Evolution: A Fairytale For Grown-Ups!

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

"When it comes to the origin of life, many biologists (and others) have typically assumed that plenty of time is available for natural processes to perform the necessary assembly. But discoveries about the universe and the solar system have shattered that assumption. What we see now is that life must have originated on Earth quickly. Research indicates that life began, was destroyed, and began many times during that era before it finally took hold. Fully formed cells show up in the fossil record as far back as 3.5 billion years. The ratio of carbon12 to carbon13 found in the ancient sediments also indicates a plenitude of life on Earth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Now the Earth's crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life obviously could not survive on or in a molten crust. That leaves just 40 million years between the earth's molten state and the first definitive evidence of life."

How can evolution be true if these are the facts? Evolution requires billions of years doesn't it? We don't have billions of years of the right conditions for life to form by purely natural means if the above is correct. How can you get around these scientifically established facts?

That would certain call into question biological evolution if it was true.

Of course, it isn't "the facts".

The Earth's surface was not molten until 3.9 billion years ago. The crust of the Earth (and other planets) cooled quickly after the formation 4.6 billion years ago, in between 100 and 150 million years (this is based on studies of rocks and has nothing to do with evolution). There was a solid cool surface for life to develop on from about 4.5 billion years ago. That gives approx 900 million years for the first cells to form, rather than the 40 million years supposed by the author you quote. Oceans started to form between 4.2 billion years and 3.8 billion years ago, and the first cells show up about 3.6 billion years ago. It then took life about a billion years to move from the first cells to multi-cellular life (appeared about 2.4 billion years ago) and another billion years to move to the first complex cellular creatures that appeared about 700 million years ago.

I'm not sure who wrote the piece you quote. Google only found a copy on someones myspace page. So I can't really respond directly, perhaps this author knows something I don't. But my current understand is that the author is way off with their dates.

AtomicHorror

I'd invite you to join us in the creationism thread...

Soul Winner wrote: »

Surely that attitude flies in the face of what science is all about? I thought scientists were supposed to test and re-test every theory to the utmost with every conceivable means that is at their disposal until that theory has been falsified, in which case they can move on and grow? There should be no defending of theories.

There should be both attack and defense of theories. Science is adversarial, this is part of how theories are tested. Evolution continues to be tested to this day. What creationists are doing is different, they're trying to discredit the theory at multiple levels by misleading lay people. It's not for scientists that we defend evolution in public (none of them are buying it), it is for everyone else.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If what the theories hypothesize turns out to be actually true then it will not need defending. Truth is truth. A good case in point is Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Since he came up with that it has been proven and re-proven to be true at every developmental stage of astrophysical measurement methods.

Evolution is actually considered as solid (actually more so) than general relativity. It is more easily tested, as many of the predictions of relativity require extraordinary space-time conditions whilst evolution's are easily accessible here on Earth. Relativity is also thought to possibly be inapplicable to some highly exceptional circumstances- time will tell. Evolution has been also been "proven and re-proven" as you say, over a longer period of time than general relativity has.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Leave evolution alone, if it’s true it will remain true if its not then so what. If it has become a sacred cow to you then that's your problem. You would be better off making sure you don't hinder scientific advancement with your own dogma never mind creationist's dogma.

If evolution is untrue we will face a standard scientific crisis at the outcome of which we will promptly discard it in favour of a model which better fits our observations. There is no dogma here- there is appropriate resistence to some efforts to confuse people into thinking that evolution is less well established than it in fact is.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don't worry about it. If evolution is true then there is nothing to worry about. Is there? I sense panic in your posts.

I have no idea why you sense panic. Wishful speculation perhaps. There is certainly no panic in my typing, let alone my thinking.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you love truth then allow people to refute established theories if they want to and if they are wrong then they will be shown up. Why the panic?

To refute science, one must use science. Creationists use word games, pseudoscience and non-testable assumptions. All of this aside, the correct response to ayn attempt to refute a theory (if we indeed love truth) is to defend the theory, if we consider the attack to be flawed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What's another 150 years? If it is true now then it will be true in another 150 years too. There is nothing wrong with testing even well established theories like evolution. If we don’t we can not move on. If you are so confident that evolution is true then you should greet such scrutiny with glee not panic.

I've explained why we defend as well as attack above. As well as the difference between the nature of scientific challenges and the creationist take on skepticism.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're panicking again.

I was never panicking in the first place.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just relax, stop defending science.

No thanks, that would rather fly in the face of "what science is all about".

Soul Winner wrote: »

It will always be there no matter what.

If scientists are passive and fail to defend their theories appropriately, and fail to defend the scientific method appropriately, it will absolutely not always be there. If creationists will speak loudly of why science is wrong, then we should speak loudly in our defence. Is that not reasonable?

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science itself disproves evolution.

"When it comes to the origin of life, many biologists (and others) have typically assumed that plenty of time is available for natural processes to perform the necessary assembly. But discoveries about the universe and the solar system have shattered that assumption. What we see now is that life must have originated on Earth quickly. Research indicates that life began, was destroyed, and began many times during that era before it finally took hold. Fully formed cells show up in the fossil record as far back as 3.5 billion years. The ratio of carbon12 to carbon13 found in the ancient sediments also indicates a plenitude of life on Earth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Now the Earth's crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life obviously could not survive on or in a molten crust. That leaves just 40 million years between the earth's molten state and the first definitive evidence of life."

How can evolution be true if these are the facts? Evolution requires billions of years doesn't it? We don't have billions of years of the right conditions for life to form by purely natural means if the above is correct. How can you get around these scientifically established facts?

Source please. That sounds like someone's got their timeline mixed up. What would creationists care about this anyway, since they say the world is less than 10,000 years old?

AtomicHorror

Might be time for a thread merge... we've derailed this one into the path of the creationism thread.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science itself disproves evolution.

Betcha that quote is out of some book by Snelling or another creationist!

Out of interest -- why do you base your opinions on biology on religion, rather than biology? I wouldn't imagine that you restrict your reading on bridge-building, knitting, cooking or whatever, to books written only by religious people. The lack of symmetry is interesting.

Ciaran500

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science itself disproves evolution.

"When it comes to the origin of life, many biologists (and others) have typically assumed that plenty of time is available for natural processes to perform the necessary assembly. But discoveries about the universe and the solar system have shattered that assumption. What we see now is that life must have originated on Earth quickly. Research indicates that life began, was destroyed, and began many times during that era before it finally took hold. Fully formed cells show up in the fossil record as far back as 3.5 billion years. The ratio of carbon12 to carbon13 found in the ancient sediments also indicates a plenitude of life on Earth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Now the Earth's crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life obviously could not survive on or in a molten crust. That leaves just 40 million years between the earth's molten state and the first definitive evidence of life."

How can evolution be true if these are the facts? Evolution requires billions of years doesn't it? We don't have billions of years of the right conditions for life to form by purely natural means if the above is correct. How can you get around these scientifically established facts?

Thought you were avoiding those books. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55089038&postcount=117

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

That leaves just 40 million years between the earth's molten state and the first definitive evidence of life."

Just 40 million years? 40 million years is more than 500,000 times as long as the average lifespan of a human today.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Evolution requires billions of years doesn't it? We don't have billions of years of the right conditions for life to form by purely natural means if the above is correct. How can you get around these scientifically established facts?

Evolution does require many years to turn single cell organisms into multicell animals like we have today, however seeing as evolution has nothing what so-ever to do whith how long it took life to first form, as it only deals with how life changes after it first formed, your point is completely moot.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Betcha that quote is out of some book by Snelling or another creationist!

Nope. His name is Dr Hugh Ross and he is an OEC not a YEC. But he does believe in God so you can probably sweep him under the carpet with your collection of YECs you seem obsessed about. I'm not a YEC, just confused about evolution. Everyone seems to have a different take on it. Even the atheists here who cling onto it seem to disagree. One says without it life would not have happened and another states that it has nothing to do with originating life. In the his book "The Blind Watchmaker" Dawkins says evolution starts after DNA formed, so how did DNA form?

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest -- why do you base your opinions on biology on religion, rather than biology?

Might be a similar reason to why you base your opinions about religion on science.

robindch wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine that you restrict your reading on bridge-building, knitting, cooking or whatever, to books written only by religious people. The lack of symmetry is interesting.

If you want to know he earned a BSc in physics from the University of British Columbia and an MSc and PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto. More info here. Among his critics are Ken Ham and Kent Hovind which might be a good sign.

Here's an interesting lecture he did in 1994.

Listen to it and come back and tell me he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

Soul Winner

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Thought you were avoiding those books. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55089038&postcount=117

Oooops!!!

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But he does believe in God so you can probably sweep him under the carpet with your collection of YECs you seem obsessed about.

Well that or the fact that Dr Ross seems to use theories about heat from the 17th century (before scientists understood that heat was simply the kinetic energy of the particles within a body) to justify his ideas.

But it's mainly because he believes in God.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not a YEC, just confused about evolution.

You don't seem that confused Soul Winner.

Rather you seem to be convinced that evolution can't be real and latch on to any and all wacky claims made by anyone with a science education that it isn't true, no matter how unsupported or ignorant these claims are.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Everyone seems to have a different take on it.

Define "everyone"

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the his book "The Blind Watchmaker" Dawkins says evolution starts after DNA formed, so how did DNA form?

As has already been explained to you Soul Winner that wasn't what Dawkins meant by that quote you seem so fond of repeating over and over.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Listen to it and come back and tell me he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

He hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

He hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

Obviously!

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Obviously!

Well one would have thought :rolleyes:

His argument is that the Bible says God created the universe, so if physicist demonstrate that the universe had a beginning this proves God. Which is nonsense.

His argument is also that because we are confined to forward time, therefore we must have been created, which doesn't even make sense.

So no, he doesn't know about what he is talking about. Its just silly nonsense.

He also makes a large number of mistakes about other religions, and the religious beliefs of people like Einstein.

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not a YEC, just confused about evolution. Everyone seems to have a different take on it. Even the atheists here who cling onto it seem to disagree. One says without it life would not have happened and another states that it has nothing to do with originating life.

And what atheist here says that evolution has anything to do with how life began?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nope. His name is Dr Hugh Ross and he is an OEC not a YEC.

Hardly matters. I was pointing out that from its unknowingness of current scientific thinking, it seemed that whoever wrote that bit you quoted was a creationist, and that includes both OEC's and YEC's

Soul Winner wrote: »

But he does believe in God so you can probably sweep him under the carpet with your collection of YECs you seem obsessed about.

I don't have a problem with people who believe in god, allah, yaweh, thor or any other deities. I do have problems with people like Ross, Snelling and all the other creationist authors who pretend to understand evolution sufficiently well to criticize it, while actually not having a clue and giving rise to...

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not a YEC, just confused about evolution.

...total confusion in the minds of people who consume creationist literature. It's the dishonesty I object to and as a practicing christian, I would have assumed that you would have objected to dishonesty too!

Soul Winner wrote: »

Might be a similar reason to why you base your opinions about religion on science.

I tend not to -- my opinions about religion are based upon religion itself. Even in its own strange terms, it makes no sense. Understanding why this has come about does require science, but that's better held for a separate post.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Listen to it and come back and tell me he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

I've skimmed down through the text on the website and I concur with Wicknight that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

So back to my question -- why don't you read biologists on biology?

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not a YEC, just confused about evolution. Everyone seems to have a different take on it. Even the atheists here who cling onto it seem to disagree. One says without it life would not have happened and another states that it has nothing to do with originating life.

The book that set out the early theory of evolution is not called "The Origin of Life" nor even "The Origin of Earth Life". It is called "The Origin of Species". It does set out our origins from our ultimate common ancestor with the other species, but it does not seek to tackle the abiogenesis event. It is focused on how the variety of life we now see emerged and how it has changed over time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the his book "The Blind Watchmaker" Dawkins says evolution starts after DNA formed, so how did DNA form?

There are a variety of means by which this could have happened. We can make DNA from first principles in the lab in a short space of time so it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that similar processes, given enough time and materials, could happen naturally.

As it stands, abiogenesis is not understood well enough at this time for us to develop a solid theory.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

So back to my question -- why don't you read biologists on biology?

Do they have to be atheists? Anyway I'm not that interested in biology itself, I'm more interested in the origins of things, how things got started. If it can be proven by science that the cosmos had a beginning then it can be assumed that it had a beginner with the same level of respect that assuming it hadn't got a beginning or a beginner is respected? And if it can be assumed that it has a beginner then a valid question to ask is “what was the purpose of the beginner beginning it?” And what is our purpose in all of it? Only until science can unequivocally prove beyond any question whatsoever that the universe has no beginning only then can it be assumed that no beginner is needed. This has not happened yet, in fact all the scientific evidence points to a beginning (see below), so anyone assuming it has a beginner and a designer is on as safe as ground as those who assume it doesn't. And if the cosmos has a beginner and a designer then it stands to reason that everything in the cosmos is also designed including biological lifeforms on planets. What remains to be answered then is the question: Who is this designer? The God of the Bible of someone else? Those who don't believe in God or who don't believe there can be a God will forever squeeze what they observe down that tunnel of limited visibility. If science can be left alone to be science and prove by whatever observational means at its disposal otherwise, then we can proceed and grow from that. But the minute anyone who believes in God attempts to explain nature and the universe outside of what atheistic naturalists will accept then they are ridiculed. That is not science. We should use every conceivable means at our disposal to advance our understanding in all areas of life and stop hindering it. As far as I understand evolution I have no problem with it and even if true doesn’t hurt my faith in God anyway. Muck to advanced lifeforms is a miracle in my opinion.

Scientific reasons why one can beleive that the universe indeed had a beginning:

BACK TO THE BEGINNING
Scientific discoveries revive the ancient belief in a beginning to the universe

The influential ancient philosopher Aristotle stated, “It is impossible that movement should ever come into being or cease to be, for it must always have existed. Nor can time come into being or cease to be.”

Meanwhile, the biblical book of Genesis famously starts off, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Which is it? Is the universe eternal—has it always been here? Or did it have a beginning at some point in time—did it have a birthday, so to speak? These are the two schools of thought that have enrolled followers since early times. (Actually, there was also a third school that postulated that the universe existed on the back of a giant sea turtle, but they’re mostly gone now.)

The seesaw of opinion has tipped one way or the other over time. But lately the weight of evidence has all been coming down on the side of the birthday universe.

In the old days when the Christian church dominated Western society, the creation of the universe was taken for granted. But slowly the scientific viewpoint pushed aside creation as well as the creator. Now many scientists are thinking that the idea of a creation may not have been so far off from the truth as they thought. It’s looking like the universe had a beginning after all.

Remarkably, one of the first scientists to swing the pendulum of opinion back to the birthday-universe position was so entrenched in eternal-universe thinking that at first he refused to believe his own conclusions.

A GREAT BRAIN’S BIGGEST BLUNDER


When Albert Einstein developed his revolutionary theory of general relativity in 1916, his mathematical calculations pointed to an extraordinary conclusion—the universe was expanding. And since if you rewind the tape on any expansion, you get back to a point where it started, that meant the universe must have had a beginning too.1

Einstein, however, was like most scientists of his day in that he believed in an eternal universe. Unwilling to accept a beginning to the universe, Einstein fudged the numbers in order to nullify the conclusion that the universe was expanding.

University of California astrophysicist George Smoot explains that Einstein’s main problem with an expanding universe was its implication of a beginning. A beginning pointed to a beginner beyond scientific investigation.2 However, once experimental data proved that the universe really was expanding, Einstein admitted his error, calling it “the biggest blunder of my life.”3

There’s a point worth considering here: if it could happen to Einstein, it could happen to anyone. Rarely is anyone completely objective when it comes to the issue of a creator. While it is true that religious belief and philosophy became an obstacle for scientific inquiry in the days of Galileo, trends have changed. In the modern era it has been a prejudice against the possibility of a cosmic designer that has kept many scientists from honest and open inquiry.

Thankfully, the truth generally comes out in the end, and scientists began to see the light. For Einstein and others, it was something called red shift that started the parade of evidence for a universe with a beginning.

RED SHIFTING THE BIG BANG THEORY INTO HIGH GEAR


In the late 1920s, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble noticed something unusual as he gazed into the heavens. It wasn’t a new planet or little green men waving at him from Mars; it was something more tedious and at the same time more thrilling.

Hubble had been spending countless nights at the Mount Wilson Observatory, studying the stars and galaxies and especially the spectrum of color in the light they sent our way. He discovered that the light from most other galaxies was shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which indicated they were moving away from us. Furthermore, the farther a galaxy was away from us, the more red shifted its light was and, thus, the faster it was moving away from us.

The only explanation for all of this was that space itself was expanding, causing all galaxies to move away from each other. In an expanding universe, from any point in space (including our own), it would appear that most stars and galaxies were racing away. And the farther away they were, the faster they would be racing.

There it was in the red shift: proof that Einstein had been right in the first place (before he fudged his formula) and that the universe really was expanding. Proof, in other words, that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning.4

And yet not everyone accepted the proof at first, including a scientist named Sir Fred Hoyle (former Plumian professor of astronomy at Cambridge University and founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge). Ironically, it was Hoyle who originally described the event as a “big bang,” meaning to mock the idea. The name stuck. (According to physics professor Brian Greene, the term “big bang” is actually misleading since there was nothing to explode and no space in which an explosion could take place.)5 But unlike Hoyle, many other scientists began coming over to the side of the newly named theory.

The world’s leading astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, who has held the esteemed position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, calls Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe “one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century.”6 The discovery that the universe had a beginning has led to a new science called cosmology, which attempts to understand what happened at the origin of the universe, how it works, and what will happen in its future.

The new science led cosmologists to take another look at a seemingly mundane insight from the 19th century, the second law of thermodynamics.

A SECOND LAW OF FIRST IMPORTANCE

In addition to Hubble’s discovery, the second law of thermodynamics also predicts a beginning to the universe. You say you don’t know the second law of thermodynamics? Think again.

Let’s say you come into a room containing me and a bunch of your other pals, and you find a steaming cup of Starbucks coffee on the table. Being the thoughtful individual that you are, you ask, “Does this belong to anyone?”

To which I reply, “It’s been there for the last month.”

Well, you’d know immediately I was wrong or lying (probably lying). Why? Because the coffee wouldn’t still be hot if it had been there for a month; it would be room temperature.

That’s the second law of thermodynamics in action. This law states that everything continually moves from a state of order to disorder and that heat and energy dissipate over time. This is a law that has been verified by proof after scientific proof and has never been shown to be wrong.

Now let’s apply this law to the universe, just as cosmologists have. If the universe were eternal, it would have gone cold and lifeless long ago. The stars would have burned out. Planets would have broken up into clouds of dust. And even the black holes would have ceased vacuuming the universe of unsightly stars and planets.

When you see flaming suns and scorching meteors, in other words, you’re looking at a steaming cup of coffee that over infinite time would have long since gone room temperature. Since the universe is still full of pockets of heat and energy, it cannot be eternal.

Who would have thought heat would be such a helpful clue? And that’s just the half of it.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TV INTERFERENCE

There is still another way that the measurement of heat help to prove that the universe is expanding. In the spring of 1964, two researchers at Bell Labs observed a persistent hiss while testing their microwave radiation detector. Regardless of which direction they pointed the antenna, the static was the same. (This is the same static as TV interference. The same static that was supposed to be gone when I paid $150 to have my satellite dish installed.) Those men, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, had discovered what scientists say is the echo from the birth of the universe.7

But how could scientists know for sure that the hiss they were hearing was actually an echo from the beginning of the universe? Mathematicians calculated that heat generated at the moment the universe began would have been enormous beyond comprehension. This heat would have gradually dissipated over the life of the cosmos, leaving only a tiny residual of about 3 degrees Kelvin (–270 degrees C).

Additionally, in order for galaxies to have formed, the pattern formed by the explosion needed to have slight variations in the form of waves or ripples.

According to George Smoot, these ripples would result in very slight fluctuations in the predicted temperature and would reveal an identifiable pattern.8 Thus, if the temperatures matched up, the birth of the universe would be scientifically verified. Merely discovering the temperature to be 3 degrees Kelvin would not prove that the universe actually had a beginning; the fluctuations also needed to match.9

But how could we verify fluctuations so subtle?
THE GREATEST DISCOVERY OF ALL TIME


In 1992, a team of astrophysicists led by Smoot launched the COBE satellite in order to verify the temperatures in space. The satellite would be able to take precise measurements and determine whether fluctuations in temperature existed.

The results stunned the scientific world. Not only was the three-degree temperature confirmed, but more importantly, the profiles of the fluctuations were discovered to be a match with what had been expected.10 Hawking called the discovery “the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time.” Smoot himself excitedly stated to newspaper reporters, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.”11 He also said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”12

Astounded by the news, Ted Koppel began his ABC Nightline television program with an astronomer quoting the opening of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The other special guest, a physicist, immediately added his quote of the third Bible verse: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light”.13

Evidence like that provided by the COBE satellite raises some intriguing questions, to say the least.
THE QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

Einstein’s theorems based on his theory of relativity predict that the universe could not have begun without an outside force or Beginner.14 Since Einstein’s theory of relativity ranks as the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in physics, his conclusion is deemed correct.15

Tests from an array of radio telescopes at the South Pole have confirmed the big bang to a still higher degree of accuracy than ever before.16 Background radiation measurements exceed 99.9% of what had been predicted.17 There are now more than 30 independent confirmations that the universe had a one-time origin.18

New telescopes such as the infrared Spitzer Space Telescope, launched in 2003, have opened up even bigger windows to our universe. They have prompted astronomer Giovanni Fazio, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, to remark, “We are now able for the first time to lift the cosmic veil that has blocked our view.”19

As a result of the accumulating evidence, the scientific community has long since begun asking questions about origins, such as the following:

• What was there before the big bang?
• Why did the big bang result in a universe enabling life to exist?
• How could everything originate from nothing?

Smoot ponders what was there before the beginning: “Go back further still, beyond the moment of creation—what then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began?”20

The same astrophysicist notes that “until the late 1910s … those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.”21 The Genesis account of creation and the big bang theory both speak of everything coming from nothing. Suddenly the Bible and science agree (a discovery somewhat embarrassing to materialists). Smoot admits, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”22

The evidence had begun to add up, and some scientists weren’t liking the sum.
TRYING TO AVOID THE BAD DREAM


A beginning to the universe was like a bad dream come true for materialists who wanted to believe everything had always existed. It brought scientists face to face with the logical conclusion that a primary cause must exist. That argument is a simple logical syllogism:

1. Everything that has a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

But admitting a cause leads to the next logical question: who or what is the cause?

Think about it for a minute. Since time, space, matter, and motion are all a part
of the created universe, then before the beginning it was timeless, spaceless, and motionless.

What can happen spontaneously from this state of affairs? There’s nothing moving, there’s nothing colliding, there’s … well, nothing. Not even the potential for anything to happen.

The fact that everything came from nothing has forced scientists to acknowledge that something outside of space and time, something very powerful and with apparent volition, must have acted to bring about the beginning. That is, there must have been an intelligent designer of the universe. Some might go ahead and use the name God for this creator.

Well, in certain academic circles, this line of reasoning simply won’t do. Thus it is that many materialists have looked for a way to prove that the universe didn’t have a beginning. Smoot remarks, “Cosmologists have long struggled to avoid this bad dream by seeking explanations of the universe that avoid the necessity of a beginning.”23

Sir Fred Hoyle (he who mockingly coined the term “big bang”) was one scientist who strongly opposed the concept of a beginning for the universe. In 1948 Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold joined Hoyle in postulating that matter was in a continual state of creation. They called their idea the steady state theory, which was an attempt to show that the universe is eternal after all, even though the evidence had long been trending against such a view. However, the COBE discovery of background radiation was the fatal blow to the steady state theory.24

Next came the oscillating-universe theory. According to this concept, the universe explodes, contracts, and explodes again, eternally yo-yoing. This would be another way to permit a belief in the eternal existence of the universe. But the physics for this theory didn’t work.

More recently, some scientists, including Hawking, have begun considering the so-called multiverse theory. This theory accepts that our universe is finite, but it suggests that ours is just one of many universes. The whole multi-universe may be eternal, according to this theory, even though our particular universe is not. This theory is covered in more depth in another article in this magazine, but the key point to understand about it right now is that it has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

These theories fit neatly with the philosophy of materialism, whereas a beginning of the universe would raise the obvious question, who was there to start it? Professor Dennis Sciama, Hawking’s supervisor while he was at Cambridge, admits his reasons for supporting the steady state theory: “I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had
to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true.”25

An origin of the universe meant materialists were suddenly faced with the questions that threatened their worldview.
A ONE TIME BEGINNING


Hoyle and other scientists fervently pursued alternative explanations to a one-time origin of the universe. Eventually, however, the evidence showed clearly that the universe had a beginning, and the big bang theory was proclaimed victorious. Ironically, it was evidence from Hoyle’s own research that helped confirm that the universe had a one-time beginning.

Today most cosmologists and physicists accept the big bang theory as the scientific explanation of how our universe began. In fact, scientists believe they can trace the history of the universe all the way back to 10-43 of a second. Prior to that point in the history of our universe, all of our current theories break down and science can see no further back. The very beginning of the universe remains a mystery.

Imagine rewinding the universe back to its beginning, a time when there were no stars. No light, matter, or energy. Not even space or time. Suddenly an enormous explosion erupted from this nothingness at a temperature exceeding a million trillion trillion degrees.26 Time begins along with matter, energy, and space.

When a bomb ejects shrapnel into the air, both the bomb material and the space it blows into have already been there. However, in the beginning of the universe, neither space nor matter existed until the explosion. The space surface of the universe and the newly created matter came into existence.

According to the big bang theory, this explosion launched the entire universe, from the most distant galaxy, to the most colorful nebula, to quasars flashing like beacons, to our own comforting sun and nearby planets, to you and me with our questions about where we came from and what it all means. Since man alone thinks about the meaning and purpose of life, the beginning—and the cause of that beginning—must be fascinating to each one of us.

The verdict is in on whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning. The idea that everything in the cosmos originated out of nothing seems mythical, yet it is now mainstream science.

Akrasia

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do they have to be atheists? Anyway I'm not that interested in biology itself, I'm more interested in the origins of things, how things got started. If it can be proven by science that the cosmos had a beginning then it can be assumed that it had a beginner with the same level of respect that assuming it hadn't got a beginning or a beginner is respected? And if it can be assumed that it has a beginner then a valid question to ask is “what was the purpose of the beginner beginning it?” And what is our purpose in all of it? Only until science can unequivocally prove beyond any question whatsoever that the universe has no beginning only then can it be assumed that no beginner is needed.

Thats all well and good, but you are taking the remote possibility that there was 'a beginner' billions and billions of years ago, perhaps even trillions of years ago, who simply set into motion a series of events and taking a superman style leap in logic towards believing in the christian god as told in the christian bible.

It's simply too much of a gap for me to accept that you are genuinely looking at the evidence, and not simply cling on to a conclusion and desperately trying to fit the evidence into it.

This has not happened yet, in fact all the scientific evidence points to a beginning (see below),

I have started a thread on that just for you

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The book that set out the early theory of evolution is not called "The Origin of Life" nor even "The Origin of Earth Life". It is called "The Origin of Species". It does set out our origins from our ultimate common ancestor with the other species, but it does not seek to tackle the abiogenesis event. It is focused on how the variety of life we now see emerged and how it has changed over time.



There are a variety of means by which this could have happened. We can make DNA from first principles in the lab in a short space of time so it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that similar processes, given enough time and materials, could happen naturally.

As it stands, abiogenesis is not understood well enough at this time for us to develop a solid theory.

Thanks for your courteous reply. If evolution does not deal with the origin of life question then why does it assume that from inorganic material the most basic lifeforms emerged? When you get down to even the most basic of life forms the information required for them to simple exists is astronomical. The simplest of cells are made up of the most mind boggling network of complex intricate parts. The mathematical probability of just one of these parts coming into existence on its own never mind with all the other working parts along with it is in the order of magnitude akin to winning the lottery by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then doing this every week for the next 3000 years. I’m not saying that this is not how it happened, I’m just trying to point out that creationists are looked down upon for simply believing that there might be a supernatural (more natural) explanation to it rather than a purely ordinary natural explanation, which said explanation is still only theoretical in itself anyway.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do they have to be atheists?

No, they have to be people who do not have religious (or political or whatever) axes to rotate about. That means that they must put honesty first and not one religious (or political or whatever) belief first. All that long -- unattributed, as usual, I see! -- text shows is that your co-religionists are prepared to bend and warp whatever facts they want so their religious (or political or whatever) views come out smelling of roses.

I mean, how hard is it to see that?

Do you check the religion of your dentist before you visit him/her?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m just trying to point out that creationists are looked down upon for simply believing that there might be a supernatural (more natural) explanation to it rather than a purely ordinary natural explanation, which said explanation is still only theoretical in itself anyway.

It's been almost four hours since it's been explained to you, so here goes for the last time today:

Creationist authors bend facts and lie to make their case seem convincing.

You are not competent to judge this dishonesty. Others are.

You reject the others and believe the creationist authors.

The others get cheesed off at the creationist authors lying and wonder why you believe them totally uncritically and ask you to explain why you do.

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thanks for your courteous reply. If evolution does not deal with the origin of life question then why does it assume that from inorganic material the most basic lifeforms emerged?

Where does it assume this?

Soul Winner wrote: »

The mathematical probability of just one of these parts coming into existence on its own never mind with all the other working parts along with it is in the order of magnitude akin to winning the lottery by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then doing this every week for the next 3000 years.

I suggest you view this youtube video which explains why that mathematical probability calculation (which has been wheeled out by creationist before) is completely bogus. After this I suggest you watch the rest of the vidoes in the "Why do people laugh at creationists" series. It explains a whole lot.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

It's been almost four hours since it's been explained to you, so here goes for the last time today:

Creationist authors bend facts and lie to make their case seem convincing.

You are not competent to judge this dishonesty. Others are.

You reject the others and believe the creationist authors.

The others get cheesed off at the creationist authors lying and wonder why you believe them totally uncritically and ask you to explain why you do.

Robindch says they are lying so they must be lying. Sorry there old buddy. Won't ever doubt you again. A good whipping is what I need for doubting you and your ilk.

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thanks for your courteous reply. If evolution does not deal with the origin of life question then why does it assume that from inorganic material the most basic lifeforms emerged?

Once more with feeling. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with inorganic material. It makes no assumptions about where the first lifeform came from.

When you get down to even the most basic of life forms the information required for them to simple exists is astronomical. The simplest of cells are made up of the most mind boggling network of complex intricate parts.

The modern cell has evolved over a period of 3.5 BILLION years. Who is to say that the first cells were as complex as modern cells? It is certain that they were much simpler.

The mathematical probability of just one of these parts coming into existence on its own never mind with all the other working parts along with it is in the order of magnitude akin to winning the lottery by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then doing this every week for the next 3000 years.

Biochemistry is NOT chance but for arguments sake here is the probability of one part coming into existance.

The probability of simple molecules combining to form more complex molecules(amino acids etc) = 1.0. Complexity is an inevitablity of biochemistry.

I’m not saying that this is not how it happened, I’m just trying to point out that creationists are looked down upon for simply believing that there might be a supernatural (more natural) explanation to it rather than a purely ordinary natural explanation, which said explanation is still only theoretical in itself anyway.

They are not looked down on for believing it, they are looked down upon for misrepresenting and lying about science, and trying to push religion into science classrooms.

Flamed Diving

Soul Winner wrote: »

If evolution does not deal with the origin of life question then why does it assume that from inorganic material the most basic lifeforms emerged?

It doesn't.

Why, may I ask do you have such a strong opinion about something that you clearly know nothing about?

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Robindch says they are lying so they must be lying. Sorry there old buddy. Won't ever doubt you again. A good whipping is what I need for doubting you and your ilk.

You seem to be the sort who would believe everything in the last book you read, perhaps this is why you are afraid do some scientific reading on the subject?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If evolution does not deal with the origin of life question then why does it assume that from inorganic material the most basic lifeforms emerged?

It doesn't.

Soul Winner wrote: »

When you get down to even the most basic of life forms the information required for them to simple exists is astronomical. The simplest of cells are made up of the most mind boggling network of complex intricate parts.

And evolution explains who a natural process can produce "mind boggling" complex systems. That is the whole point. Without Darwinian evolution we wouldn't have a clue how these systems could have formed. That is the big deal about Darwinian evolution, it explains how complexity can arise naturally.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The mathematical probability of just one of these parts coming into existence on its own never mind with all the other working parts along with it is in the order of magnitude akin to winning the lottery by finding the winning lottery ticket in the street and then doing this every week for the next 3000 years.

Again that is why you need Darwinian evolution. The idea that these systems randomly formed, which was seen as the only other explanation beside creation before Darwin, is laughable. The odds are far to huge to plausibly suggest that these systems just formed.

Which, again, is the big deal about Darwinian evolution. It explain how these systems could form using a non-random, natural, process that can be modeled, tested and studied.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m just trying to point out that creationists are looked down upon for simply believing that there might be a supernatural (more natural) explanation to it rather than a purely ordinary natural explanation, which said explanation is still only theoretical in itself anyway.

That isn't what Creationists are looked down upon for.

Creationists are looked down up because they distort and attack scientific methods and principles because these methods do not give them the models and theories that they think they should.

To a Creationist their religion has already told them what has to be true. If science appears to be giving the "wrong answer" that is because science is wrong and must be changed until it allows for the "right answer"

Fundamentally that is an attack on the principles of scientific study. Naturally scientists are not pleased with this.

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why, may I ask do you have such a strong opinion about something that you clearly know nothing about?

Because he keeps "learning" about evolution from nonsense Creationist propaganda that distorts and lies about the theory of evolution to make it fit their agenda, despite saying over and over that he was going to learn about evolution from, you know, biologists working the field of evolution. Crazy idea I know

Morbert

So who else went to the conference in lucan?

Some friends and I went the first day, and were disappointed that questions weren't allowed 'till the second day.

They wheeled out the usual arguments and charicatures (The big bang was apparently an explosion from "nothing", the solar system was designed, mutations are always harmful, evolutionists say monitor lizards evolved from frogs and into baboons, the second law of thermodynamcis disproved evolution etc. etc.). I was disappointed that they didn't research the phenomena they were trying to argue against.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Robindch says they are lying so they must be lying.

Not only me, my friend -- far from it -- lots of other people too. And most of those are far more qualified to discuss the topic than I am, and some of those post here. If you're only interested in parroting creoprop, then I suggest you join us over in the main creationism thread -- wolfsbane and JC are keeping up their side as best they can, but they're only two against so many!

BTW, I don't like to bring it up again, but you're still violating the terms of AiG's media license in that image of theirs you edited. I'd hate to see one of our own caught out by our friends in AiG who have deep pockets, fine lawyers and, presumably, little hesitation in using both

robindch

Morbert wrote: »

So who else went to the conference in lucan?

Who was the lead creationist? The original notice didn't say.

Morbert wrote: »

Some friends and I went the first day, and were disappointed that questions weren't allowed 'till the second day.

Possibly not a bad thing. An irish prof who gave an ISS lecture a while back said that he tried to ask questions at a Hovind lecture, but was forcibly removed by security goons for his presumption.

Morbert wrote: »

I was disappointed that they didn't research the phenomena they were trying to argue against.

Somewhat inevitable with creationism -- have a look at the mungo creationism thread!