Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

[The Barbarian]

The OP proposed a hypothetical situation based on a gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and the epistemological basis of science. The bottom line is that if anybody tells you that science can disprove the existence of God or his authorship of our being, you can tell him to hop it,

Today's winner.

 

[The Barbarian]

Even if a fish formed legs and lungs and walked on land, it would eventually die.

That's a testable claim...

Two fish, one male and one female would need to form lungs and legs at the same time, and arrive on land together to have offspring, and then the whole family would need to survive. Does not seem real or likely.

The walking catfish is a species of freshwater airbreathing catfish native to Southeast Asia. It is named for its ability to "walk" and wiggle across dry land, to find food or suitable environments. While it does not truly walk as most bipeds or quadrupeds do, it can use its pectoral fins to keep it upright as it makes a wiggling motion with snakelike movements to traverse land.

Kind of like the first fish to walk out on land. Want to learn about those? How about a fish able to climb trees?

Of course, these guys go back to the water to reproduce. Pretty much like amphibians do. Fish, BTW, had lungs long before there were land animals.

Evolution doesn't work the way it is in Poke;mon. Here's a place to learn more about the real thing:

Get a Grip on Evolution

This text traces the discoveries and theories which try…

www.goodreads.com

 

[The Barbarian]

This is 'abiogenesis'. The scientific theory that life on Earth originated from nonliving organic matter through natural processes. Life from non-life.

This has not been scientifically verified.

But we do have God's word on it. Which is good enough for me. And all the scientific evidence so far, indicates that God was right.

 

[stevevw]

The OP proposed a hypothetical situation based on a gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and the epistemological basis of science. The bottom line is that if anybody tells you that science can disprove the existence of God or his authorship of our being, you can tell him to hop it,

Yes I agree. Well that settles that then. Good job.

 

[stevevw]

There's no real implications to realize. I've known since coming on here that people who try and argue for religious based creationism using science invariably fail because they're trying to use the natural to argue the supernatural.

It's not something new or amazing to anyone, except seemingly for you.

Except for those on this thread who are arguing that science can determine the truth when arguing with those who disagree. Otherwise why even bother.

 

[stevevw]

But we do have God's word on it. Which is good enough for me. And all the scientific evidence so far, indicates that God was right.

But you can't say that as its classed as ID and is bunk lol. As soon as you claim the science shows God was right its regarded as creationism and dismissed as bunk.

 

[BCP1928]

But you can't say that as its classed as ID and is bunk lol. As soon as you claim the science shows God was right its regarded as creationism and dismissed as bunk.

God's word doesn't support ID. That's the reason why most Christians reject it. IDists are trying to use science to prove the existence of God which desn't work any better than trying to use science to disprove the existence of God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Except for those on this thread who are arguing that science can determine the truth when arguing with those who disagree. Otherwise why even bother.

'Truth' is a philosophical comment, not a scientific one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But you can't say that as its classed as ID and is bunk lol. As soon as you claim the science shows God was right its regarded as creationism and dismissed as bunk.

Steve. Do you not understand what is being wrote, or is it deliberate?

ID is a specific brand of pseudoscience. It is not a generic container for various alternatives to evolution. It is not a class or group of non-evolutionary ideas.

ID is a specific alternative *designed* to pass muster in the courts, but it doesn't explain anything. It was and remains a political project, not a scientific one.

 

[Palmfever]

Why quantum mechanics says the past isn’t real

The famous double-slit experiment brings into question the very nature of matter. Its cousin, the quantum eraser experiment, makes us question the very existence of time – and how much we can manipulate it

www.newscientist.com

..."The delayed choice experiment doesn’t change the past. Rather, in the absence of the experiment, there are many pasts – multiple co-mingled realities. When a choice is made about what to measure, some of those histories are culled. The effect of the choice is to reduce some of the past quantum fuzziness and, if not determine a unique history, then at least narrow the number of contenders. This is why it is sometimes called the quantum eraser experiment.

In the real experiment, the look-back time is a mere nanosecond or so, but in principle it could stretch all the way back to the origin of the universe. And indeed, that was the meaning behind Wheeler’s cryptic question about holding up the ghost of the photon. He envisaged a distant cosmic light source being gravitationally lensed from our point of view by an intervening black hole, with twin light paths bent around opposite sides of the black hole before converging on Earth, a bit like the two-slit experiment on a cosmic scale. A ghost of the photon might arrive by one route, while another ghost taking the other, possibly longer, route might not get here for another month. To perform such a cosmic interference experiment you would have to somehow store, or “hold up”, the first ghost to await the arrival of the second before merging them, so the waves would overlap at the same time, as they do in the original Young’s experiment.

Einstein once wrote that the past, present and future are only illusions. In that he was wrong. The error lies in the word “the”. A past exists today in historical records, but it consists of a vast multiplicity of blended “ghost pasts” bundled in a way that forms a unique narrative on the macroscopic scale. At the quantum level, though, it fades into an amalgam of blurry part-realities that lies beyond human experience."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why quantum mechanics says the past isn’t real

The famous double-slit experiment brings into question the very nature of matter. Its cousin, the quantum eraser experiment, makes us question the very existence of time – and how much we can manipulate it

www.newscientist.com

..."The delayed choice experiment doesn’t change the past. Rather, in the absence of the experiment, there are many pasts – multiple co-mingled realities. When a choice is made about what to measure, some of those histories are culled. The effect of the choice is to reduce some of the past quantum fuzziness and, if not determine a unique history, then at least narrow the number of contenders. This is why it is sometimes called the quantum eraser experiment.

In the real experiment, the look-back time is a mere nanosecond or so, but in principle it could stretch all the way back to the origin of the universe. And indeed, that was the meaning behind Wheeler’s cryptic question about holding up the ghost of the photon. He envisaged a distant cosmic light source being gravitationally lensed from our point of view by an intervening black hole, with twin light paths bent around opposite sides of the black hole before converging on Earth, a bit like the two-slit experiment on a cosmic scale. A ghost of the photon might arrive by one route, while another ghost taking the other, possibly longer, route might not get here for another month. To perform such a cosmic interference experiment you would have to somehow store, or “hold up”, the first ghost to await the arrival of the second before merging them, so the waves would overlap at the same time, as they do in the original Young’s experiment.

Einstein once wrote that the past, present and future are only illusions. In that he was wrong. The error lies in the word “the”. A past exists today in historical records, but it consists of a vast multiplicity of blended “ghost pasts” bundled in a way that forms a unique narrative on the macroscopic scale. At the quantum level, though, it fades into an amalgam of blurry part-realities that lies beyond human experience."

... and?

 

[partinobodycular]

..."The delayed choice experiment doesn’t change the past. Rather, in the absence of the experiment, there are many pasts – multiple co-mingled realities. When a choice is made about what to measure, some of those histories are culled. The effect of the choice is to reduce some of the past quantum fuzziness and, if not determine a unique history, then at least narrow the number of contenders. This is why it is sometimes called the quantum eraser experiment.

 

[Palmfever]

... and?

Self proclaimed intellectuals clutch their pearls of learning as faithfully as a hopeful child does their rosary.
There is no definitive concensus on the universes origin.


"...But actually, what lay people like me didn’t know 30 years ago is that a transformation was already happening in the physics community. How people were thinking about the big bang was shifting. The big bang no longer necessarily referred to the beginning. And there may not have been a beginning at all – at least not in the traditional terms.

There have been two changes to the way physicists think about this cosmological timeline. The first is that research on inflationary models, which study the exponential expansion of space-time, indicate that inflation may be an eternal process. As in, the universe may not have had a beginning moment, and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe, one that was expanding exponentially even before what we call the big bang. Mathematically, this seems the most likely scenario – assuming inflation is correct.

...
Second, these days, people often use “hot big bang” to refer to a time period, rather than a single moment. The story goes that in the early stages of our corner of space-time, what we might call the visible universe, the universe was very hot and dense. This hot big bang era was filled with an energetic goo from which atoms would eventually emerge and begin to cluster, along with dark matter, into the structures we observe today: stars, galaxies, planets and, yes, people.

In a recent email to me and my editor, one of these people structures – a thoughtful reader – sent in a question that points to this transformation in how we think about the big bang. The reader noted that, for a while, it was fashionable to publish articles about the big bang and these days there are fewer. While I can’t speak to publishing choices by the editors at this magazine or any other, I can say that in recent years, there has been more (if not total) consensus in the cosmology community about the likely scenario for the inflationary universe – that our space-time went through a period of rapid, exponential expansion. A plethora of data supports the inflationary picture, which mathematically favours an eternal scenario.

There are, of course, detractors. Paul Steinhardt, one of the early thinkers on inflation, has since become one of its most vocal critics. But even in his competitor model of the universe, the big bang is replaced by a big bounce and a cyclic universe. The key point, ultimately, is that physicists don’t like singularities, and the search has always been on for a more satisfying model. Much as the idea of a “beginning moment” might satisfy the intuition we have developed in a world where some of the most dominant religious traditions teach us that there is a definitive beginning, from a scientific point of view, the singularity is a mathematical problem to be solved.

Models of the very early universe are hard to test directly. That doesn’t stop people from trying..."

Why the big bang may not have been the beginning of the universe

PART of what turned me into a theoretical cosmology enthusiast as a child was watching the documentary A Brief History of Time and hearing about the mystery around the big bang. It showed how the equations that we use to describe space-time broke down into a singularity when we ran time all the...

www.newscientist.com

The smug, delusional confidance of some is not displayed in those whose life is devoted to the study of this topic.
They continue to study and learn with open minds.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Self proclaimed intellectuals clutch their pearls of learning as faithfully as a hopeful child does their rosary.
There is no definitive concensus on the universes origin.


"...But actually, what lay people like me didn’t know 30 years ago is that a transformation was already happening in the physics community. How people were thinking about the big bang was shifting. The big bang no longer necessarily referred to the beginning. And there may not have been a beginning at all – at least not in the traditional terms.

There have been two changes to the way physicists think about this cosmological timeline. The first is that research on inflationary models, which study the exponential expansion of space-time, indicate that inflation may be an eternal process. As in, the universe may not have had a beginning moment, and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe, one that was expanding exponentially even before what we call the big bang. Mathematically, this seems the most likely scenario – assuming inflation is correct.

...
Second, these days, people often use “hot big bang” to refer to a time period, rather than a single moment. The story goes that in the early stages of our corner of space-time, what we might call the visible universe, the universe was very hot and dense. This hot big bang era was filled with an energetic goo from which atoms would eventually emerge and begin to cluster, along with dark matter, into the structures we observe today: stars, galaxies, planets and, yes, people.

In a recent email to me and my editor, one of these people structures – a thoughtful reader – sent in a question that points to this transformation in how we think about the big bang. The reader noted that, for a while, it was fashionable to publish articles about the big bang and these days there are fewer. While I can’t speak to publishing choices by the editors at this magazine or any other, I can say that in recent years, there has been more (if not total) consensus in the cosmology community about the likely scenario for the inflationary universe – that our space-time went through a period of rapid, exponential expansion. A plethora of data supports the inflationary picture, which mathematically favours an eternal scenario.

There are, of course, detractors. Paul Steinhardt, one of the early thinkers on inflation, has since become one of its most vocal critics. But even in his competitor model of the universe, the big bang is replaced by a big bounce and a cyclic universe. The key point, ultimately, is that physicists don’t like singularities, and the search has always been on for a more satisfying model. Much as the idea of a “beginning moment” might satisfy the intuition we have developed in a world where some of the most dominant religious traditions teach us that there is a definitive beginning, from a scientific point of view, the singularity is a mathematical problem to be solved.

Models of the very early universe are hard to test directly. That doesn’t stop people from trying..."

Why the big bang may not have been the beginning of the universe

PART of what turned me into a theoretical cosmology enthusiast as a child was watching the documentary A Brief History of Time and hearing about the mystery around the big bang. It showed how the equations that we use to describe space-time broke down into a singularity when we ran time all the...

www.newscientist.com

The smug, delusional confidance of some is not displayed in those whose life is devoted to the study of this topic.
They continue to study and learn with open minds.

Will not lie... did not read a single word of that because that was a massive bit of rambling with I'm assuming no real merit to it outside of "Scientists don't agree with me, therefore, science is wrong."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Self proclaimed intellectuals clutch their pearls of learning as faithfully as a hopeful child does their rosary.

The hopeful child would hope that the rosary before mass was finished before their family got to the pews.

There is no definitive concensus on the universes origin.


"...But actually, what lay people like me didn’t know 30 years ago is that a transformation was already happening in the physics community. How people were thinking about the big bang was shifting. The big bang no longer necessarily referred to the beginning. And there may not have been a beginning at all – at least not in the traditional terms.

There have been two changes to the way physicists think about this cosmological timeline. The first is that research on inflationary models, which study the exponential expansion of space-time, indicate that inflation may be an eternal process. As in, the universe may not have had a beginning moment, and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe, one that was expanding exponentially even before what we call the big bang. Mathematically, this seems the most likely scenario – assuming inflation is correct.

...
Second, these days, people often use “hot big bang” to refer to a time period, rather than a single moment. The story goes that in the early stages of our corner of space-time, what we might call the visible universe, the universe was very hot and dense. This hot big bang era was filled with an energetic goo from which atoms would eventually emerge and begin to cluster, along with dark matter, into the structures we observe today: stars, galaxies, planets and, yes, people.

In a recent email to me and my editor, one of these people structures – a thoughtful reader – sent in a question that points to this transformation in how we think about the big bang. The reader noted that, for a while, it was fashionable to publish articles about the big bang and these days there are fewer. While I can’t speak to publishing choices by the editors at this magazine or any other, I can say that in recent years, there has been more (if not total) consensus in the cosmology community about the likely scenario for the inflationary universe – that our space-time went through a period of rapid, exponential expansion. A plethora of data supports the inflationary picture, which mathematically favours an eternal scenario.

There are, of course, detractors. Paul Steinhardt, one of the early thinkers on inflation, has since become one of its most vocal critics. But even in his competitor model of the universe, the big bang is replaced by a big bounce and a cyclic universe. The key point, ultimately, is that physicists don’t like singularities, and the search has always been on for a more satisfying model. Much as the idea of a “beginning moment” might satisfy the intuition we have developed in a world where some of the most dominant religious traditions teach us that there is a definitive beginning, from a scientific point of view, the singularity is a mathematical problem to be solved.

Models of the very early universe are hard to test directly. That doesn’t stop people from trying..."

Why the big bang may not have been the beginning of the universe

PART of what turned me into a theoretical cosmology enthusiast as a child was watching the documentary A Brief History of Time and hearing about the mystery around the big bang. It showed how the equations that we use to describe space-time broke down into a singularity when we ran time all the...

www.newscientist.com

The smug, delusional confidance of some is not displayed in those whose life is devoted to the study of this topic.
They continue to study and learn with open minds.

None of this has anything to do with the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

 

[partinobodycular]

The smug, delusional confidance of some is not displayed in those whose life is devoted to the study of this topic.
They continue to study and learn with open minds.

Let me see if I've got this right. You're attempting to equate skepticism about supernatural causes with smug, delusional confidence. Methinks that it's not actually the scientists that you should take issue with, it's the evidence.

 

[Palmfever]

The hopeful child would hope that the rosary before mass was finished before their family got to the pews.

None of this has anything to do with the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Of course not.
What would the origin of the universe have to do with the existance of life in it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course not.
What would the origin of the universe have to do with the existance of life in it?

Because the topic of the thread is the origin of life, not the origin of the universe.

 

[The Barbarian]

What would the origin of the universe have to do with the existance of life in it?

Because the rules at the beginning would determine what sort of life, if any, appeared in that universe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course not.
What would the origin of the universe have to do with the existance of life in it?

Nothing. Why did you start talking about irrelevant things?