The universe had a beginning.

[sandorski]

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests the Universe, and Life may have been created.

Take DNA for instance, a molecule that stores super dense information in a three dimensional structure in codified form.

There is absolutely no proof or even evidence that such a thing can occur via natural and unintelligent physical and chemical processes.

However, there is undeniable proof that Intelligence can create codes. We know there is because we humans create and use codes all the time. And not just humans, but other life forms as well.

Whether the Intelligence that designed DNA and genetic code is Divine or not is another question entirely, but I strongly believe you can make a powerful argument that an Intelligence (a Super Intelligence would be necessary) designed DNA due to it's attributes and the fact that there is no known natural force that can create codes.

Argument from Ignorance. There are many things we do not Know, but that does not automatically mean there's a god. We do know that DNA has changed and we even know the mechanism that causes it, no god found though.

 

[Vic]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I suspect that you misunderstood me.

 

[Carfax83]

We do know that DNA has changed and we even know the mechanism that causes it, no god found though.

Really? OK genius, tell us what mechanism or natural force causes DNA, and win yourself a Nobel Prize for microbiology as you've just figured out something that has stomped Scientists for as long as they've been aware of DNA's existence.

 

[sandorski]

Really? OK genius, tell us what mechanism or natural force causes DNA, and win yourself a Nobel Prize for microbiology as you've just figured out something that has stomped Scientists for as long as they've been aware of DNA's existence.

I didn't say that.

 

[thraashman]

Really? OK genius, tell us what mechanism or natural force causes DNA, and win yourself a Nobel Prize for microbiology as you've just figured out something that has stomped Scientists for as long as they've been aware of DNA's existence.

Scientists have done experiments that replicated the environment of early Earth in which amino acids formed in those experiments. Amino acids, as you may know (or not considering science doesn't seem to be your strong point) are not too dissimilar from the nucleic acids found in DNA. So science has proven that it is quite possible for amino acids to form naturally, which is a small step from having DNA form.

Feel free to read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey

 

[Carfax83]

I didn't say that.

I suppose you were referring to random mutation when you stated mechanism?

And yet, there is no proof that random mutation can create a new and viable life form from another life form.

Scientists have been attempting to do just that in their labratories for years, bombarding bacteria and fruit flies with radiation and anything else they can use to get them to mutate faster and faster..

The only thing they've ever succeeded in doing is creating dead or damaged bacteria and fruit flies.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...d-a-beginning/

You are mistaking the beginnings of our observations with the observation of a beginning. They are not the same, and thus the conclusion is invalid. The Vilenkin-Guth paper demonstrated that the expansion of space-time has an origin in the past -- that's it.

The universe had a beginning. This, along with the entropy issue, remove the popular scientific explanations of how the universe came to be. Physicists cannot explain it by using infinite past time, infinite bubble universes, cyclic universes, colliding branes, multiverse, etc.

Space-time is not the totality of the universe, and specifically brane theory and superstring theory which model the universe in non-spatio-temporal dimensions are not falsified by Vilenkin's theorem.

The universe cannot come from nothing because nothing is really nothing.

When was there ever nothing?

If you reason that quantum physics make it possible for the universe to begin from nothing, you have the same problem. Quantum physics is something, not nothing.

Quantum physics is a set of physical models. It isn't a thing. It is a collection of ideas.

That the universe began is one of many signs pointing to God's existence. It matches with what He tells us in the Bible. God is an eternal (outside of time) existence.

Vilenkin himself said:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

(emphasis added)

Chalk this one up to another example of a credulous religious fool jumping to conclusions because he thought it supported his pre-conceived ideas. What a joke.

 

[Carfax83]

Scientists have done experiments that replicated the environment of early Earth in which amino acids formed in those experiments. Amino acids, as you may know (or not considering science doesn't seem to be your strong point) are not too dissimilar from the nucleic acids found in DNA. So science has proven that it is quite possible for amino acids to form naturally, which is a small step from having DNA form.

Feel free to read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey

The fact that you are citing this experiment as some kind of evidence to support your claim shows how little your understanding of it is..

I suggest you do a bit more reading on that experiment before you come to a final conclusion.

The experiment didn't prove or demonstrate anything, other than that intelligent agents (Miller and Urey in this case) can force a desired outcome in an experiment using Scientific methods that are purposely designed to foster that very outcome.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The entire concept of God or the Creator is centered around It being the Primal Cause of all phenomena, including Time and Space..

Therefore, God does not require a cause. It has simply always been, the uncaused Cause..

Yeah, but I have a concept of the SuperGod that created the Christian God to believe that he was the uncaused caused, when really, it was the SuperGod Joe Pesci. Silly Christian! Bow before Pesci, your one true SuperGod!

For something to create phenomenal reality from scratch, would It not need to be APART from it, existing in and of Itself?

Anything not part of reality is not real, by definition.

 

[thraashman]

The fact that you are citing this experiment as some kind of evidence to support your claim shows how little your understanding of it is..

I suggest you do a bit more reading on that experiment before you come to a final conclusion.

The experiment didn't prove or demonstrate anything, other than that intelligent agents (Miller and Urey in this case) can force a desired outcome in an experiment using Scientific methods that are purposely designed to foster that very outcome.

Um ... no. The experiment showed that in a naturally occurring environment (which they simulated), that the building blocks to life can occur. OR, if you prefer, it proved that humans can be as powerful as any god. Your choice. I'm so sorry that how science works seems to escape you so. To live in such ignorance must be so miserable. Then again, they say ignorance is bliss.

 

[Braznor]

It is illogical to assume nothing existed before the creation of our universe. I believe the standard assumption at this point is that something existed before the big bang which created this universe and the symmetry of this something 'broke' to form into our universe today. Note by the word 'before' I do not claim time existed before the big bang, but rather an element from which time, space, mass-energy and gravity can be derived from.

 

[sandorski]

I suppose you were referring to random mutation when you stated mechanism?

And yet, there is no proof that random mutation can create a new and viable life form from another life form.

Scientists have been attempting to do just that in their labratories for years, bombarding bacteria and fruit flies with radiation and anything else they can use to get them to mutate faster and faster..

The only thing they've ever succeeded in doing is creating dead or damaged bacteria and fruit flies.

1) there's tons of evidence showing Evolution, including changing from one Species to another

2) Radiation kills things, no shit.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests the Universe, and Life may have been created.

Except for that tiny inconvenient fact that we don't know that it began to exist at all.

Take DNA for instance, a molecule that stores super dense information in a three dimensional structure in codified form.

We've been over this before, and as I showed you the last time, DNA does not contain "information" and it is not a "code." Those are just metaphors used by scientists to help people understand the underlying reality, but you don't know enough to realize your error.

There is absolutely no proof or even evidence that such a thing can occur via natural and unintelligent physical and chemical processes.

But that is nonsense, of course. You don't think that the proteins are held together by magic, do you? No, they bind together because it is inherent in the electromagnetic compositions of the atoms that compose the molecules themselves, the same way hydrogen binds to oxygen. Is it awe-inspiring? Yes! Is it mysterious? Yes! But you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to declare categorically "this is impossible!" and just slap a "God" label on it like you've done anything meaningful.

However, there is undeniable proof that Intelligence can create codes. We know there is because we humans create and use codes all the time. And not just humans, but other life forms as well.

Great but DNA is not a code. It is utterly dishonest of you to continue to propagate this falsehood after I know I have personally educated you on the facts in the past.

Whether the Intelligence that designed DNA and genetic code is Divine or not is another question entirely, but I strongly believe you can make a powerful argument that an Intelligence (a Super Intelligence would be necessary) designed DNA due to it's attributes and the fact that there is no known natural force that can create codes.

No "force" creates codes, you buffoon. Force just moves stuff around. Fuck me, do you even think about what you write?

 

[Carfax83]

Anything not part of reality is not real, by definition.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully. I said phenomenal reality.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully. I said phenomenal reality.

Cerpin Taxt is pretty stupid and can't comprehend a lot of what he reads.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully. I said phenomenal reality.

Ok, anything not a part of phenomenal reality is not a real phenomenon, by definition.

Still gonna go with that one, chief?

 

[Carfax83]

Um ... no. The experiment showed that in a naturally occurring environment (which they simulated), that the building blocks to life can occur.

Um, you do realize that there's a long league's worth of difference between amino acids, and functional proteins, which is necessary for life.

Amino acids are old hat and are a million miles from life,” says Nick Lane. Indeed, as Miller’s experiments showed, it’s not difficult to create amino acids. The far bigger challenge is to create nucleic acids – the building blocks of molecules like RNA and DNA. The origin of life lies in the origin of these “replicators”, molecules that can make copies of themselves. Lane says, “Even if you can make amino acids (and nucleic acids) under soup conditions, it has little if any bearing on the origin of life.”

Source

So it's not a "small step" from having DNA form as you seem to think.

Your choice. I'm so sorry that how science works seems to escape you so. To live in such ignorance must be so miserable. Then again, they say ignorance is bliss.

I would refrain from lecturing people about how Science works if I were you :biggrin:

By analysing ancient rocks, scientists have since found that Earth was never particularly teeming in hydrogen-rich gases like methane, hydrogen sulphide or hydrogen itself. If you repeat Miller’s experiment with a more realistic mixture – heavy in carbon dioxide and nitrogen, with just trace amounts of other gases – you’d have a hard time finding amino acids in the resulting brew.

Source

The Urey Miller experiment was flawed from the get go, as it relied on an erroneous assertion about the composition of early Earth's atmosphere.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt is pretty stupid and can't comprehend a lot of what he reads.

That's pretty hilarious coming from the guy that took one random article from the net and homed in on it like it was the final answer to whether or not the universe has a beginning, only to be embarrassingly refuted by the words of the very scientist he was citing as an authority.

 

[Carfax83]

1) there's tons of evidence showing Evolution, including changing from one Species to another

Nobody disputes that evolution exists. But is the mechanism responsible truly random?

If a particular life form's physiology is remarkably suited to it's habitat and to the food that it consumes, how is that random?

It seems that for a supposedly random process, mutation sure has habit of producing astounding specificity.

2) Radiation kills things, no shit.

We're exposed to radiation every day.

Anyway, the point was that forced mutations at extremely high rates never produced any substantial differences at all (no magic mutations here), and all the differences were very bad. So this casts a dubious light on the assertion that random mutation is responsible for the vast and diverse genomes on planet Earth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nobody disputes that evolution exists. But is the mechanism responsible truly random?

If a particular life form's physiology is remarkably suited to it's habitat and to the food that it consumes, how is that random?

Evolution is random mutation and natural selection. The former is random, the latter is not.

It seems that for a supposedly random process, mutation sure has habit of producing astounding specificity.

Please rigorously define "specificity" as it relates to biological organisms and tell us how you measure it.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

That's pretty hilarious coming from the guy that took one random article from the net and homed in on it like it was the final answer to whether or not the universe has a beginning, only to be embarrassingly refuted by the words of the very scientist he was citing as an authority.

You need to read more about the subject. The article is really long and has a lot of links that will help you.

I know that it's very hard for you to learn new subjects because you're very stupid, but even a retard like you can benefit from reading more.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You need to read more about the subject.

No, I don't. I read precisely all that I needed to show that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and everyone here knows it.

 

[sandorski]

Nobody disputes that evolution exists. But is the mechanism responsible truly random?

If a particular life form's physiology is remarkably suited to it's habitat and to the food that it consumes, how is that random?

It seems that for a supposedly random process, mutation sure has habit of producing astounding specificity.

We're exposed to radiation every day.

Anyway, the point was that forced mutations at extremely high rates never produced any substantial differences at all (no magic mutations here), and all the differences were very bad. So this casts a dubious light on the assertion that random mutation is responsible for the vast and diverse genomes on planet Earth.

Cerpin handled the first point, so

2) Yes, we are. However, Radiation is merely something that causes Mutation. It is not what causes the Mutations that every living thing has during its' development. So exposing something to Radiation does not mimmick natural processes, it kills the subject with Cancer and other nasty things.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

No, I don't. I read precisely all that I needed to show that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and everyone here knows it.

Cerpin Taxt, you are too stupid to understand what I posted. It's easy to see how much of a willful ignorant retard you are.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt, you are too stupid to understand what I posted. It's easy to see how much of a willful ignorant retard you are.

Stellar rebuttal.