14 replies to this topic

[electriic ink]

This video explains how the origin of life and defies clearly the argument that says "every painting needs a painter therefore God exists". The reason: painting aren't living so can't replicate themselves, living matter, however, can. Life actually began billions of years ago following a series of chemical reactions and a common substance on the planet back then proved a perfect catalyst for this. Over BILLIONS of years, life evolved to form the current human-being, which have only existed for 100,000 years (1/43,200th of the time the Earth has existed.)

A good watch for creationists and evolutionists alike and it dispels common myths about scientists' understanding about the origins of life on Earth.

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=ozbFerzjkz4

[keego]

In a way this is so true.. thats why i use to say that we have god.. and god is us itself.. we started all this.. its the way the world works.. people do stuff like setup religion , god .... things like that.. i don't know.. its all a conspiracy.. i mean cmon.. im not saying i dont believe in god for all those people that believe in it.. all im saying is that we are our own gods.. i mean we're the one making the world the way it is.. we're the one that discovers new things everyday.. us human!!! We came to this earth somehow yonks ago.. and no one will ever find out how.. all the stuff people say is just a conspiracy

Edited by keego, 23 March 2008 - 01:46 PM.

[kasm]

This video explains how the origin of life and defies clearly the argument that says "every painting needs a painter therefore God exists". The reason: painting aren't living so can't replicate themselves, living matter, however, can. Life actually began billions of years ago following a series of chemical reactions and a common substance on the planet back then proved a perfect catalyst for this. Over BILLIONS of years, life evolved to form the current human-being, which have only existed for 100,000 years (1/43,200th of the time the Earth has existed.)
A good watch for creationists and evolutionists alike and it dispels common myths about scientists' understanding about the origins of life on Earth.
http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=ozbFerzjkz4

I watched that youTube clip and nothing in it new except it is video instead of writen or electronic pages.

That can't prove anything. It can't prove claim to something happened 7 billion years ago by making video or film. If something can't be approved exprimently or mathematically, then it is theory and even not scientific theory.

see the scientific theory requirment at http://www.sedrak.ws...ific_Theory.htm

Do anyone can apply this theory to produce one tiny cell?

Moreover the DNA shows more than before the need to a creator-designer who put all the information in the DNA to instruct the various cells to do its functions.

Do you know that the information in the DNA can fill a sheet from here to planet Marc?

Edited by kasm, 24 March 2008 - 05:11 AM.

[electriic ink]

I watched that youTupe clip and nothing in it new except it is video instead of writen or electronic pages.

That can't prove anything. It can't prove claim to something happened 7 billion years ago by making video or film. If something can't be approved exprimently or mathematically, then it is theory and even not scientific theory.

see the scientific theory requirment at http://www.sedrak.ws...ific_Theory.htm

That makes it a hypothesis, which according to my old science lessons, is "an idea backed up by lots of really clever scientific thinking", which makes it respectable because of its scientific backing. This hypothesis cannot be tested because we don't have the knowledge let alone the power to replicate a Big Bang or the creation of life. Let's put it this way, more thought has gone into creating our theories on the world's creation that went into inventing supernatural gods. We all know unicorns don't exist so what makes God's existence any more valid?

Do anyone can apply this theory to produce one tiny cell?

Has anyone used the theory behind how lightning is formed to create a bolt of lightning? No. Has anyone witnessed the decomposition of plastics? No. Has anyone created a cell? No. Does that make any of these theories wrong? No.

Moreover the DNA shows more than before the need to a creator-designer who put all the information in the DNA to instruct the various cells to do its functions.

We just don't know enough about DNA in order to explain logically how the information was put there. I'm sure someone better qualified than me could comment on how DNA works though.

Do you know that the information in the DNA can fill a sheet from here to planet Marc?

And? That doesn't prove the existence of a deity.

[tricky77puzzle]

I watched that youTupe clip and nothing in it new except it is video instead of writen or electronic pages.

That can't prove anything. It can't prove claim to something happened 7 billion years ago by making video or film. If something can't be approved exprimently or mathematically, then it is theory and even not scientific theory.

see the scientific theory requirment at http://www.sedrak.ws...ific_Theory.htm

Do anyone can apply this theory to produce one tiny cell?

Moreover the DNA shows more than before the need to a creator-designer who put all the information in the DNA to instruct the various cells to do its functions.

Do you know that the information in the DNA can fill a sheet from here to planet Marc?

I think the scientific quest to prove evolution can also be explained philosophically (I know... I'm trying to act as a philosopher even though I don't have such a degree...) I think scientists are followers of the human quest for knowledge. This quest has led them to believe (notice I do not say "erroneously believe".) that a complex problem such as life cannot have such a simple answer (i.e. a deity.) Scientists are people who challenge a norm and then find ways to prove it. For example, back in the 1600's, it was common knowledge that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was up to scientists to disprove this.

Back in the 1800's, it was also common knowledge that the Earth and everything in it was created by someone. Now scientists are trying to challenge this theory and disprove it. To them it is nothing more than a great challenge that they feel compelled to take. While creationists simply flick their hands and say, "No, there's no need to do that; God did it all," scientists are actually trying to prove them wrong.

Of course, some scientists are trying to prove the creationists right, but it's the creationists themselves, not the creation scientists, who are ignorant.

[kasm]

That makes it a hypothesis, which according to my old science lessons, is "an idea backed up by lots of really clever scientific thinking", which makes it respectable because of its scientific backing.

- I know what the hijacker of science teach and claim in their books and school books.

- I am scientist but believer in God[I am not alone]. I studied all the relativity theories and beyond plus the thermodynamics laws by complicated mathematical formulas.

- I accept ideas and hypothis but I don't considered it true until pass the conditions of that.

- I wish you are finished your study because I don't want to confuse you. If you are still studying, you can tell them what they taught to you but in the same time keep your skeptics in your mind.

This hypothesis cannot be tested because we don't have the knowledge let alone the power to replicate a Big Bang or the creation of life. Let's put it this way, more thought has gone into creating our theories on the world's creation that went into inventing supernatural gods. We all know unicorns don't exist so what makes God's existence any more valid?

If something can't be tested then the theory is historical theory and belief. It is the same as what religion saying except the later can be followed by tracing to our ancestors history 6000 yeras ago but not 7 billions years. By the way claiming something happened 7 billions years ago is baseless. Why 7 bilions not 6 or 9 billions? Who determines that?

Has anyone used the theory behind how lightning is formed to create a bolt of lightning? No. Has anyone witnessed the decomposition of plastics? No. Has anyone created a cell? No. Does that make any of these theories wrong? No.

In this case there is simple question [please don't answer it again by another question]
Why nobody can create a one cell using this theory?

We just don't know enough about DNA in order to explain logically how the information was put there. I'm sure someone better qualified than me could comment on how DNA works though.
And? That doesn't prove the existence of a deity.

If you don't know how the information in DNA are put there, then don't deny automatic that may be a designer may be put there . Until that the claimer of the theory have not to claim that there are not painter to the painting as they put in there videos. From where you are sure that there is one can explain that. You could search the internet. I know there is none.

The DNA discovery make big problem to the evolution theory.

[electriic ink]

- I am scientist but believer in God[I am not alone]. I studied all the relativity theories and beyond plus the thermodynamics laws by complicated mathematical formulas.

My dad is the same as you but the one problem I have with Christian scientists (not to be confused with Scientologists) is that until science can prove something, you take the God-did-it approach. Science WILL be able to explain problems of today, such as the creation of DNA as you described, in the future. Just think of what we've taught ourselves over these past 300 years and, with that in mind, what we will know in the next 300 years.

Why nobody can create a one cell using this theory?

Because the cellular life took a billion years to form, and even that cell was so basic, it's nothing like the cells we have today. Someone could create life but it would take so long and cost so much money it's not worth doing. Doing it would also be very controversial; excuse my stereotypes, but you would get a lot of Evangelical Christians claiming that doing so would controversial and more evidence that scientists keep "playing God".

If something can't be tested then the theory is historical theory and belief. It is the same as what religion saying except the later can be followed by tracing to our ancestors history 6000 yeras ago but not 7 billions years. By the way claiming something happened 7 billions years ago is baseless. Why 7 bilions not 6 or 9 billions? Who determines that?

It's not the same as religion. Religion is purely faith-based and carries no evidence, not even scientific theory to back it up. There's just as much evidence that God created everything as Martians did. We can trace our ancestors back 6,000 years but we can trace dinosaurs back even further. Below is how they determined the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years old +/- 0.2 billion years:

Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years.[22]The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Big_Bang

And the Earth's age was calculated using radiometric dating.

If you don't know how the information in DNA are put there, then don't deny automatic that may be a designer may be put there . Until that the claimer of the theory have not to claim that there are not painter to the painting as they put in there videos. From where you are sure that there is one can explain that. You could search the internet. I know there is none.

There may be no-one yet, no.

[rvalkass]

I watched that youTube clip and nothing in it new except it is video instead of writen or electronic pages.

That can't prove anything. It can't prove claim to something happened 7 billion years ago by making video or film. If something can't be approved exprimently or mathematically, then it is theory and even not scientific theory.

Sorry to be so blunt, but religion can't prove what happened 2,000 years ago using only a collection of books, but that doesn't stop them trying. Both the scientific and religious theories rely on the fact that they cannot be proved wrong. However, as ammunition in their argument, both sides use the fact that the other has never be proved right.

Moreover the DNA shows more than before the need to a creator-designer who put all the information in the DNA to instruct the various cells to do its functions.

Do you know that the information in the DNA can fill a sheet from here to planet Marc?

DNA does not actually contain any physical information. DNA is not an intelligent being; it cannot think or make decisions, therefore any 'information' would be useless to it. DNA is a sequence of chemicals, differing slightly from each other, that react in certain ways with other chemicals. When these reactions occur, the order in which the chemicals are placed on the DNA determine the order in which new chemicals are bonded together - it is simply a series of chemical reactions happening in a predetermined order. Chemical reactions occur all the time without the intervention of a grand designer, so why should these reactions need one?

Has anyone used the theory behind how lightning is formed to create a bolt of lightning? No.

Well, actually, they have There are a few details they are not sure on, but lightning has been reproduced in labs, and the theory is pretty much the same as rubbing a balloon on your jumper and sticking it to the wall.

Has anyone witnessed the decomposition of plastics? No.

Erm, they have Plastics have been manufactured that break down in UV light, visible light, through bacteria in soils or through reactions with ozone. This is actually why bottled water has a sell-by date; the light breaks down the plastic and causes it to leach into the water.

- I know what the hijacker of science teach and claim in their books and school books.

What they claim is backed up with proof from experiments and studies that can be replicated by anyone with the right tools and equipment. There have been cases where people have been wrong, but scientists always make the best predictions on the available evidence, and they are usually right. Sometimes small adjustments need to be made (such as with the theories behind the structure of the atom) as technology and evidence advances.

If something can't be tested then the theory is historical theory and belief. It is the same as what religion saying except the later can be followed by tracing to our ancestors history 6000 yeras ago but not 7 billions years. By the way claiming something happened 7 billions years ago is baseless. Why 7 bilions not 6 or 9 billions? Who determines that?

The age of the Universe is calculated from the rate of expansion of the Universe, and tracing it back to a central point and time - the Big Bang. Reversing the expansion of the Universe and looking at how long it has taken us to reach where we are now allows us to see how long it has been since the theoretical Big Bang. The age of the Earth can be estimated using radiometric dating. Using a mass spectrometer and looking for naturally occurring radioactive isotopes of elements, and their rates of decay, you can work out how old something is. I think the oldest rock ever found was from Australia, and is around 4.5 billion years old.

In this case there is simple question [please don't answer it again by another question]
Why nobody can create a one cell using this theory?

People are certainly trying. There are ethical and funding issues, along with our current lack of knowledge.

[jopak134]

your big bang theory now is little by little being disowned by scientist because it doesn't explain everything in the universe
if a theory is not true then all hypothetical facts found on that theory is false.

and explain to me the rate of the universe when any scientist still don't know how big the universe is.

chemical reaction doesnt happen on its own there must be something first that will make it to an reaction. if there is na2so4 and hcl in here that will be nacl "without someone making it into reaction"

Because the cellular life took a billion years to form, and even that cell was so basic, it's nothing like the cells we have today. Someone could create life but it would take so long and cost so much money it's not worth doing

--- oh ok so your predicting that you can create life from nothing, do you have substantial proof on what you are saying? even if its hard to do there should be some kind of prediction of a procedure that you can produce because that was the big bang theory came form.

another side of the story

[truefusion]

I saw the video, and found some parts funny (for both sides, mind you). I noticed the video didn't take the time to prove that the conditions of the earth were as they depicted. What they did is take the time to set the stage for their argument—this is what makes their argument appear possible, and therefore logical. If we accept this premise, then we are most likely sure to accept anything following it. What the video tries to do is prove that abiogenesis can happen given the proper conditions, without divine intervention. This is true in theory, but what about in practice? Scientists have taken the time to create similar conditions that were supposedly present when the earth was in its "primitive form" in order to prove that the statements made in this video really did happen. (This is usually referenced to "The Primordial Soup Theory.") However, although they did manage to make something that, if more components were added, could indeed cause life to form, it didn't last long enough to even get a chance to "find" these other components to merge with. In fact—it died instantly. You may read more here: Abiogenesis#Early_conditions. Also, there were many other attempts to try and prove that abiogenesis is possible through "natural" means, but all attempts have failed. You may see all failed attempts here: Abiogenesis#Current_models. So far, biogenesis remains king. Given all of these attempts, it makes it clear that the only possible way abiogenesis can even happen is if God were to intervene and cause a miracle to happen; however, science cannot make this claim. So where does God need to intervene, as the video asks? He would have to intervene in each step of the way. The video takes up the assumption that God was not the one that caused these things to mold together, if indeed they did mold, that is. Genesis says that we came from dust, do you really think dust will just walk up and form a man on its own? (Yes, the dust to man thing appears to be a Biblical mention of abiogenesis—but that's why i said it requires a miracle, that God must intervene.)

To add more, i've read all the laws of thermodynamics—i've even read the text provided in the video, and i'm here left wondering why it doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics. The earth is considered an open system because it obtains its energy from the sun. According to the laws of thermodynamics, an open system will eventually lead to chaos (not the original form of "chaos," that is, destruction, but more of randomness, disorder). The keyword in the video here is "polymerise." If you read the current models which i provided a link to, you will find this word, "polymer," et cetera, plenty of times. I cannot believe that something, according to the theory of evolution, would eventually end up becoming more complex in an open system.

Also, the video implies that the "evidence" only gives way to the theory of evolution. But it seems to not realize that all "evidence" is subject to interpretation.

I am not ignorant of anything the video has given—it brings nothing new to the table. If you expect me or any other believer of God to admit that the theory of evolution is true or "so widely proven and supported by evidence beyond a doubt," you're going to have to do better than this. But here's a suggestion: bring something new to the table, especially something that is proven and not refuted; good luck on that. I'm quite surprised that colleges are still teaching this stuff.

Religion is purely faith-based and carries no evidence, not even scientific theory to back it up.

I see you are ignorant of all the statements in the Bible that has been proven by science. Consider reading the Book of Job—it contains a lot.

[adrianator]

People can certainly try to put a number on infinite. They love to do it all the time. Try to measure the universe, time, their love for each other. WELL infinite is infinite, our minds can not even begin to comprehend such a concept. Our known universe may have an edge, but who is to say there aren't more universes. They say it started as a big bang? Well what of all the space otherwise. So one lone little pinhead of a speck in such a vast nothingness existed and then it blew up? That's disgusting, but according to this physics theory I mention below, we could potentially still be that speck waiting to blow up.

What if the Men In Black thing was true, that we can go infinitely larger or smaller and that we may be making up something larger. Mankind has only been around for so long (that we can tell). The dinosaurs, maybe 65 million years ago. If our planet is 4.5 billion years old, wouldn't EVERYTHING be that old? All matter would be the same age on this planet. Living organisms are energy translated to matter apparantly if they are being 'measured' in a way to say we're so old. What if we're measuring something else, that we don't understand yet. There are an infinite number of things that we could potentially 'detect' and absorb into our technologies. As for time, time is infinite as well, time has always been and always will be, far longer than a few billion years have passed by. I'm talking infinite time. We aren't even a blip on the smallest blip you can think of. On the grand scale of things, it's ludicrous to think we are alone in this amazingly infinite existence.

According to some physics theory, everything in this universe exists in the same space. Meaning space is just an illusion. And what of time, they say it slows down because of gravity and it's proven to happen around black holes and quasars, what's that mean on the grand scale of things. Or is that just an illusion as well?

Our DNA, they say, is the make up of who we are. They say they can manipulate DNA to achieve various results. That it is the programming of life. Well who is to say that an extra-terrestrial influence never dropped by to give our planet's creatures' DNA a reprogramming. That humans may have been a slave race to a greater race, even created by them. Look at the DNA research we're doing. Could one think that one day, we can produce our own programmed organisms? We're already doing it.

[tinin]

This video explains how the origin of life and defies clearly the argument that says "every painting needs a painter therefore God exists". The reason: painting aren't living so can't replicate themselves, living matter, however, can. Life actually began billions of years ago following a series of chemical reactions and a common substance on the planet back then proved a perfect catalyst for this. Over BILLIONS of years, life evolved to form the current human-being, which have only existed for 100,000 years (1/43,200th of the time the Earth has existed.)

A good watch for creationists and evolutionists alike and it dispels common myths about scientists' understanding about the origins of life on Earth.

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Hello Friends,

I was wondering whether god really exist.
I think that whether we really are naturally evolved or some kind of experiments.

Theory :-

>> There were lives which evolved before humans but they are not as intelligent as we are don't you agree.
We all knows that there is a creater who created humans which we call as GOD
Suppose that we are just an experiment made by some alien and this planet is a large facility where experiments are done.

Since time to time in history it seems that ALIENS met with people in different form I think we can get a hint from holy books from world wide. Since holy books are decrypted yet.
1. Holy book |Bible| >> Here we can see jesus as a prophet or god's son or god who came to help pepole.
2. Holy book Gita and other in Hinduism >> We can see that God always desends from VIMAN i.e. Like an Airplane or Space ship

We can see the similarities in other HOLY BOOKS and religion also...

I might be wrong but then also i think we didn't originated naturally. We were created by some one cannot say as God. Since God can be describe as Nature. And Nature never do partiallity.

Since Human evolution was too fast...
like parasite or viruses multiplying


Thanks

[mbafactory]

This video explains how the origin of life and defies clearly the argument that says "every painting needs a painter therefore God exists". The reason: painting aren't living so can't replicate themselves, living matter, however, can. Life actually began billions of years ago following a series of chemical reactions and a common substance on the planet back then proved a perfect catalyst for this. Over BILLIONS of years, life evolved to form the current human-being, which have only existed for 100,000 years (1/43,200th of the time the Earth has existed.)

A good watch for creationists and evolutionists alike and it dispels common myths about scientists' understanding about the origins of life on Earth.

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Was this a chemical reaction, or some sort of miracle life is still a mystry! We are not yet aware about all the life forms existing on earth. As far as I believe, evolution of life must have been some complex chemical developments on the surface of the earth, which facilitated life. One can also not deny the possibility of life coming from some remote source by the way of meterioite or space events, which brought about the life forms with it on the earth.

We are still in a phase of life form development and it seems hard that we will be able to deduce the original story behind the greatest mystry of all the times.

[ASHISHRANJAN]

hi.........
i am ashish ranjan to let you know that what is life
life is nothing but a circle which slways moving in sam circle
life is a dish which provied you with both sour and sweet taste
olife is a like a river which construct its own way by falling on
both hard and soft thing . life show both scene happynes and sadness
life is a teacher who teach us how to stay in this world with very
better complyment. life is ahell for them who has nothing in his hand
but on the other hand it is a haven for them who have every thing in his life

[Bikerman]

your big bang theory now is little by little being disowned by scientist because it doesn't explain everything in the universe
if a theory is not true then all hypothetical facts found on that theory is false.

Err...
No it is NOT true that 'hypothetical facts' are falsified if a theory is refuted. In fact it is a dumb suggestion.
Newton observed things falling at around 9.8 m/s^2. Einstein showed Newton was wrong (or at least very incomplete). Did things suddenly start falling faster, or slower? Of course not. If something is a fact, it is a fact, regardless of the theory or hypothesis that seeks to make use of that fact.

As for scientists 'disowning' the BB theory - not really. Like all theories, BB theory is fluid. It is being added to all the time, just like evolutionary theory and every other scientific theory. We KNOW that there is a problem with General Relativity when we get to very small scales - ie into the quantum world. We KNOW that either there are two separate and unmixable laws governing the universe, or one of our current main theories (or both) are incomplete - most likely General Relativity. So what? That is how science progresses: observe, test, refine, test ....