drag the post over and over, thanks!



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
ps: why are you so fond of *laws of thermodynamics*. when you arent really fond of any other scientific theorys? you do understand this dont you? thermodynamics laws cant be 100% (beyond resonable doubt) correct. Its the same case with evolution.
Why do u trust in thermodynamics?


[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]


Nonsense. The Laws of Thermodynamics are 100% correct, otherwise they wouldn't be laws they would be theories. Can you not make the distinction between evolution (theory) and scientific laws?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Ok, to start this off I will quickly address the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are in the top 6 of the most important scientific realizations in all of human history. (Maybe even as high as 3) If anyone here wants a lesson on why, feel free to ask, but breifly....all of relativity and quantum mechanics are based in these laws. As said above by symon, they are laws...not theories. Big difference.


Now, entropy, or the tendency for quantum particles to move to disorder is a very important piece of information. On the surface, without critically looking, many creationists use this in there arguments to rule out evolution. I have actually covered this about 20 times in the last 6 or so posts that themselves have evolved into evolution ironically...

Entropy does not rule out evolution. Entropy in no way supports creation unless you look at the big picture and completely remove it from all evolution arguments.

Now Ninki, I am glad that you are looking deeper into things and citing the real arguments towards God. Where did life begin? What started it all? These are truly valid questions, and it is these questions that none of us can argue. Though these same questions still provide the same level of certainty for an athiest.

I would suggest some things to you. I would look into the big bang theory which you apparently support in a manor of speaking. Look into how the hubble telescope played a role in coming to that inevitable conclusion. Look into spectrograph information from stars. Learn what it is and how it was discovered. Learn how it works. Learn how the doppler effect works, and why it is relevant when it comes to spectrograph information from stars. Learn why the laws of thermodynamicsa are crucial in science today. Particularly in relativity science. Relativity physics to be more precise. Learn how general relativity and special relativity came about (even though it was once said that only the most intelligent 5% of people were able to understand it, I can assure you that we all can...no matter how intelligent). Learn what are the consequences of a proven relativity theory. What are the consequences of bending light. Why are they important? There is so much information for you to learn. But please, do not cite scientific principals as base arguments to your cause unless you fully understand them. I would be more than happy to give you a 100% unbiased look into these scientific principals if you want. Feel free to ask. I am not a professor in physics, but I am well read.

After you learn about these things, you will understand why the vast majority of scientists believe in a "big bang" or beginning to the universe. You will also know why a very small percentage believe in a static one as well. Knowing how these conclusions were drawn, and why, would be a big help in your quest to spread you beliefs. Without this knowledge, all you are doing is repeating things you read, or heard. Much like the beginning of this thread. Your ideas will be much more respected, if you know the science behind your scientific references.

Now this is the edited part. I havent figured out what your reference to absolute 0 meant. Maybe a reference to infinity??

[edit on 1/10/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
SEAPEOPLE- well i do think that entropy makes a difference in evolution, we are not a capable vehicle to regenerate ourselves, we tend toward disorder we do not get better we get worse!
as to the big bang i totaly believe it, it is i bet realy much like BANG when god speaks and out of nothing something is spoken into existance so on this level i agree with scientists, but i do not agree with the timing! or the implication of evolution threreafter, i believe the bang was god saying let there be! because how do we with our laws have everything come from nothing???? HOW??? it cannot happen!! and i do not see why believing that in the beginning there was dirt! is so much more appealing to people rather than in the beginning there was a god! actually yes i do! see i figure out my own head on here sometimes! any whoo if you believe in the beginning there was dirt that sprung from no where and came from nothing and will always get smarter and better well then you dont have to deal with sin, accountability, or god! whaalaaa! we come from nothing we are nothing,to nothing we shall return! i dont buy it!!!!
none of you answered my questions here,
Scientists have not been able to generate a life form out of non-living substances, and yet you maintain that this is how life began on earth???

In order for a living thing to survive, its whole system and all its organs must come to be at the same time! why a mouth with no stomach? why a heart with no blood? why a brain with no nerves? why a kidney with no bladder? why a liver with no stomach or intestines? rather i should ask how????

where did the stuff for the bang come from?
Where did matter come from?
how did life come from non-living matter?
how did life learn to reproduce itself?
what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
How did the intermediate forms live?
Which evolved first? The digestive system, or the food to be digested?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
How could the first living cell begin?

the inevitable answer is???????????????



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
SEAPEOPLE- i wanted to add this to your u2u but it is too cool to me to be only for you and me to read!
you have mentioned before that everything broken down is realy made of the same thing right? that is so cool because everything is made of the same at that level (now what makes a rock a rock and what makes a frog a frog?) i suggest to you the LOGAS!!!!
in the greek logas is the word they used for the (thing) that pulls everything as we know it together and holds them in place.
they also call jesus the logas in greek, in john! "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god, all things have been made through him and for him and without him nothing was made!!"
why i wonder would john say that ?
BECAUSE JESUS IS THE LIVING WORD(THE LOGAS) WICH PULLED EVERYTHING AS WE KNOW IT FROM NOTHING AND CREATED OUR UNIVERSE (ONE SPOKEN SENTANCE) WITH THE WORD OF HIS MOUTH!!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Nonsense. The Laws of Thermodynamics are 100% correct, otherwise they wouldn't be laws they would be theories.


Science is all theory, calling a scientific theory a law doesn't make it 100% true, just because it appears to be true doesn't mean it is.
Everything is theory...there is no fact.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Ok,

We are getting closer to being on the same level Ninki. Science as it stands now, cannot tell you what makes something alive...other than its functions. That being said, it is just as logical to say that God is the difference between animate and inanimate objects as it is to say electricity is. It is perfectly logical to presume that God started this electricity. Just as logical as it is to say he didn't.

We as humans cannot comprehend the power that a God would need to create the universe from nothing. We as humans cannot comprehend infinity and a static ever-existing universe. We as humans cannot comprehend a universe that spontaneously existied from nothing. All of which are just as likely scenerios as the next. We cannot understand any of them. The fact that we cannot understand can be enough for a believer to believe, and a skeptic to question. Science cannot answer all. What things science can answer strongly suggest that the bible was written by people who had a poor understanding of the science behind the world they lived in. It gives people a reason to question anything in the bible due to its inconsistencies.

Now, I want to point something out to you. People say they beleive, but do they really? Or is it just hope? I would like to put forth the idea that all religious faith is hope, rather than true belief. For instance:

You are riding a bike ninki, to a jump you made in your back yard. There is a ditch beyond the jump that you must clear. Now you are truly confident that you will make it when you jump. Its not that far, and you may have done it before. You might be a little nervous or apprehensive....maybe not. Again, you are sure that you will make it. You start pedaling. As you get closer your foot slips a little on the pedal. You hit the jump. Do you make it? You were sure you would. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. You may have truly believed that you would make it, but even with that belief, there was always a question. You thought you would make it...but you would concede to yourself that you may not. That is similar to belief in a god. You may believe in one, but deep down inside, you cannot know for sure whether he is there or not. Most christians will deny that, but they are only lying to themselves.

If you want to truly believe something, look no further than math. 5 + 5 = 10. I believe it. No matter what I do, it will always be true. Math.... The Anti-God. Faith in a God could never come close to faith in numbers. Not even if you think it does on the surface. Self introspect and you will find that you personally trustr math more than your faith Ninki, I assure you of that.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
SEAPEOPLE- i believe you are spiritual exercise for my mind!and that is good for anyone!

ok faith what is it? you say hope,well i agree, HEB 11:1 says this "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen"

believe what does that mean? you say trust, i agree it is to accept as true or real and give credit to something, it also means to expect.

Math is not the anti god! as i believe (key word) god created it! i also believe that when you look into the word of god you will find that science and faith in god go more together than one might think! you stated above that these questions are unanswerable without a higher power right? why if we are on this plannet and we know a higher power put us here, why then would we not devote ourselves fully to the study of his words? and if you believe it is some other god besides jesus,read their words, do the reasearch, i have looked into it and i have found all other religions to be lacking a great something,, i call it truth! the very same truth that i believe in ( key word) have faith in (key word), not only that i do think gods invisable qualitys are obvious all throughout the universe!
so as to my questions above you agree that we were made as a whole being or you believe we started as space dirt????in the beginning was god? or in the beginning was dirt???



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
When you say that you looked into other religions, and what you found was a lack of truth, what are you referring too? In other words, what religions, and what are they lying about.

What evidence do you have that allows for you to state these other religions are based on lies, while yours is based in fact? Now, this of course must not be answered by saying, "the bible". That is because every religions has their own doctrine. So for you to say you found this religion based in truth... what do you mean?

Referring back to my last post. So you agree that faith is hope rather than knowledge correct? Do you also agree that mathematical processes are knowledge?

As far as your question about "in the beginning". I can answer like this only. In the beginning for us, surely we were space dust. What I cannot say for sure is how that space dust became us. Maybe it was God. Maybe we are not as nifty as we think. You are learning where your argumetns should be regarding this subject though....impressive!



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to evolution and it probably gets brought up the most by creationists. I'm not too well versed in the laws, so Im going to act like I am, but you do realize, that with the arguement you are using, you not only negate evolution, but your existence as well?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Seapeople- it seems to me all other religions are mans attempt to reach god, not gods attempt to reach man. christ was the one who gave his life for me, i think i will stick with a god who loves me for who i am, not what i can do for him, because i can do nothing worthy of an eternity with the lord!
Math does not in my book = knowledge
the fear of the lord = knowledge!

ALEC- did you read the thread? you answered nothing. negate my existance??? i dont think you are paying attention, the laws say that matter cannot be created or destroyed right? and to whom do these laws apply? we who live in this universe right? GOD does not fit into this box, therefore he is the answer he is the a transcendant ( outside the universe) creator who is not subject to the laws within the universe. I believe god was the genesis, i believe everything we know of could not have come from nothing! now as to my questions, and they do fit into evolution, i will repeat this again!
how did life come from non-living matter?
how did life learn to reproduce itself?
what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
How did the intermediate forms live?
Which evolved first? The digestive system, or the food to be digested?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Scientists have not been able to generate a life form out of non-living substances, and yet you maintain that this is how life began on earth???
In order for a living thing to survive, its whole system and all its organs must come to be at the same time! why a mouth with no stomach? why a heart with no blood? why a brain with no nerves? why a kidney with no bladder? why a liver with no stomach or intestines? rather i should ask how???? if you believe in evolution answer that for me will you?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
i am re-posting here, to bring this up the chain of command, i am interested in hearing from an athiest. i would like your view, in light of the questions posed above and the laws? what do you think?





top topics
 
0

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 84 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def