Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[biggles53]

Steve, where do you get the idea that science is unable to explain how we might get 'something' from 'nothing' ...?

 

[46AND2]

Yes but there are processes and elements that need to come together to start and form that cell and molecule that have been shown to be impossible to occur the way they say it happened. You can't form live by an accident and chance, its impossible. The conditions they say that needed to be there are all based on speculation and an interpretation of observations which have not been proven and in many ways have been shown to not be the case according to the discoveries. They need to try and make it all fit so they will interpret it with that in mind.

The queer results of quantum mechanics is one example to me that shows that its not just a case of discovering more information to understand. Because its so beyond the normal realms of the laws of physics and is showing almost magical qualities it maybe that there can be no explanation apart from it is beyond our understanding.

The first thing you need to understand about abiogenesis is that they are not searching for the way that life DID begin, they are searching for a way it COULD HAVE begun.

Even if we discover a method to create life through natural processes, there is no guarantee that that is the way it actually happened.

The reason for this is that we don't have, and probably never will have, enough evidence of what the conditions were like, exactly. There just isn't enough recorded in the geologic record.

So, just because we find that one method or another would be impossible, DOESN'T MEAN abiogenesis is entirely impossible. If it did, scientists wouldn't still be working on it...

 

[stevevw]

God makes no such claim. At best the Christian Bible claims that God makes that claim. And to debunk the second part of this paragraph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

OK I've watched the video and its fairly similar to the ones I've seen. This is a hypothesis and nothing is proved. Krauss does a great job in explaining it but it is based on unproven aspects and are all hypothesis. In fact many things hes says dont add up when you actually look closer at what he is saying.

Virtual particle production is a natural outcome of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. This principle states, in part, that quantum fluctuations in the universe’s space-time fabric will generate particles, provided those particles revert to quantum space-time fluctuations before any human observer can detect their appearance. Typically, the particles so produced must disappear in less than a quintillionth of a second. Since these particles cannot be detected directly, physicists refer to them as virtual particles. Krauss suggests that the entire universe may have popped into existence by the same means.

However, this idea has caveats. To begin with, for a system as massive as the observable universe, the time for it to arise from nothingness (the space-time fabric) and revert back to nothingness (the space-time fabric) must be less than 10-102 seconds (101 zeroes between the decimal point and 1). This episode is a bit briefer than the 14-billion-year age of the universe!

A second inadequacy in Krauss’ suggestion comes from another principle of quantum mechanics. The probability of a quantum outcome occurring increases in proportion to the passage of time. That is, the larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum outcome, like the production of a virtual particle, will take place. This principle implies that if the time interval is zero, the probability for any quantum event is zero.5

The space-time theorems prove that time has a beginning coincident with the beginning of the universe. Thus, the time interval at the beginning of the universe is zero. This eliminates quantum mechanics as a possible candidate for natural generator of the universe.

He goes onto try and hypothesize a second way the universe could have arisen from nothing without divine agency with an unobserved hyper quantum mechanics.

Here some dimension (or dimensions) of time, entirely distinct from cosmic time, would permit space-time bubbles, independent of the space or time dimensionality posited to exist beyond our universe, to pop into existence spontaneously. However, if the hyper quantum mechanics is anything like the quantum mechanics we observe, then the space-time bubbles must also disappear spontaneously within extremely brief time episodes.

Krauss acknowledges that his appeal to some imagined hyper quantum mechanics to explain the origin of the universe leads to a time episode problem. He suggests that the problem might be solved if the universe experiences a very aggressive inflationary expansion event before the hyper quantum mechanics forced the newly generated space-time bubble (our universe) to disappear.

Inflation is now an integral part of big bang cosmology. It refers to the brief but rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume. For our universe, the inflation epoch lasted between 10-36 and 10-33 seconds. It occurred near the very beginning of the electroweak era, during which three forces of physics existed: gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the electroweak force.

The electroweak force is actually a blending of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force. This blending occurs only when the universe is very young and, hence, very hot. However, if the universe is too young, the electroweak force will blend with the strong nuclear force. When our universe was about 10-35 seconds old, the strong-electroweak force separated into the strong nuclear force and the electroweak force. Accordingly, an inflation episode cannot begin in our universe until the universe is 10-35 seconds old.

A hundred billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second might not seem like very much time, but it is far too long to make Krauss’s hyper quantum mechanics a viable “creator” of our universe. This albeit extremely brief time interval is 1067 times longer than the time duration for a universe like ours to appear and then disappear via the quantum pathway that produces virtual particles.

It is important to note here that many viable inflationary big bang creation models (that is, those capable of explaining the possible existence of life) predict that the act of inflation between 10-35 and 10-32 seconds will spawn a large number of space-time bubbles. These bubbles, however, differ from the kind generated by Krauss’ proposed hyper quantum mechanics. These bubbles are generated well after our universe’s creation event. Once formed by the inflation event, they subsequently never overlap. This means humans can never detect the existence of any of these possible bubbles.

Nevertheless, though we cannot prove their existence, we can determine that all these bubbles, if they exist, require a transcendent causal Agent. The space-time theorem proved by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin6 established that in all viable inflationary big bang models—no matter the quantity of space-time bubbles they predict—the universe and all of its bubbles are subject to a beginning in finite time. The implication is that they thus require a causal Agent beyond space and time to explain their existence.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/universe-from-nothing-a-critique-of-lawrence-krauss-book-part-1

There are other hypothesis out there like multi universe and string theory but these are unproven and mere speculation. The point is for me any of these don't address the fact that in any scenario there is something there whether it be virtual particles or time, dark matter, dark energy or lack of time. All are something and not really nothing and still need to have come from somewhere. Krauss and other scientists try to overlook this and add in extra dimensions to compensate but these are just speculations that are trying to address and accommodate the fact that something cannot come from true nothingness and there had to be some sort of agent behind it.

Even Krauss doesn't entirely rule out the possibility of a God. He just doesn't agree with the one that exists in the bible. He is one of the leading proponents of anti religious beliefs and goes as far as saying we didn't need Christ to die for us because stars did that for us anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its all speculation as evolution likes to use and turn into truth. They dont know what the conditions were like on earth back then. The atmosphere of could have contained a fair amount of oxygen. Under oxidising conditions, the formation of organic compounds and their polymerisation do not occur.
Biological homochirality of sugars and amino acids remains an enigma.

Wrong, we do know what the atmosphere was like back then. The sedimentary rocks of the time tell us that there was practically no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere. The formation of redbeds tells us when life started to make a significant amount of oxygen.

Chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers.

There are some papers on the chirality problem, but to be honest I do not fully understand them right now. It seems that they may have the problem solved.

So they use the life comes from somewhere else in the universe example which changes the old story they promoted for so long. This just goes back to the same problem where did that come from. There are many other problems all along the way such as the origin of biological membranes.

Life's asymmetry may come from space - physicsworld.com

That is not what that article says. It does not say that life comes from outer space. That is one of the articles with a potential answer to the chirality problem. It says nothing about life itself coming from outer space, it points out that there is some favoritism is that molecules from space show a prejudice for the chiral forms we observe here on Earth.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong, we do know what the atmosphere was like back then. The sedimentary rocks of the time tell us that there was practically no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere. The formation of redbeds tells us when life started to make a significant amount of oxygen.

You have posted no backup for what your saying. You just say I'm wrong or the info's wrong. There is no definite evidence as to what the atmosphere was like. In fact new evidence recently points to the earths atmosphere being inhospitable for life and simple RNA based organisms hitched a ride on a meteorite from mars. There is also evidence that the atmosphere was similar to how it is now.

This is what i keep saying happens. Evolutionists come back with definite statements like your wrong and its definitely proven beyond doubt and time and time again they are proven wrong themselves. Or the very least there is no conclusive evidence but they want you to think there is definite proof to block the noise out of someone disagreeing and questioning their claims.

I am not even really pro porting that God is the alternative at the moment but merely pointing out there its not so straight forward but i cant even get past that yet.

Even if that was the case there are still several other obstacles to get around like chirality, the assumptions of what the early atmosphere was like, (i.e., devoid of free oxygen) in which carbon was mainly in the form of carbon monoxide, nitrogen existed as free nitrogen, and in which free hydrogen existed instead of free oxygen is highly speculative. There is no geochemical evidence that the atmosphere ever contained methane.
There are other problems in forming the more complex molecules as well.
Assuming you get past all of the above and many other problems there has not been any complete scenario showing that polymers can naturally form a self-replicating molecule or has ever been put forth. And we haven't got to the RNA world yet.

Early Earth's "Alien Atmosphere" Theories Nixed -"Dominated by Oxygen-Rich Compounds" (Today's Most Popular)
Life on Earth originally came from Mars, new study suggests | ExtremeTech
Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life" (updated)

There are some papers on the chirality problem, but to be honest I do not fully understand them right now. It seems that they may have the problem solved.

Well i would like to see them because as far as i can see this is a major stumbling block.

That is not what that article says. It does not say that life comes from outer space. That is one of the articles with a potential answer to the chirality problem. It says nothing about life itself coming from outer space, it points out that there is some favoritism is that molecules from space show a prejudice for the chiral forms we observe here on Earth.

Once again this is all speculation and nothing is proved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again this is all speculation and nothing is proved.

No, it is not.

Do you even know the meaning of the word speculation? It seems that you don't.

Why do you think it is speculation? I told you some of the evidence that drove scientists to their conclusions. If there is evidence then it is not speculation by definition. I seriously suggest that you stop listening to lying creationist sites.

 

[stevevw]

No, it is not.

Do you even know the meaning of the word speculation? It seems that you don't.

Why do you think it is speculation? I told you some of the evidence that drove scientists to their conclusions. If there is evidence then it is not speculation by definition. I seriously suggest that you stop listening to lying creationist sites.

I'm wondering if you do. Thats the point your telling me without backup like we are suppose to accept your word. Yet your constantly asking us to jump through hoops and show a high standard science backup and then dismiss anything that has a thread of religion tacked to it even if it has valid points.

First you respond to when i mentioned that there was new evidence saying the early atmosphere of the earth may have had more oxygen than they thought with a "WRONG we do know what the atmosphere was like" .

You said i was wrong and you didn't backup it up with any evidence but just dismissed what i said. So you were saying you were right according to your word without backup. I included a couple of non religious sites backing my claims which i said made your claims speculative and not definite like you were making out by dismissing me again which you always do.

Yet you decided not to reply to that but to focus on the life or RNA that may have come from outaspace which is totally more speculative than anything else if you look at the evidence. They have come up with this because they cant get around the chirality problem. They seem to do this a lot, when they hit a snag they turn to another speculative idea and turn it into the truth with solid evidence.

Its a bit like Mr krauss's unobserved hypothetical hyper quantum mechanics to solve his problem of real cosmic time by creating this other set of dimensions of times that work outside everything else so it all fits in.

Yet i linked science and non religious sites presenting different kinds of evidence for showing how life started on earth one being that the oxygen levels were low or non existent so life could start on earth plus many other ones they have put forward. They have 3 or 4 different hypothesis as to how it all started and some have some good evidence to back them up. So the story starts to be all over the place so nothing is proven like you say.

The RNA from mars is just one of a few hypothesis that have come up recently that have no real proof and are all hypothesis. So nothing is definite like you say but evolutionist like to make out it is just because they say so.

But i suspect the main reason why this particular one has come up is because they are realizing how hard it is to prove that complex life can just pop into existence out of what maybe inhospitable conditions and impossible odds. So once again they are turning to some outside place that came up with the magic ingredients and it started there and hitched a ride to us. The only problem with that is if it did then its saying that it started in an even harsher place or that there should be life all over the place as it was on mars and the earth why not many other places in the universe.

You have to remember they have only just recently bragged about how the other tests they have done in labs are proving that chemicals can come together and make proteins and are hinting at even more. So on the one hand we have 2 tests claiming different ways life started both saying they have evidence for 2 completely different methods at the same time. They seem to claim they have shown this to happen in labs but some say they create the conditions that are ideal and its not the same out there in the real world. So its funny how they are making all these different things happening at the same time. Its like hedging their bets. Give me a break.

Here are the other hypothesis about how life started on earth that also have good backup, or just as much as the RNA from mars one. Some talk about life starting in deep sea vents so there many "speculative" ideas put forward.

Earth Life May Have Originated at Deep-Sea Vents | Space.com
Breathing new life into Earth - MIT News Office
Archean : The First Life on Earth
This one actually says new fossil record for life starting under the sea. So they are coming up with lots at the moment.
http://www.livescience.com/4579-fossils-support-deep-sea-origin-life.html
This site actually goes into a few different ones and compares them.
Possible Sites for the Origin of Life

 

[USincognito]

Yes but there are processes and elements that need to come together to start and form that cell and molecule that have been shown to be impossible to occur the way they say it happened. You can't form live by an accident and chance, its impossible.

When was this determined?

 

[stevevw]

I'm wondering if you do. Thats the point your telling me without backup like we are suppose to accept your word. Yet your constantly asking us to jump through hoops and show a high standard science backup and then dismiss anything that has a thread of religion tacked to it even if it has valid points.

First you respond to when i mentioned that there was new evidence saying the early atmosphere of the earth may have had more oxygen than they thought with a "WRONG we do know what the atmosphere was like" .

You said i was wrong and you didn't backup it up with any evidence but just dismissed what i said. So you were saying you were right according to your word without backup. I included a couple of non religious sites backing my claims which i said made your claims speculative and not definite like you were making out by dismissing me again which you always do.

Yet you decided not to reply to that but to focus on the life or RNA that may have come from outaspace which is totally more speculative than anything else if you look at the evidence. They have come up with this because they cant get around the chirality problem. They seem to do this a lot, when they hit a snag they turn to another speculative idea and turn it into the truth with solid evidence.

Its a bit like Mr krauss's unobserved hypothetical hyper quantum mechanics to solve his problem of real cosmic time by creating this other set of dimensions of times that work outside everything else so it all fits in.

Yet i linked science and non religious sites presenting different kinds of evidence for showing how life started on earth one being that the oxygen levels were low or non existent so life could start on earth plus many other ones they have put forward. They have 3 or 4 different hypothesis as to how it all started and some have some good evidence to back them up. So the story starts to be all over the place so nothing is proven like you say.

The RNA from mars is just one of a few hypothesis that have come up recently that have no real proof and are all hypothesis. So nothing is definite like you say but evolutionist like to make out it is just because they say so.

But i suspect the main reason why this particular one has come up is because they are realizing how hard it is to prove that complex life can just pop into existence out of what maybe inhospitable conditions and impossible odds. So once again they are turning to some outside place that came up with the magic ingredients and it started there and hitched a ride to us. The only problem with that is if it did then its saying that it started in an even harsher place or that there should be life all over the place as it was on mars and the earth why not many other places in the universe.

You have to remember they have only just recently bragged about how the other tests they have done in labs are proving that chemicals can come together and make proteins and are hinting at even more. So on the one hand we have 2 tests claiming different ways life started both saying they have evidence for 2 completely different methods at the same time. They seem to claim they have shown this to happen in labs but some say they create the conditions that are ideal and its not the same out there in the real world. So its funny how they are making all these different things happening at the same time. Its like hedging their bets. Give me a break.

Here are the other hypothesis about how life started on earth that also have good backup, or just as much as the RNA from mars one. Some talk about life starting in deep sea vents so there many "speculative" ideas put forward.

Earth Life May Have Originated at Deep-Sea Vents | Space.com
Breathing new life into Earth - MIT News Office
Archean : The First Life on Earth
This one actually says new fossil record for life starting under the sea. So they are coming up with lots at the moment.
New Fossils Support Deep-Sea Origin of Life | LiveScience
This site actually goes into a few different ones and compares them.
Possible Sites for the Origin of Life

Lastly you have to remember that Chirality is just one of the problems they have to get around to have life come from chemicals into complex molecules.

The Miller-Urey experiment
Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

 

[46AND2]

Lastly you have to remember that Chirality is just one of the problems they have to get around to have life come from chemicals into complex molecules.

The Miller-Urey experiment
Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

yes, abiogenesis remains hypothetical. It is not theory.

hypothetical does not equal speculative.

 

[stevevw]

When was this determined?

There have been a few new discoveries and hypothesis that have come out recently. I just finished posting a few of them. I'm not saying any are correct but i am saying that nothing is proven at the moment just a lot of speculation. Even the new findings from the miller experiment from years ago that claimed they have found amino acids and proteins is just talk at the moment. They say that to do those teats in a lab with controlled conditions is different to in nature. At the same time they say they have found evidence that molecules may have come from space or life started in deep sea vents.

About Truth in Science
Possible Sites for the Origin of Life
Life's asymmetry may come from space - physicsworld.com

 

[USincognito]

Why don't you simply cut and paste where it says that abiogenesis is impossible since that was the gist of what I quoted?

Yes but there are processes and elements that need to come together to start and form that cell and molecule that have been shown to be impossible to occur the way they say it happened. You can't form live by an accident and chance, its impossible.

 

[stevevw]

Why don't you simply cut and paste where it says that abiogenesis is impossible since that was the gist of what I quoted?

Sorry i cant remember what we were talking about as i got side tracked. Can you remind me again.
I wasn't really getting into what you were talking about, I just posted what it says about the creature. The other person was saying it was a dog i think. I was just posting to say maybe thats because they refer to it as looking dog like.

 

[gungasnake]

Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

Sure. Evolution and "Big Bang(TM)" are both junk science, which is all most people really need to know about them.

In the case of Big Bang, what happened was that, beginning in the 1920s, cosmic redshift began to be interpreted as meaning that the universe itself was expanding, that is, redshifted objects were assumed to be moving away from us. This led to the extrapolation that the universe itself had to have begun with a "big bang" in which all of the mass of the universe exploded out of a "singularity(TM)" (which is a fancy word for exploding out of nothingness).

This whole idea should have been rejected out of hand on purely philosophical grounds; obviously, having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, and nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

But more recently, Halton Arp has demonstrated a number of very obvious cases of very high and very low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things; that destroys the entire idea of viewing redshift as distance or velocity of expansion and, with it, the entire notion of an expanding universe and the need for any sort of a big bang.

For his troubles, Arp was blackballed and denied access to US observatories and then, subsequently, picked up by the Max Planck Institute, sort of like the fairytale of the swan chick which the ducks thought was an "ugly duckling".

A couple of the images in question which show high and low redshift objects joined together:

http://www.davidstrange.org.uk/n4319.jpg

https://www.bueso.de/files/images/2012/NGC-7603-fix-resize_0.jpg

 

[mzungu]

Sure. Evolution and "Big Bang(TM)" are both junk science, which is all most people really need to know about them.

In the case of Big Bang, what happened was that, beginning in the 1920s, cosmic redshift began to be interpreted as meaning that the universe itself was expanding, that is, redshifted objects were assumed to be moving away from us. This led to the extrapolation that the universe itself had to have begun with a "big bang" in which all of the mass of the universe exploded out of a "singularity(TM)" (which is a fancy word for exploding out of nothingness).

This whole idea should have been rejected out of hand on purely philosophical grounds; obviously, having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, and nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

But more recently, Halton Arp has demonstrated a number of very obvious cases of very high and very low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things; that destroys the entire idea of viewing redshift as distance or velocity of expansion and, with it, the entire notion of an expanding universe and the need for any sort of a big bang.

For his troubles, Arp was blackballed and denied access to US observatories and then, subsequently, picked up by the Max Planck Institute, sort of like the fairytale of the swan chick which the ducks thought was an "ugly duckling".

A couple of the images in question which show high and low redshift objects joined together:

http://www.davidstrange.org.uk/n4319.jpg

https://www.bueso.de/files/images/2012/NGC-7603-fix-resize_0.jpg

Sock puppet much? touting more cartoon physics?

 

[mzungu]

I think the best answer to this was formulated a 150 years ago by Thomas Huxley



Evolution Debate Thomas Huxley vs Wilberforce - YouTube

Indeed!

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Closed for review. Why? Well, both flaming and blasphemy are violations.
MOD HAT OFF
​