1340 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

As I had said, something you conveniently decided not to read, we have gone over this 300 times, at least.
I wrote a paper on Darwin's life and how it influenced the development and reputability of the theory in his contemporary atmosphere. He never stopped supporting his theory, he didn't release it because he was afraid of the uproar it would cause, until another British biologist contacted him and had him review his theory, which was essentially identical. The only reason why it was published late was because of the expected uproar, not a lack of proof. Now, the proof has gotten even more complete than simple structural homologies. We have molecular data to fall back upon, and as a result we can trace the lineage of almost any biological chemical. It's a large portion of biochemistry and I have no will to explain it all, so if you do believe that there is no evidence for molecular homologies, I suggest you go buy a book of some sort.

1. Yes, we do know where all life came from. Protobionts, essentially phospholipid bilayer enclosed metabolically active sacks, developed as a consequence of early chemical evolution in the "primordial soup" of early Earth's bodies of water and concentrations of rapidly (Relatively speaking, we're talking in terms of millions of years here) changing chemicals. Chemical evolution, unlike biological evolution, only persists as long as the biosphere is unstable. If there were no life on the earth tomorrow morning, chances are chemical evolution would begin again until the first structures are created, protobionts.
Protobionts can be created in a glass of water with certain molecules. They are the product of chemical evolution, performing simple biological pathways such as the hydrolysis of proto-saccharides, and somehow they obtain enough energy from the said pathway to remain metabolically active. The only thing distinguishing protobionts from living organisms would be the fact that they did not reproduce via standard cell division methods, and instead fragmented apart, not having DNA. As they fit the model of a living organism required by natural selection, they were selected against, with strains with inefficient means of carrying out said pathways dying off, and more successful protobionts continuing to change alongside chemical evolution. At some point during this, nucleic acids began to develop. First would be your standard single strand ribonucleic acid, but more likely a proto-nucleic acid with different nitrogenous bases and a general nucleotide structure. We can't exactly tell how nucleic acids evolved chemically, but due to the structure of other chemicals that are extant in the world today, we may infer the general path that it followed.
From protobionts, you eventually had a more fit organism develop. One with some sort of nucleic acid for storage of genetic information. This would be a much, much more fit organism, and thus less natural selection forces would act against it and it would be inherently more effective at carrying on to the next generation. From there, it is simply downhill.
Chemical evolution is simply a jazzy name for the abiotic synthesis of biological chemicals, and their evolution in the "primordial soup" of the world billions of years ago. If you don't believe it's possible, I would suggest looking up the Miller-Urey Experiment, they were able to take compounds they thought were in the ancient atmosphere and created urea!

2. a. No, there were not trillions of species according to the modern theory of evolution and natural selection. We know that in the biosphere there is a definite number of niches, only one species in a certain biome can occupy a certain niche. It's basic ecology. Since natural selection is always acting upon organisms, these organisms would begin to undergo gradual speciation (As opposed to accelerated speciation, which I will go into more detail with when I explain punctuated equilibrium), and thus they may diversify to fill a different niche and create a new species which is either ecologically or reproductively separated from the parent species. If you need explanation of that topic, I suggest you check one of the numerous threads in which I was explaining it, and that you check out a book at the library on speciation, the genetics of speciation, or speciation from a biochemical standpoint.
Accelerated speciation is a fairly non-descriptive term for what happens when you have a massive extinction. The theory of punctuated equilibrium, now widely accepted with its growing popularity in the last forty years, states that upon massive extinction events, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs 365 million years ago, a great number of niches are opened for other organisms to occupy. This invariably describes the rise of mammals, and is one of the main theories which intelligent design proponents love to overlook. Essentially, it states that if a niche is open in a certain biome or area, organisms will undergo an accelerated version of natural selection. For instance if there is an open niche for a medium sized predator, smaller organisms that that predator would normally prey upon become more prevalent and the species' numbers greatly increase. This opens the door for a species to begin preying upon these organisms, thus increasing THEIR numbers, widening the gene pool, and assisting speciation to allow it to occur faster. If you need more explanation about that part, I'm sure there are some lovely books out there on punctuated equilibrium.

b. That makes no sense.
c. That is flimsy logic based upon nonsensical statements.

3. We're not going to break things down to atoms here.
Molecules -> Abiotically, randomly synthesized biological molecules -> protobionts -> prokaryotes -> eukaryotes -> multi-cellular organisms -> diversification.
Do not put humans at the top of the "evolutionary chain" The most misleading thing about evolution is thinking that say, a cat, is less evolutionarily developed than we are. It has had the same amount of time to be selected against and to undergo random changes and diversify, but it occupies its own niche and apparently must be a reproductively fit organism, because it has survived. The worst example of this is that famous painting of a chimpanzee evolving into man. We have higher brain functions, yes, but in case you didn't notice, we can't run as fast as a cheetah, we can't swing from trees like a chimp, and we can't jump a ridiculous height like a cat. We're all equally evolutionarily developed here, we've just "invested points" into the brain category.

4. Maybe you should go look up the word theory.
Generally a theory doesn't gain as much momentum as those two until you can pretty much prove its fact, but you don't have mathematical proof. A law is only true if there is some sort of defined, indisputable proof, something which can only be found in the field of mathematics. In any event, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The entire modern field of biology is built off of it, it is commonly described as a fact, if you talk to any self-respecting biologist they will tell you the theory is concrete, it is solid, it is the unmoving weight upon which everything rests. In the scientific community, it is an undisputable law for everything, it is the theory of unification for all biological sciences, do not try and pull double talk and say it's completely wrong on simple flimsy, backwards logic. Thousands of people infinitely smarter than you have devoted their entire lives to the study of this field, you cannot simply say they're wrong based on vaporous evidence which seems to fold faster than France in 1940 under any sort of realistic pressure.

[chemical ali]

Spencer is completly 100% correct, I suggest the God Squad go burn down their Churches and drink bleach to the supremecy that is science.

[Athena]

Don't insult Christians Ali, no need for that.

We all believe what we want to believe and we are entitled to believe or not believe in God. That's for each person themselves to figure out.

[cdmtx(YR)]

Spencer I must say you are very intelligent.

But anyways my one question is this: Where did the gases and matter needed for the Big Bang to occur come from? Scientifically things just can't randomly appear, there has to be some reaction or something else to form them. So where did these reactants come from??

[MSpencer]

They could come from spontaneous generation, well sort of. String Theory, which is still very controversial, states that all matter, all subatomic particles, are made up of different vibrating strings of energy. These strings bend, turn, flip, and are constantly in motion much like electrons. It is the spin of each string which determines its properties, including a charge. Thus, theoretically it is possible that the universe was at one point simply energy, or as the Big Bang Theory states a superconcentrated amount of matter. It is the concentration of this matter that would have caused a reaction, something most people overlook. As far as the origins of the matter go, we can speculate but can never be sure, but even the wildest speculation is better than everyone giving up and sitting around the campfire for bible stories about how Jesus made the universe...

[Ash]

The theory that it was all a universe before is possible...as in, a sort of big crunch before the big bang.

The general idea is that the combined gravity of all the matter caused it all to collapse in on itself, and then the pressure caused a big explosion.

I haven't researched this in the depth Spence has because I don't care to But I do know the basic rudiments here and there. The gas remaining could be the aftermath of extragalactic matter that came before...I neglect to use the term universe because I reckon the universe to be everything outside the farthest reaches of the big bang and beyond, a gaping chasm into which the matter expands like a liquid, so to speak.

[Tom]

The brain is an organ, not a portal. The brain functions on the most basic of organic laws, we can predict its behavior, figure out how and why it works, we can determine what kind of thoughts you're having judging on which parts are stimulated. It's no more a portal than a heart is a train station. Yes, it pumps and sends other cells on their way, and the brain does act in ways that could deceive and seem to lead to higher brain functions than human beings are capable of doing, but remember, when we can trace where all the energy goes when you die? What happens to the so-called "soul" energy, hmm?

Physically the Brain is an organ, spiritual its the portal to this body. Where you see your thoughts as chemical reactions, I see thoughts as something more powerful. Your thoughts control your world, your perception, your feelings etc etc. Your thoughts end out energy which alter the way you feel. Negative thoughts make you feel negative, simple shit spence obviously, but its where these thoughts lead. If you focus on something so much its likely you will create it through the subconscious. Your subconscious is a little more powerful than the consciousness that you state is merely created from some reactions and chemical equations in the brain. Taking drugs helps you dwell into the subconscious, then again obviously i'd be the only one to be able to say such thing as i've experienced it. You see the world differently and you realise the truth. Even on weed you can see right through people and you can feel their energies whether negative or positive without needing body language to tell you. You cannot explain this with science, but its obvious there is more than just "chemical reactions" at effect here. Obviously I don't care if you would not believe it as you don't care if i don't believe your beliefs, however my experience with even the minimal drug helps me see something more. I also spent alot of time researching and trying different things to see how true they are. All i'm saying spence, you can throw science at me all day but it will not compute because it doesn't answer the questions i seek internally and continue to find daily.

Everything radiates out into the universe. Your thermal energy is gone in minutes, weakly held chemical energy gone in months, and eventually bones will remain which will remain stripped of any purpose and will eventually be claimed by gradual eroding forces.

The energy is not "gone" its merely equaled out/spread out to other atoms or areas. Energy cannot die, i thought you'd know this more than anyone. Take a look at zero-point energy spence, tell me what you think of that.

And if you do have a near death experience, I'm not surprised if you would see the most fantastic of visions. Mostly people who are close to death are suffering from oxygen deprivation on account of their heart stopping or their major blodlines not being able to transport oxygen and vital minerals, making them just a biiiiiiiiiiiiiit loopy.

Whilst people who are announced brain dead to come alive 10-20minutes later and their entire view or the world or their life has changed. Sorry but this is the typical scientist "explaination." It answers NOTHING its just a theory. People who have had NDE and come back and totally changed their lives and are no longer fearful because they see the world for what it really do not suffer visions when they are announced BRAIN DEAD on a hospital bed then all the sudden come back to life minutes later. How does that make sense spence?

The existance of God has not been proven, has it? That would be a 'theory' likewise.

Neither has the "inexistence" of god. God has not been proved to exist, but it also has not been proved to not exist either. Theory or not, science and religion go hand in hand. One without the other totally destroys all concept or argument. IF science did not exist then religion would not have any opposition, if religion did not exist then science would not have any opposition. There needs to be the balance until we actual get REAL answers not these theories and arguments to "prove" or "disprove" the existence or non-existance of God.

The Big Bang however and the string theory also go hand in hand. Humans are slowly becoming conscious of the Quantum universe/multiverse and this is where we will learn about the existence of Creation, imo. The Big Bang is entirely plausible, i believe in it myself but i believe its simple one of an infinite big bangs that make up single finite universes in an infinite multiverse which balances to infinity. We could also name this "creation" or God. I've said it so many times. Quantum and Science just need to find something drastic to make the link. It will only come with time.

The theory that it was all a universe before is possible...as in, a sort of big crunch before the big bang.

There is also a theory that the center of our universe is like a "huge black hole" than links to another universe. So the big crunch could simply be the universe falling into itself and then just doing as you said before. Creating a new universe via a new big bang because of this "black hole." Then again its all theorys. We have alot to learn before we can know.

[MSpencer]

The energy is not "gone" its merely equaled out/spread out to other atoms or areas. Energy cannot die, i thought you'd know this more than anyone. Take a look at zero-point energy spence, tell me what you think of that.

As in gone from the body, as in not in the body anymore, as in not in the physical, meatbag form which our little brains exist in. Obviously energy doesn't go away, thermal energy is radiated out to areas of less thermal energy in the surrounding area and chemical energy is gradually broken down by decomposers.

Whilst people who are announced brain dead to come alive 10-20minutes later and their entire view or the world or their life has changed. Sorry but this is the typical scientist "explaination." It answers NOTHING its just a theory. People who have had NDE and come back and totally changed their lives and are no longer fearful because they see the world for what it really do not suffer visions when they are announced BRAIN DEAD on a hospital bed then all the sudden come back to life minutes later. How does that make sense spence?

Simple. Not every brain cell is dead in ten minutes. You can't pronounce someone brain dead without cleaving their head open and investigating what's going on in there, being pronounced brain dead is certainly something that has just been based on observations of the dead and dying.
And yes, it makes perfect sense, because as long as you've got some brain cells and the heart starts up again for some reason and your organs begin to reactivate, you can survive.
Also, haven't you heard of people who have had "near death experiences", lived, and come out of it brain dead or with the IQ of a potato?

[Tom]

Yes but i've also heard of people who did not come out with an IQ of a potato. So the question still stands.

[MSpencer]

And as I was saying, they couldn't have been dead for more than twenty minutes. It takes an alarmingly long amount of time for every brain cell in your brain to die. It all depends on certain factors such as latent oxygen in the blood stream, individual biochemical makeups, which part of the brain was first affected...

[Cobra]

Thats kinda what i've always thought as well.

Its all well and good to have a theory about a random 'bang' that happened. But the thing that gets me is that. Everything has to come from SOMWHERE, right?

So the 'big bang' had to have some sort of materials in order for it to...go bang correct?

What im trying to get at is if theres no God to create any of this stuff.

Where did it come from?

[Athena]

One thing though. What makes you say that there was nothing at one point? Maybe it has always been there. Maybe time got into existance when the universe was formed. Who knows?

What about God, where did 'He' come from? Or has 'He' always been there?

[Silent_Killa]

They could come from spontaneous generation, well sort of. String Theory, which is still very controversial, states that all matter, all subatomic particles, are made up of different vibrating strings of energy. These strings bend, turn, flip, and are constantly in motion much like electrons. It is the spin of each string which determines its properties, including a charge. Thus, theoretically it is possible that the universe was at one point simply energy, or as the Big Bang Theory states a superconcentrated amount of matter. It is the concentration of this matter that would have caused a reaction, something most people overlook. As far as the origins of the matter go, we can speculate but can never be sure, but even the wildest speculation is better than everyone giving up and sitting around the campfire for bible stories about how Jesus made the universe...

I think that god created the universe is the wildest speculation.

The theory that it was all a universe before is possible...as in, a sort of big crunch before the big bang.

The general idea is that the combined gravity of all the matter caused it all to collapse in on itself, and then the pressure caused a big explosion.

I haven't researched this in the depth Spence has because I don't care to tongue.gif But I do know the basic rudiments here and there. The gas remaining could be the aftermath of extragalactic matter that came before...I neglect to use the term universe because I reckon the universe to be everything outside the farthest reaches of the big bang and beyond, a gaping chasm into which the matter expands like a liquid, so to speak.

Yes yes, I've heard your circle theory of the universe, but it doesn't work that way. The circle has to come from somewhere. Nothing cannot become something, and something cannot become nothing.

One thing though. What makes you say that there was nothing at one point? Maybe it has always been there. Maybe time got into existance when the universe was formed. Who knows?

What about God, where did 'He' come from? Or has 'He' always been there?

That's the beauty of religion, they have Mr. Omnipotent which explains everything.

All in all I don't see what people find so impossible about god. All that is really necessary is a being capable of percieving time as a whole, instead of in a linear was as we do.

[Athena]

Nothing cannot become something, and something cannot become nothing.

But where does God come in there then? 'He' can't have come out of nothing, according to your own statement. So where did 'He' come from? Was 'He' always there?

[Tom]

And as I was saying, they couldn't have been dead for more than twenty minutes. It takes an alarmingly long amount of time for every brain cell in your brain to die. It all depends on certain factors such as latent oxygen in the blood stream, individual biochemical makeups, which part of the brain was first affected...

But you can't know, your always going to say its not possible because science is the only way forward for you. Science says its not possible but science knows nothing yet, science is always moving forward. What you are saying now could easily be disproved in 100 years just like it has happened all throughout the history of science.

[Silent_Killa]

But where does God come in there then? 'He' can't have come out of nothing, according to your own statement. So where did 'He' come from? Was 'He' always there?

I said according to scientific laws, religion doesn't follow any laws but it's own.

[Tom]

I don't know of creations/gods family tree but its possible his consciousness was like ours "once." For something said to be infinite that would be true and we evolved from his consciousness and became our own consciousness whilst also be the one consciousness. I don't know where "god" came from but as infinity it means he had no beginning or end. Humans are finite so we only believe in things that have a beginning and end, we have difficulty understand infinity, so we will not understand. Creation has no beginning or end, it wasn't "born" it just is. It just exists, thats the only conclusion i can come too.

[Athena]

As a particle and it's antiparticle together make 'nothing', would the reverse also not be possible in some way?