I will be taking the position that Intelligent Design is more reasonable than unintending naturalism

Where did the matter come from that produced the "Big Bang"?


"The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing... it represents a true miracle." ~ Dr. Paul Davies, Physicist and Evolutionist, "The Edge of Infinity", 1995


"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing- zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." ~ Discover, "Guth's Grand Guess", vol 23. April 2005, P. 35


"It is only fair to say we still have a theory without a beginning." ~ Dr. Joseph Silk, (Ph D. Astronomy and Professor of Astronomy University of Oxford), "The Big Bang", 2001, p. xv


"Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness." ~ Sten Odenwald, (PhD Astrophysics and Chief Scientist with Raytheon STX Corp at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), "The Astronomy Cafe'", 1998, p. 120


There is a big difference between Creationist's miracles and Evolutionist's miracles.. in the Bible we have miracles, we recognize there are miracles all over the text. We have a miracle maker, God. So at least we have a reasonable faith. Evolution clearly requires miracles as well as the quotes demonstrate, but they have no miracle maker, it's based upon "materialism". Sorry, but..

that is called a "BLIND" faith.



"ex nihilo, nihilo fit" = From nothing, nothing comes.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Yes, position 1 is impossible because if the universe were infinitely old it would be at it's "heat death". Physics in this century has shown that the universe isn't infinitely old, it had a beginning and it will have an end, called it's "heat death".

The fact alone that we observe the universe has energy proves it isn't infinitely old. Option 1 is impossible. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

and of course 2 is impossible, nobody claims it.

Are you sure? You'd better look at the quotes I presented above.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


There is a fourth option or at least a 3b and that is the universe was created as a technological experiment by a technologically advanced creator. This is why there is an experiment currently under-way to try and detect graininess in the universe.

Without a doubt there is a God(intelligent creator).

I use to be an atheist until I finally gave other thoughts a chance to see where I was blinding myself.

The probability of the big-bang creating life is comparable to the probability of a bomb going off a printing shop to create the dictionary.

Some intelligence had to of put the pieces together!


Some people say well space is infinite, why wouldn't there be other life out there?

Well God is infinite/eternal why wouldn't God dwell in an infinite space?

How can there be a limit to space? What would be outside the limit? Nothing? To have nothing is impossible, that is why everything is possible. It doesn't mean it's all happening right now, because all that is possible is through God's creation.

It's funny to me that science is now just finding out that space is infinite when the Bible indirectly declares that by saying God is infinite/eternal and that the universe is his kingdom.


Do people ever stop and think about how much water we have on this planet earth compared to everything else out there?

To stop and think if one little thing was off that life wouldn't exist?

To stop and think that out of all the thousands of living species that we were the only ones to know God?

To stop and think how beautiful this world is? How can we be so lucky to not only be who we are, but to be a part of a world that is so beautiful. Look at the skys, sunsets, waterfalls, rainbows, birds chirping...LOVE created this world.

Do you guys really think there is anything in creation form greater than us out there?

I mean look at the technology we have created...WOW. We all hold to a form of godliness given from God, but most deny it's power.




Just as if you were to create some sort of intelligence(for example lets say a robot), that creation will never be able to comprehend it's creator.

Just as we'll never be able to comprehend our creator's intelligence, we can only know our creator!

People may say, "Well who created God then?". Like I said we can only know our creator. The Bible says that God is the first and the last. There was no beginning and there is no end. Why can't we comprehend this? Because we cannot comprehend our creator, we can only know our creator.

Originally posted by randomname

Originally posted by Aggie Man
In my book, randomness defeats mystical design 7-days a week. Got any proof for your stance beyond the word of the "good book"? I mean any proof whatsoever? If you want to present your argument, then lay it out with a well thought out defense. At least try to debunk the debunkers before they ...debunk.

randomness is how im building my house. a bunch of contrators came over and dug a foundation and randomly started throwing building materials, plasterboards, wooden railings a couple of sinks a fridge and some electrical wires, tiles and 2x4's.

i'm still waiting for evolution finish my house because all i got right now is a giant ditch with $475,000 worth of supplies. maybeif i wait 700 million years, i'll have a 14 room mansion with an infinity pool.

my next project is a random car. i'm going to a scrapyard and an automotive centre and buying all the necessary parts. then i'm going to toss them all randomly on my driveway and hope it assembles itself.

if something as simple as a car or a house can't come into existence without someone designing and building it, how can you think that something that is much more complicated and so infinitely complex that modern tech.
and the best scientic minds can't understand and can't come close to duplicating, such as the human eye, or base elements such as gold, was just random luck.

have you any idea how ridiculous that sounds. the laws of probablity can't even compute the odds. the odds are zero.

you want proof, you're living proof. the atmosphere and air that supports life is proof. the sun that gives life to the plants that supply our oxygen is proof. there are million examples of proof but you're to blind to see it.

just like your car is proof that ford built it, the universe is proof God created it.

edit on 20-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

But, a cars not alive, it can't do anything to effect change.
I don't find that a valid point, sorry.

reply to post by chancemusky

But, a cars not alive, it can't do anything to effect change.
I don't find that a valid point, sorry.

You're right, it's an absurd comparison. I mean a car compared to a single simple cell?? The comparison isn't even in the same galaxy. A car might have 200,000 parts max, while a single cell is more complex than New York city.

You're right, the comparison to a car is absurd.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by chancemusky

 

But, a cars not alive, it can't do anything to effect change.
I don't find that a valid point, sorry.

You're right, it's an absurd comparison. I mean a car compared to a single simple cell?? The comparison isn't even in the same galaxy. A car might have 200,000 parts max, while a single cell is more complex than New York city.

You're right, the comparison to a car is absurd.

if we knew the secret of the mitochondria and the use of ATP we would have limitless bio energy, or the secrets of photosynthesis. these processes tap into quantum energies, and they are very efficient.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


How could we humans have photosynthesis without chlorophyll?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, there could possibly be other photoreactive chemicals. I mean, none of them are present in human biology, but there might be other chemicals that would react with a different color....but yeah, how could we produce photosynthesis without the only photosensitive found exclusively in plants?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


No, these processes tap chemical energies. In fact, 'quantum energy' isn't a thing, it's a buzzword used by people who don't understand what 'energy' is.


Energy = the ability of a physical system to do work.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well, there could possibly be other photoreactive chemicals. I mean, none of them are present in human biology, but there might be other chemicals that would react with a different color....but yeah, how could we produce photosynthesis without the only photosensitive found exclusively in plants?

Beats me.. I'm halfway inclined to believe I mis-read the guy's post....

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Where did the matter come from that produced the "Big Bang"?

It already existed.

"The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing... it represents a true miracle." ~ Dr. Paul Davies, Physicist and Evolutionist, "The Edge of Infinity", 1995

Can't find the source on this. Also, this guy isn't a cosmologist, he's works in physics with relation to biology, he's a cancer research.

Oh, and there's no such thing as an evolutionist, it's a stupid word you ciruitist.

And this isn't from a piece of scientific research. You do realize that, right? Oh, and what's with the ellipses? Can I get what's in the middle there?

Smells like a quote mine, but I'm not sure.

"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing- zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." ~ Discover, "Guth's Grand Guess", vol 23. April 2005, P. 35

Also can't find the original version. And 'Discover' isn't a scientific source, it's a popular science magazine. There's no context here. Quote mine smell, again.

"It is only fair to say we still have a theory without a beginning." ~ Dr. Joseph Silk, (Ph D. Astronomy and Professor of Astronomy University of Oxford), "The Big Bang", 2001, p. xv

This actually makes sense. It sort of refers to the fact that the point at which the big bang happened is when time began, thus there wasn't anything prior to the big bang...thus 'beginning' might not have any meaning.

So the actual astronomer isn't saying that something came from nothing, huh.

"Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness." ~ Sten Odenwald, (PhD Astrophysics and Chief Scientist with Raytheon STX Corp at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), "The Astronomy Cafe'", 1998, p. 120

Yes, for the quantum production. They don't know what exactly happened, but they know it started out as an expansion, it's the only idea that fits the evidence. That's the difference between you religious people and we rational people, we can be satisfied with not having an answer for now.

Hell, we don't claim to have all the answers, we just claim our answers are better.

There is a big difference between Creationist's miracles and Evolutionist's miracles.. in the Bible we have miracles, we recognize there are miracles all over the text.

Again, no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a belief system. Hell, it doesn't even have to do with the Big Bang. Evolution has to do with the diversification of life, not with the origin of the universe.

Or would evolution not happen if a supernatural deity created everything? What would be the barrier?

We have a miracle maker, God.

Or so your faith tells you. You have no evidence for it.

So at least we have a reasonable faith.

No, you have unreasonable faith. You have no evidence.

Evolution clearly requires miracles

No, it doesn't. It requires population genetics. It doesn't require a big bang. You are lying. I have explained this to you before, repeatedly. You should know by know that the theory of life diversifying via population genetics has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or the origin of anything else. It merely requires life to arise or be created or simply pop into existence for no reason at all or be thrown up onto this world by a cosmic burrito. Evolution is a consequence of life.

as well as the quotes demonstrate,

None of which come from scientific literature, none of which have original sources provided, and one of which doesn't actually have anything to do with what you're prove. Oh, and none of them mention evolution.

but they have no miracle maker, it's based upon "materialism".

Like all science is. Our computers use the exact same science.

Sorry, but..

that is called a "BLIND" faith.

Sorry, but this whole post is called deliberate lies. You know, I put the Google machine to use and the only sources I found for the quotes you provided were from creationist sources. I didn't find a single original version of any of the quotes.

"ex nihilo, nihilo fit" = From nothing, nothing comes.

Please, find me a scientific paper, a paper published in any 1st tier scientific journal, that claims that something came from nothing. Just 1. And obviously a reference to the original material.

Of course, evolution isn't about the origin of anything, it's about the diversification of life.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Yes, position 1 is impossible because if the universe were infinitely old it would be at it's "heat death". Physics in this century has shown that the universe isn't infinitely old, it had a beginning and it will have an end, called it's "heat death".

The fact alone that we observe the universe has energy proves it isn't infinitely old. Option 1 is impossible. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Yes, but again, option 1a works. And 'heat death' isn't the only accepted universal end possibility, there's also the idea of a big crunch.

and of course 2 is impossible, nobody claims it.

Are you sure? You'd better look at the quotes I presented above.

I can't find the original sources on any of them, and I already addressed them, above.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

How could we humans have photosynthesis without chlorophyll?

im talking about the efficiency and ingenuity of various natural processes which create energy that tap in quantum processes and energies.

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
im talking about the efficiency and ingenuity of various natural processes which create energy that tap in quantum processes and energies.

Can you define what you mean by "quantum energy"?

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
im talking about the efficiency and ingenuity of various natural processes which create energy that tap in quantum processes and energies.

Can you define what you mean by "quantum energy"?

specifically referring to how plant and animal cells are able to create usable energy so efficiently:

www.lbl.gov...
The photosynthetic technique for transferring energy from one molecular system to another should make any short-list of Mother Nature’s spectacular accomplishments. If we can learn enough to emulate this process, we might be able to create artificial versions of photosynthesis that would help us effectively tap into the sun as a clean, efficient, sustainable and carbon-neutral source of energy.

mitochondrial synthesis of ATP is another example:
www.sp.uconn.edu...

The point is that macromolecular structures and processes which tap into quantum processes and energies suggests foreknowledge(intent & design), or evolutionary reverse engineered technology (the molecular level 'learning lessons' from the sub-atomic).

This is part of my argument of orders of systems which can be found at:
www.purchaseinpower.com...

uva3021

Originally posted by mrphilosophias


BTW I'm not sure if anyone noticed but the anthropic principal got owned up there and I am curious who understands why the anthropic principle is essentially redundant misdirection in these questions of Origins and probability.

No its not. The anthropic principle is self-evident, and any attempt at disowning the principle through misguided dirges on probability, including calling multiplication of probabilities a "summation", do not in any way "own".

It is not a question of probability, but a question of redundancy, and absurdity.
For instance the anthropic principle can be summed up as(:.means therefore):

Premise 1: A universe hospitable to life exists
:.
A universe hospitable to life exists

:.
if a universe hospitable to life did not exist,
then a universe hospitable to life wouldn't exist.

That premise 1 is true is something that is self evident, because we exist. The redundancy of the argument is equally self-evident. The anthropic principle in essence is a rehashed version of Descartes Meditations.

The anthropic principle is dishonest because it is presented as an answer to a question. The question is not the statistical likelihood that this Universe ]does exist, but rather the statistical likelihood that this Universe should exist, in the absence of a Creator. The anthropic principle does not answer this question, and this is the question that matters. It is a dishonest argument for this reason.

In order to answer the likelihood that this Universe, or at least the one described by science, should exist, a method to address the question must first be proposed.

Causality and entropy are considered fundamental and self-evident laws in Physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and in a closed system the distribution of disorder approaches stasis, or things fall apart in other words. (Premise 1)

The present moment is inextricably entwined with every moment that preceded it all the way back to what science calls the 'big bang'. (Premise 2)

The story science tells is that, because the Universe is so big and old life had all the time in the world to come about by chance. This story however, under closer scrutiny, is in violation of its very premises. How the Universe is at the present moment is inextricably connected to how the Universe was at the moment just prior to when the singularity spontaneously appeared and began it tumultuous expansion. This would suggest the a universe hospitable to life didn't have all the time in the world to come about by chance, but one chance to come about.

In other words science suggests the question of probability is like guessing the probability that one will draw a jack of spades in blackjack. As the size of the deck decreases over time(t), the probability that the dealer will draw the card increases. In this very simplified analogy the jack of spades represents the precise arrangement of variables necessary for even the simplest forms of life to emerge spontaneously absent efficacious intent of a Creator God. Science suggests it was only a matter of time before the primordial universe gave birth to life. The correct statistical method would not be like blackjack however, but dice. The probability would be inconceivably unlikely, for the reasons I mentioned in my original argument. Of course the Universe was created.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


That is a GREAT position to take!