The Universe - is it Created? or by Chance?

[robert_papalid_ece]

@redhorse1L: agree agree! another dead end... similar to the evolutionists search for the missing link... a dead end...

OT: wala untay redhorse kung wala si Pasteur... thanks Mr. Pasteur for the beer... for your useful discoveries that truly benefited humans...

[redhorse1L]

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.


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:



*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!

I don't know what you're saying. Did I say that homo sapiens magically pop out from nowhere?
We have scientific evidence that single-celled organisms starts to sprout some 3.7 billion years ago.
Do you really think that homo-sapiens (200,000 years ago) is the oldest human ancestor found?
Check out Ardi (3.2 million years ago).
Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found
Now I'm not saying that they are already human since we don't have evidence that they are already have intelligence.
But based on their findings, Ardi have a different ancestral line as of the monkeys or apes.
You see, the difference between human beings and other species is not the form but our intellect!

Now, if you happen to believe that your ancestral line is a monkey, so be it.. =)

So the BIG QUESTION is, why would only our ancestral line has intellect?
Why chimps or dinosaurs won't talk (oop's I remember Barney and friends)


What about chemical evolution-- the theory that the first living cells arose from the primordial soup of early earth? Well, the earth like all stars had a birth, 4.5 billion years ago. Like all stars, 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).

Sorry, but there is NO story or acceptable theory for chemical origin of life.
Spontaneous generation is nothing more than a myth.
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It's a very long leap from [mineral] surface chemistry to a living cell." Norman Pace (evolutionary biologist, University of California, Berkeley).

"On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of Ribonucleic acid: a chemical that directs the manufacture of proteins and sometimes codes for the genetic material within certain organisms.RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate
self-replication." (Leslie Orgel)

'There is now overwhelmingly strong evidence, both statistical and Relating to the earth science study of fossil organisms and their related remains.paleontological, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions.... There simply was not enough time... to get life going." Niles Eldridge (paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History).

You keep on quoting about synthetic life.
Don't you realize that they just inject artificial gnomes to a living cell?
That means, they cannot simply create a living cell!

Omne vivum ex vivo.

[redhorse1L]

@redhorse1L: agree agree! another dead end... similar to the evolutionists search for the missing link... a dead end...

OT: wala untay redhorse kung wala si Pasteur... thanks Mr. Pasteur for the beer... for your useful discoveries that truly benefited humans...

Hahaha! mao jud. pasalamat jud ta aneh niya.
Himoan jud neh nato ug monumento. hehehe

[robert_papalid_ece]

@redhorse1L

OT: i'm impressed by your wisdom bro on matters like these... considering that you are a system administrator for an IT company i think? which means that you are either an IT, comp sci, comp eng grad?

pero ingon man sila bro... nga makahimo daw sila ug pure synthetic cell... IN THE FUTURE...
wait na lang tah...

[necrotic freak]

^^ipa hold lang sa diay ni nga thread oi kay hulatonon paman diay ilang chance.

tungab sa ko redhorse samtang nag hulat-hutan ko diri.

[lindsey8383]

"FOR ME" and through this simple logical thinking of mine...

the universe can't be an accident...
us breathing oxygen and exhaling co2... while plants consume our co2 and give us fresh air in return... can't be an accident...
how the human eye works... being able to process real-time images at such speed... that no man-made machine can surpass or equal... even Asimo's complex vision system...
our planet being perfectly distanced from the sun to support life...

to follow na lang ang uban...

there must be a Creator i believe...

Evolution does not necesarily contradict creation, they can be reconciled. Ever since Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859, scientist have argued on the basis of evidences (such as natomy and physiology, the progression of layers and dates of fossils, embroyology, genetics,etc.) that man is the result of long process of development of the living organisms from the simplest to more and more to complex forms due to certain modifications in their bodily structures as the organisms tried to adapt themselves to their environments. This seems to contradict the biblical affirmation that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lif. However the biblical story can be enterpreted only as an affirmation of "who' created man and "where" he came fromm but it does not tell "how" he was created. In other words, unclike science the Bible is not interested in telling us " How God created man" unlike the Bible, Science is not interested in knowing "who" makes evolution possible. Also evolution does not say that man came from apes but it does say man and apes emerged from the same higher branch of the evolutionary tree. No scientist claims that man came from the monkey or ape

[schmuck]

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.

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

1. There are completely natural explanations presented on how non organic chemicals can form organic materials. Look up Abiogenesis. ( for the so called "Life points to life")

Evolution explains how complex and intelligent creatures can evolve from simpler organisms( "This is for the so called "intelligence points to intelligence"). No intelligent beings required.
I don't know why you keep coming back to this. Balik-balik, tuyok-tuyok.

"matter and energy exists outside space and time?" I never said this LOL!
The fact is, our reality is made up of hyperdimensional space. What ever exists outside of the 3 dimensional universe we perceive, what that looks like, even what that is, I can't imagine it. Our brains are tuned to 3 dimensions only.

2. Why would the "seed" being part of a "mother universe" be contradictory to what I said. You were implying that this "mother universe" produced this "seed" at one point. I never said that. This "seed" could always have been part of that "mother universe". Consequently, this "mother universe" could always have existed.


3. Louis Pasteur was a brilliant man. For his time. The people of his time believed that WHOLE organisms could spontaneously generate. This is against our current understanding of chemical evolution. Their knowledge was CLEARLY limited to the what was available at the time. Science has had made great progress since his time. In other words, his findings our outdated. And you are grasping at straws referring to them instead of modern knowledge.
It is like saying "Ptolemy said that the earth is the center of the universe! Clearly, your modern understanding is wrong. Terra centric forma! Terra centric forma! lolololol"

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.

Of course I'm excited! DNA from synthetic chemicals. Giving life to organisms that never would have evolved in nature.
But the thing is, they used a host cell to place the DNA in. That is why, I said the generation of an entirely synthetic cell is the next logical step. This will eliminate the use of a host cell for the synthetic DNA. They did not create the host cell from scratch, only the DNA. But when they do, what then of your arguments?

[robert_papalid_ece]

^ huwat lang gani... if they can... they could again have all the time they want... coz for us... that's the dead end... synthetic jud tanan ha? bantay lagi ni si Venter... lami kaau ni siya hagkan oi... labi na ang iyang agtang... pareho ra ba sila'g nawong ni Charle's Darwin...

joke2x ra mga bros... wala japuy dumot...

[schmuck]

addendum:
@redhorse, re:your reply to hitch.
I thought you understood and accepted evolution. It seems that you lost this understanding based on on your reply lagi. Hmm...

Oh and, spontaneos generation != modern understanding of Abiogenesis

[hitch22]

Do you really think that homo-sapiens (200,000 years ago) is the oldest human ancestor found?

Homo sapiens is not our ancestor. WE ARE HOMO SAPIENS.

I'm sorry for laughing...but you tried to correct a valid statement that homo sapiens appeared some 200,000 years ago (some say less, some say more...but the consensus seem to be on this number) with that funny statement, which really made my day.

Thanks. (I'll reply to the rest of your response when I have the time...stay tuned )