The Universe - is it Created? or by Chance?

[Peenut]

The Universe? It is created by energy. Not by ethereal being.

I guess.

[schmuck]

1.See what I mean? There should be an uncaused cause. The only problem with this eternal singularity is that it would, in some way, be subjected to space time dimension. Having an object in a form of matter or energy is subject to changes. Let's just say that singularity has been there for 500 trilion years, was there no activity going on? Now, how about an infinite past?
I think that singularity your talking is also beyond space and time (like God?)..

2. Remember on my Multiverse hypothesis and "God hypothesis"? Again, neither of these "hypotheses" are testable.

Based from your previously posted YouTube link, a Multiverse would consist of some sort of "Mother Universe" that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. Think about this, an infinite number of BigBangs! Wow, that would require an infinite energy to do that.
An uncaused cause, beyond space and time, with an infinite amount of energy (power) that made our Universe ... hhhhmmmmm..
It makes me think that it looks like God. The only difference is that the latter has intellect.

On the other hand, if our Universe would just be a small seed coming out from the "Mother Universe", would it not be in conflict with your stand that our Universe (in singularity) has always existed?

According to physicist Paul Davies:
"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

3. I don't know what you mean when you say "organic material". Organic matter is matter that has come from a once-living organism. If they created such DNA, then it is just an artificial one.
Talking about synthetic cells, I think you're referring to this:
It's alive! Artificial DNA controls life - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
There have been a lot synthetic stuffs made these days, and I don't think that would pose some
problems on my argument.

Of course there is a big difference between a synthetic and natural organisms.

"A most careful and universal research has proved beyond prudent doubt that all visible organisms
arise only from germs of the same kind and never from inorganic matter."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis

1. Bingo!
2. Bingo!
This was what I was saying many posts ago. And you finally get it! Congratulations!
Notice that my position does not cross into the supernatural realm. I don't invoke a "god", I stop at the universe(something that we know exists because we are in it and talking about about it now).
Using Occam's Razor between both our positions, mine has lesser unknowns and therefore, more feasible.
Seeing as your god doesn't give a sh!t about us now(except for the occasional Cheesus sighting), he is as useless as a universe without an intellect.

3. The original creationist argument was that life could not possibly come from inorganic matter. What that experiment demonstrated, was that it was possible to synthetically construct DNA(building blocks of life!) out of chemicals in a lab. This is just a small step but with big implications. As I said, the next step is an entire synthetic cell to be constructed. I'm pretty sure there will just dismiss this and find another gap they can plug their god into. It always is like that with unfalsifiable claims.

[hitch22]

Nice one, schmuck! Thanks for taking all the attacks for the home team.

I actually wanted to establish first how much of science do religious apologists really accept. In science, we've estimated our universe to be around 13.75 billion years old and the Earth around 4.5 billion years old. We've also estimated that homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 years ago. We take it as a fact that various species appeared at various points in the geological time scale, and new species continue to be discovered year after year, where once they were not endemic in certain ecosystems. I guess one of the early question facing the curious mind was: How did species came about? Once they were not there, suddenly they're there. Did God magically put them there when no one was looking or when everybody was asleep?

Apparently, the magic theory didn't satisfy certain people in our highly religious past...people like Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. As pattern-seeking people, they saw similarities between certain species and thought "Could these closely-similar living species probably have a common ancestor in the past?" I guess that question about common descent led them to the forbidden answer: WE EVOLVED (common descent being perhaps the central idea of Darwin's theory). In Darwin's own words, "It was like confessing to a murder."

In those days, Darwin's idea about Evolution was largely a hypothesis. More than a century later, with evidence after evidence piling up...especially now with our ability to sequence genomes and especially now that we've been able to assemble a synthetic cell and booted it up to life (it's worth repeating: BOOTED UP TO LIFE)...the Theory of Evolution (which itself has undergone refinements since Darwin) is still the best scientific explanation to the origin of species.

What about chemical evolution-- the theory that the first living cells arose from the primordial soup of early earth? Well, the earth like all planets had a birth, 4.5 billion years ago. And like all planets, it began as diffuse clouds of dust swirling in deep space...well, you know how the story goes (check your science textbook or your reliable scientific website). Anyway, early earth was definitely not hospitable to life. How then can you explain going from that lifeless beginning to having primitive cells one billion years later? I have to say chemical evolution looks to be the best scientific theory, as opposed to...once again, the magic theory of "God put the cells there". In fact, in 2008, when they re-visited Stanley Miller's experiment and performed them once again, this time armed with a better approximation of earth's early condition, the result produced even more organic compounds.

Miller, using the old methods, had found five amino acids; Jeffrey Bada and his teams tracked down 22!

Quote taken from this article: BBC News: New spark in classic experiments - 16 October 2008 (click here to read).

That's the beauty of the Theory of Evolution. It harmonizes with the theories from the other branches of science, and it fits in the giant jigsaw puzzle that science is working on very nicely. It's still not a complete Theory. New mechanisms (aside from genetic variation, mutation, and natural selection) for evolution are still being discovered. Take this insight, for example, given by Craig Venter on his successful attempt at creating the first synthetic cell:

This is a major mechanism of evolution right here. We find all kinds of species that have taken up a second chromosome or a third one from somewhere, adding thousands of new traits in a second to that species. So people who think of evolution as just one gene changing at a time have missed much of biology.

*above quote taken from Transcript for Craig Venter is on the verge of creating synthetic life (click here to read).

Anyway, for those interested in viewing a replay of that episode from the Discovery Channel:

CREATING SYNTHETIC LIFE - Part 1
CREATING SYNTHETIC LIFE - Part 2
CREATING SYNTHETIC LIFE - Part 3
CREATING SYNTHETIC LIFE - Part 4
CREATING SYNTHETIC LIFE - Part 5
CREATING SYNTHETIC LIFE - Part 6

Definitely worth watching. Enjoy!

[schmuck]

Just doing my part in bringing the light, hitch

cheers!

[robert_papalid_ece]

nice play by hitch22!!! Creationists still leading by 100 points!!!

joke2x ra mga brus ha? assuming lang nga ako ang judge...
walay dumot... highblood na sad ning uban ron...

the Universe being created by a Supreme Being still sounds better to me...
redhorse1L's arguments are simple and very straightforward... which one is more "logical" to believe? Created? or by Chance? mao ra jud...

yeah yeah... everybody might be impressed with all those early earth/early universe assumptions... but weren't you wondering... that if they are indeed true... they might also be part of the design? not just by chance? which in Cebuano... "chamba" ra?

some people have been very impressed as well with all those breakthroughs kuno in science... same with redhorse1L... i don't buy it... so what if they created a DNA? it isn't LIFE... if they can create "fungi" from scratch... that i will be impressed...

and similar to their search for the missing link (which i posted on the other thread)... i could give them ALL the time they want...

we could relate this breakthrough kuno... to the developments in robotics particularly... humans have been dreaming that one day... they could build robots/androids that could equal humans in terms of intelligence, emotions, etc... but sorry my science fiction-esh friends... that will never happen... i assure you...

i was just thinking... if the funding for these research would have been used in studies involving renewable energy, global warming, electronics, agriculture (food)... the world will then be a better place... just my thoughts... pinobre nga panghunahuna lang ba...

ooops... way dumot na sad ha?

[schmuck]

i was just thinking... if the funding for these research would have been used in studies involving renewable energy, global warming, electronics, agriculture (food)... the world will then be a better place... just my thoughts... pinobre nga panghunahuna lang ba...

you are entitled to your opinion. Nit-pick lang ko ani nga part in quotes.

Artificial life is only months away, says biologist Craig Venter - Times Online
third paragraph

Science. Making the world a better place

[hitch22]

schmuck, I get the feeling that you still think we're "almost there" with the first synthetic cell. You know what...it's better than you think. Technically, I have to say Craig Venter pulled it off! He announced that news on May 20, 2010. Check out this news from the BBC: 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists.

We now even have a documentary on how his team did it. Check out the links I've provided in my previous post.

robert, you said:

...if the funding for these research would have been used in studies involving renewable energy, global warming, electronics, agriculture (food)... the world will then be a better place

You know what? That's exactly the implication of this breakthrough. Mao bitaw I recommend people to watch the video to appreciate what this (the creation of synthetic life) means for the world. For example, check this news (hot off the press) today: Exxon, Synthetic Genomics Open Algae Test Facility.

The greenhouse facility is the first step in figuring out if Synthetic Genomic’s algae fuel can move beyond the lab environment and be produced economically at a larger scale. The next step will be an outdoor facility that the partners will build by 2011.

I don't think Venter and his sponsors poured in millions of dollars for this research just to show off that they can create synthetic living cells.

These are just some of the possibilities: cleaner alternative fuels (e.g. algae fuel), faster development of tailor-made vaccines (according to Venter, when the technology matures, we should be able to develop vaccines against new viruses within 24 hours)....of course, agriculture (synthetic genomics should push the envelope on sustainable agriculture to the next level)...and so forth. It really is an exciting time for genetic science. The problem they're facing now, to quote one member from Venter's team, is:

We know how to write DNA, but we don't know WHAT codes to write.

[robert_papalid_ece]

hmm... thanks for the educational stuffs hitch22...
but for me... that artificial life thingy that Venter is so proud about is a bit exaggerated if we are to listen "BBC"... sorry for the word... but that's how i felt...

asking them on my earlier post, to create fungi from scratch is too much... i think... so how about lowering it to making a "cell" from scratch? not just the genome/DNA being injected to the cell? coz DNA isn't LIFE... just my opinion my friends...

i am not so sure if you are referring to biomass... but i still find hydro power and solar energy to be more promising... and more investments are needed for these studies...
but if Venter's new technology could indeed improve the energy efficiency... we could thank him for that... but not in the creation of LIFE... coz he never did... just my two cents...

[redhorse1L]

1. Bingo!
2. Bingo!
This was what I was saying many posts ago. And you finally get it! Congratulations!
Notice that my position does not cross into the supernatural realm. I don't invoke a "god", I stop at the universe(something that we know exists because we are in it and talking about about it now).
Using Occam's Razor between both our positions, mine has lesser unknowns and therefore, more feasible.
Seeing as your god doesn't give a sh!t about us now(except for the occasional Cheesus sighting), he is as useless as a universe without an intellect.

3. The original creationist argument was that life could not possibly come from inorganic matter. What that experiment demonstrated, was that it was possible to synthetically construct DNA(building blocks of life!) out of chemicals in a lab. This is just a small step but with big implications. As I said, the next step is an entire synthetic cell to be constructed. I'm pretty sure there will just dismiss this and find another gap they can plug their god into. It always is like that with unfalsifiable claims.

1. It's not that easy.
How can a form of matter and energy exists outside space and time?
That is totally in contradiction with science!

he is as useless as a universe without an intellect.
Haven't you realized what you have said? How can this lifeless, non-intellectual Universe able to produce such intelligent beings? Wow, a useless, brainless Universe producing valuable lifeforms.

from lolzz:

Life points to life, intelligence points to intelligence. Nothing cannot give rise to something. Logical ba? a big YES.

2. You haven't replied to me on this:
On the other hand, if our Universe would just be a small seed coming out from the "Mother Universe", would it not be in conflict with your stand that our Universe (in singularity) has always existed?

3. Sorry, but that's the dead end of science. What science can do is to genetically alter a living cell, not to create one from scratch.
The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria produce after their own, that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life. Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life [is] from life".
Biogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OT: Special thanks to Louis Pasteur, without his contribution on pasteurization, there won't be any beer nowadays. hehehe

[redhorse1L]

you are entitled to your opinion. Nit-pick lang ko ani nga part in quotes.

Artificial life is only months away, says biologist Craig Venter - Times Online
third paragraph

Science. Making the world a better place

I don't understand why you're so excited about this.
Please read the entire article carefully.
Artificial life is only months away, says biologist Craig Venter - Times Online

Last January the team built a bacterium’s entire genetic code from scratch. The next step was to transfer this synthetic genome into a host cell, using the 2007 transplant technique, to “reboot” it with genetic instructions written by humans. This has failed so far because the synthetic genome will not work when it is transplanted into host cells.

In the new study, the Venter team grew the natural M. mycoides genome in yeast, under similar conditions to the synthetic genome, so that it had no methylation. These genomes failed to take when they were transplanted into host cells.

See? That "artificial life" they are referring to is that they built a bacterium's entire genetic code from scratch, then transplant it into living host cells!
It did not say that they created a living cell from scratch.

Again, Omne vivum ex vivo.