Q: from a Creationists to Evolutionist

Where did the Single Cell come from that jump started evolution?

How did biological matter come into existence?

According to Big Bang Theory where did all the dust and matter come from in the beginning?

and if this universe is expanding, what lies just beyond our universe?

if everything has a beginning and an end, where did the very first molecule come from?


my only conclusion is that if you trace everything back to the beginning something had to come from nothing which would need a creator, something so powerful it can make something from nothing which sounds weird but thats the only conclusion i can dome up with from a scientific standpoint. i know some of these questions seem redundant but humor me


Keeper

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Keeper of Kheb]

Can't you come up with some original questions? If you're going to ask the same questions that have be answered over and over and over again, you are going to get the same answers. The answers and questions appear in dozens of threads and dozens of other places on the interweb.

What's the point? You believe and nothing will change your mind. Others don't believe and nothing will change their mind.

Originally posted by Phage

What's the point? You believe and nothing will change your mind. Others don't believe and nothing will change their mind.

Do you really believe that? I personally know people from both sides some non believers turned believers and vice versa.

The answer to all your questions is;

"We dont know."


However, the fact that those things are unknown does not mean that we cannot see that evolution has taken place, and that to insist it hasnt is willful ignorance.

In fact, the theory of evolution is only a direct contradiction to those who state that the world was created 6000 or so years ago and nothing changed. There are many who believe in BOTH evolution and some sort of a Divine being or force. Those people believe that evolution is the way God creates, it is the will of the Divine, and so for them there is no contradiction.

There are religious people, spiritually minded people who do not believe the Bible is the literal word of God with no error.

If you are one of the people that DO think it is the literal word of God with no error. I have a few questions myself.

Where did God come from?

Is God a "something" or a "nothing?"

If God is eternally a something, why couldnt there have been an eternally existing something that WASNT a "god" from which the universe sprang?

Does not knowing a thing mean it is not so?

And who was God talking to when he said;

Genesis 1:26-27

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Did God have other God friends?

And why was he addressing "Adam" (since we see later Eve had not yet been created) as a "them" and male and female?

I can give you some answers for these:

Biological matter came into existence because all the ingredients (amino acids) for it happen to be water solvent, and thus were able to mix in the seas of early earth. Energy from magma leaking into the sea caused these ingredients to combine creating more complex materials, such as proteins, that in turn could be built into biological substances.

The 'single cell' in your original question would have been created in this way, although it probably would have been millions created over time in a variety of locations that eventually evolved the ability to reproduce themselves not just the one cell slowly expanding over the globe.

All the matter came from a singularity, that is, a ball of infinite mass that existed at the moment of the big bang. However where this singularity came from is not entirely known.

What the lies beyond the universe is probably just an infinite number of other universes, though it is likely that a lot of them are empty and not suited to life.

And no one knows where the first molecule came from, it will probably be a long time before anyone can say for sure.

It could be true that these mysteries require a divine being to answer them. But likewise it's just as likely that there is some other reason. Perhaps there was no beginning. Perhaps outside of universes, Time does not exist, and the multi-verse simply, 'exists', with no moment of creation and no ending.

Who knows? Interesting to consider by any means though.

reply to post by Keeper of Kheb


Take a look at this video: uk.youtube.com...
Abiogenesis explains the origin of life, evolution explains how life changes once it exists.


Remember: There are many organic molecules in space (quite common)


There are three sources of organic molecules on the early Earth:

1. organic synthesis by other energy sources (such as ultraviolet light or electrical discharges) (eg.Miller's experiments).
2. delivery by extraterrestrial objects (eg carbonaceous chondrites);
3. organic synthesis driven by impact shocks.

Originally posted by thirdeyeflight

Do you really believe that? I personally know people from both sides some non believers turned believers and vice versa.

In this venue, yes, I believe that.

The OP has asked same questions that are asked by every creationist. Notice that the questions go far beyond the scope of evolution into realm of the origins of the universe. The discussion of evolution has nothing to do with that. It is a distraction.

Notice the answers given are the same answers always given. The only answers that science can give.

It's doubtful that the OP hasn't already heard those answers and rejected them here and elsewhere.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Phage]

I just wrote a post about this topic in another thread. I'll repost it.

"Before" is a concept inherently linked to our concept of linear time. That is, we think of ourselves moving on a line from the past to the future and "before" refers to a past-ward direction from a specific point on that line. Given, however, that the direction we label "past" is not necessarily the same direction labeled as "past" in some other part of the universe, The universe does not have an absolute time line, only a local one.

The second key fact that must be understood is that matter and energy are interdependent with spacetime. Without matter and energy, there can be no spacetime. Without spacetime, there is nowhere for matter to be. The reason for this is beyond the scope of this article.

The third key fact is that the current best theory is that the Big Bang was triggered by quantum fluctuations, which are the spontaneous creation and subsequent destruction of quantum level pieces of matter. Again, the reason why this happens is beyond the scope of this article.

Now, given that spacetime is dependent upon the existence of matter and energy, the quantum fluctuation that was responsible for triggering the Big Bang is also responsible for bringing spacetime into existence. More to the point of this discussion and in everyday terms, it brought time into existence. Thus, it is nonsensical to talk of a time "before the Big Bang" because it is equivalent to talking of a time "before time" or asking "What is North of the North Pole ?"

I would also suggest reading up on quantum fluctuations and CP Violation. To greatly simplify them, quantum fluctuations happen randomly and seemingly without causation. Take a point in space and observe it on the quantum level. You will see pairs of virtual particles flash into and out of existence. Coming from nothing, then destroying themselves and not existing. It is the nature of the universe to have random energy fluctuations on the quantum level of existence that momentarily break the law of conservation, allowing the creation and evaporation of energy.

As for how life got here, there are a lot of ways it could have. It could have arrived on the back of a meteorite, formed naturally through the chemicals that were abundant in early earth history, or through many other theories that I don't care to go through right now, but can be researched in your own leisure time.

Not everyone has the same answer because there a lot of ways about how life can arise, and the people on here aren't scientists, as far as I know. It's like asking how many types of shrimp there are. Jumbo shrimp, shrimp kabab, fried shrimp...

Edit:

I would also like to take this opportunity to state that religion likes to go where science hasn't gone yet (or is trying to go) and claim that we can't figure it out. A long time ago people used to worship the sun. It was the giver of life, it came and went every day and was observable. In a way, this is probably one of the most accurate beliefs ever, because if it weren't for the sun, the first photosynthesizing life forms on Earth wouldn't have had any food and would have died out, which means we would never have gained an atmosphere that is oxygen rich, and we would have never had life forms that use the oxygen to live (bacteria in the lab have shown to change in order to use arsenic as a source of energy), and we would never have existed.

We eventually found out that the sun wasn't god, and a a great deal more about it as well. Whenever there is a question that science hasn't gotten around to answering confidently or they don't have a good answer yet, there will be religion saying "Look, there! They don't know yet so we're right!". It's a vicious cycle that keeps a lot of scientists motivated, in a way. Religion especially likes to prey on things when they change, as if it's a bad thing. That's the great thing about science, it changes. It doesn't change through degradation, but through accumulation of new knowledge and insights from other people who have discovered new things. The Scientific Method is rigorous, and involves things like Scientific Evidence, and Peer Review to ensure the quality of the work. There are many people who don't follow these rigors, and should not be called scientists. The people who do this usually work in the field of Psuedoscience, and feel that for some reason they shouldn't have to submit themselves to such high caliber criteria. This doesn't mean we don't accept things that are out of the ordinary. It means you better be able to prove them scientifically, and repeat the results with scientific evidence to back it up.

Science doesn't just "happen" and get included in the textbook. It has to follow the criteria, be looked over by others, and made sure that its as accurate as it can be with the current resources. As resources and technology get better, we get better and more accurate results, which in turn replaces the old and less accurate results.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

thanks for the replies, i know for sure i can search the web for these answers and have but its different when you can have a real discussion in a forum setting.



Keeper

reply to post by Keeper of Kheb


1. The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution.

2. The origin of the universe is nothing to do with evolution.

3. Where our universe is has nothing to do with evolution.

4. The origins of matter has nothing to do with evolution.

Are you creationists that ignorant of evolution that you think all those things have anything to do with it? No wonder you're so confused. You have no idea.

reply to post by Keeper of Kheb


Also, "we don't know" doesn't automatically imply God did it. That is as illogical as you can get.

Agreed, the "god of the gaps" theory is quite redundant, IMO, because (god willing! ha!) one day, there will be no more gaps.

Creationists, ask yourselves this:

Why wouldn't God use evolution?

What "we dont know" DOES mean, however, that those who use science to disprove "God" or a Divine will or force had a hand in creation are also being illogical.

We can say with fair certainty that the evidence does not support the literal Biblical idea of a creation in 6 days, around 6000 years ago, an Earth will all of its life forms in their current state.

We can NOT say with scientific certainty, that there is no Divine being or God. We can say that we know that particular story isnt true, in the way humans define truth.

Some of the criticisms of scientists by creationists are valid. (notice I say scientists, not science)

Many of the scientific theories presented here, are being stated by the presenter as if they were facts. (Such as life being created by energy coming in contact with amino acids) I knew of the Miller/Uray experiments,

www.chem.duke.edu...

and the work that followed, but that work does not give us a justified "absolute knowledge" claim. It gives us a hypothesis that has a good chance of bearing fruit, but it is NOT a "proven fact." Thus, I said the truth, "we dont know."

The reason biblical literalists have so much ammunition is because some foolish lovers of science are, in fact, doing what they are accused of by some creationists. Turning science into a religion by introducing "faith" and "belief" where it by definition cannot be.

The one thing science can consistently tell us is that we dont know. And what we dont know, and that things we thought we knew, we didnt. It gives us operational "knowledge" our best current hypothesis, but where it strays too far into the realm of "facts" and "absolute truth," it is going beyond its bounds. It is good to remember that most of the science of history, has been proven wrong by now. And we have no reason to "believe" that most of what we today call a knowledge will not tomorrow be the butt of scientific jokes. As Karl Popper said, it is hard to "prove" a thing because you need to conduct the experiment an infinite amount of times to show that on the 10,000,000,000 to the 100 power time that you wont get a different result. We also can not definitively rule out "hidden variables" which could well include "God willing."

This of course does not mean that science has no merit, no validity, and no use. It does. But we shouldnt over state our case, either. Science may never have this definition of facts;

www.wordreference.com...

fact
a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

but we do have these "facts,"

fact
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

There are long and boring volumes of philosophy on epistemology that debate whether anything ever can be "known" in an absolute way. Honestly, we dont even know that for certain. The debate rolls on.

Onioncloud chids religion for criticizing science for not knowing what it hasnt yet found the technology to demonstrate, but science is highly critical of religious or mystic claims about the nature of "what is" or the universe because they have not done the experiments. Science may yet serve to prove some of the mystic claims. It seems to me both sides are accusing the other of the same thing. Neither of us know, but claim absolute right to say the "truth."

What makes science preferable to me over some versions of religion is that at its heart, in its purest form, science knows it doesnt know, and keeps looking.

Onioncloud chids religion for criticizing science for not knowing what it hasnt yet found the technology to demonstrate, but science is highly critical of religious or mystic claims about the nature of "what is" or the universe because they have not done the experiments. Science may yet serve to prove some of the mystic claims. It seems to me both sides are accusing the other of the same thing. Neither of us know, but claim absolute right to say the "truth."

Hey, I don't claim that science can know everything. If you've read any of my posts in other topics, you'd know that. Or, if you read in this very thread that I say the very nature of science to change when better and more accurate knowledge is obtained, you would immediately know that implies we can never be 100% correct. If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of trying to get other people to use some rational thinking, or explore outside of their comfort zone.


Taken from one of my other posts:

Science is (that is to say, this is science and its natural properties):

1. Public and replicable
2. Cumulative
3. Systematic, Coherent, Comprehensive
4. Empirical
5. Fallible and Falsifiable
6. Comes from real evidence and conclusions
7. In Science, the Burden of Proof is on the Affirmative

Source

You can't exactly do an experiment on god, unless you consider asking him directly to do something for you in a very specific manner. I assume that will fail 100% of the time, but no one can be certain. The odds are certainly against it working, though.

Supernatural claims are rarely well defined, so it's also very hard to do experiments on them as well. However, there is one I can think of that is somewhat proven to be believable. Well, I don't know how supernatural you would call it, but I am referring to ball lightning. As with supernatural claims, the characteristics are fairly inconsistent, but they have been able to make something appear that matches the description, but it is uncertain if it is exactly what has been described.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Originally posted by OnionCloud
Hey, I don't claim that science can know everything. If you've read any of my posts in other topics, you'd know that. Or, if you read in this very thread that I say the very nature of science to change when better and more accurate knowledge is obtained, you would immediately know that implies we can never be 100% correct. If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of trying to get other people to use some rational thinking, or explore outside of their comfort zone.

I actually wasnt "accusing" you of anything. I was using a point you made to illustrate one of my own. You did say;

Originally posted by OnionCloud
I would also like to take this opportunity to state that religion likes to go where science hasn't gone yet (or is trying to go) and claim that we can't figure it out.

And I used that statement to point out that there are scientists, ( I did NOT say you were the scientist I was referring to, nor did I intend that) who do the same in reverse to mystics or the religious. Something being "ill defined" just means its "ill defined." Not that it isnt a "truth" as well. "Defining" a thing means we must use language. Language is a tool of the mind, the human brain, most mystic claims are of things "supernatural" or beyond the things seeable, touchable, or otherwise perceivable with the senses and so the fact that they are ill defined reflects that "beyond the senses" aspect only. It doesnt mean that there isnt another faculty of perception that some call "intuitive knowing" that can experience these aspects, and then is unable to communicate that experience with language which is very much tied to the other five senses.


In fact, many scientists who break new ground say that the idea "just popped into my head" or "I just had a feeling" or "something just told me to look" and then figured out a way to "define" it. Many of the greatest minds in science have had a relationship with this "intuitive knowing" and what makes them scientists and not mystics is that they were able to communicate their vision using material means. It is to their great benefit that the technology existed for them to do so, it is not really a statement on their superiority as a mind. Some other mind may have had that same intuitive knowing thousands of years prior, but not the technology or the language to demonstrate it. For instance, people DIDNT always thing the earth was flat. The Greeks knew the planets were spheres. Some Greeks already had an ill defined "theory of evolution,"

Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary suggestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends.

Notice that Anaximander is also getting really close to the Miller/Uray concept with his "moisture and heat." He could not say amino acids, the word and technology wasnt there.

What they lacked, (but laid the foundation to create) was the technology to define their understanding. The ancient Greeks also had an atomic theory. In fact, out of these mystical/philosophical musings and understandings one can find a lot of our "modern scientific discoveries." And they managed it all without telescopes, microscopes, or any modern lab equipment. Was it ill defined? Yes. Was the understanding they had inaccurate? We cant really know, they used the language and technology of the time to communicate it. It looks awfully primitive on paper, who knows what it was in their actual understanding?


Many scientists ARE disparaging of "mystic knowing" or "intuitive knowing" and they dismiss it as so much hoohah. I see it as just what you stated in regard to religious claims about science. It is someone pushing the bounds of understanding who lacks the technology to "prove it" in the way that scientific dogmatists are willing to consider evidence.

I was not bashing your criticism of religious people who do that, or even disagreeing with it. I was extending it to include scientists who do the same to the philosophical/mystical individuals.

Ok, that seems fair enough to me. If you're implying that there is some great consciousness that people have access to that pop things in to their heads, I'd have to disagree, but I think that'd be obvious to you anyways.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

I am not sure thats how I would phrase it, as a collective consciousness of sorts, but it could be, or if I would choose to say it is an as yet undefined and undefinable way of "knowing" that is not entirely dependent upon the senses that we have defined.

I would say for any ancient Greek to be able to perceive that there could be anything like atoms, which are imperceptible to the senses using the technology they had available;

Leucippus of Miletus (490-??? B.C.). Greek philosopher. First to introduce the idea of the atom, an indivisible unit of matter. This idea was later extended by his student, Democretus.

there is some other faculty at play here. It was not a wild guess. It was reasoned out, using a higher faculty of reason than that which deals with "knowns" or the normal perceptions.

Spinoza would later call it an "intuitive knowing."

He says of it;

Lastly, a thing may be perceived solely through its essence; when, from the fact of knowing something, I know what it is to know that thing, or when, from knowing the essence of the mind, I know that it is united to the body. By the same kind of knowledge we know that two and three make five, or that two lines each parallel to a third, are parallel to one another, etc. The things which I have been able to know by this kind of knowledge are as yet very few.

Here the struggle with language and the "language problem" can be seen. But he knows what he is talking about, and if you read, (as I do) the mystics and philosophers (who were also the founders of science I might add) as well as the scientists that have experienced this "knowing," you can see a common faculty being described in many, many different ways, using different terms, according to the culture, the language and the formal education and religious beliefs of the user of this faculty.

You dont have to agree with me that it is a fact that it exists in order to give it credibility in my eyes. I know it exists. I have experienced it myself. I have no idea what causes it, or where it comes from in a factual way, (God or the physical brain), nor could I do any better than anyone else who has tried to describe it in describing it. It is wholly other than the rational mind, and in my opinion, rational understanding of it cannot be had. But as a scientist, (or someone scientifically minded) you should be willing to look at the testimony and evidence for this as yet undefined faculty that we can call "intuitive knowing" with an open mind. You should be VERY well aware that you cannot make any claim that it doesnt exist simply because you dont know it or havent experienced it, only that as yet, we cannot quantify it or define it. Maybe we never will be able to. I would say that the history of science itself shows evidence for some faculty of "knowing" things one should not be able to know using "facts" alone.

And the fact that many of these people who are claiming to gain knowledge of things by this faculty are later shown to be pretty correct in that "knowing" should lend it some credibility as well, at least as an idea worth contemplation. Of course all the charlatans who claim to be "psychic" and be able to tell you if Suzy down the street will marry you sort of spoil it, but it is of note that none of the philosophers and scientists that described having access to this faculty ever worked for a psychic hotline, nor claimed they could use it to predict the future, only to know things in the present that already existed but could not be perceived the "normal" way, and they didnt even claim any control over what they could use it to perceive.

I don't think the idea of a final indivisible piece of matter is something that "out of this world", so to speak. A lot of children ask the same question when they are cutting things up; "How small can I get this, exactly?"

You can probably already guess that I think intuition is a thing about the physiology of the brain, but as you said, nothing really to base it on. In my opinion, I think it has to do with the subconscious and its inner workings. Maybe our subconscious/unconscious mind is working on things that aren't in our active mind at the moment, and every once in a while when something prevalent in the subconscious mind gets the last piece of the puzzle from the conscious mind, it pops in to existence?

I have experienced this before, and I find it a really interesting experience. I actually have a notebook sitting by my bed where I record these ideas, because I find they pop in to my head when I am falling asleep or relaxing. Some of them are just silly thoughts, but some are more interesting than others. I think to figure out where these ideas come from you'd essentially have to record every thought you had that day, and cross check them with your moment of inspiration. That, is practically impossible though, I think. You'd have to be pretty stringent, and you'd have to write down everything. I guess I'm thinking about it like the symptom of a sickness, and we're trying to diagnose it.

If our mind does indeed work on things very quietly, it could explain experiences like Deja Vu and Intuition. There have been experiments where neuronal firing had been delayed to give the patient the experience of deja, as if they saw the same thing twice, but the first time they didn't recognize it, so perhaps intuition are thoughts that never entered our complete awareness until they emerged at a later time?

The mind is an interesting place, and we're just starting to explore it in depth with science, to my knowledge. Neuroscience discoveries are probably the most interesting to me when they happen, so I definitely keep my eyes peeled.

This is kind of getting off the original topic, .