E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God. Unity with peace and justice for all; is a profound desire.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
You mean “consistent with the Sci-Fi channel”, right?This viewpoint is consistent with Occam’s Razor.
Please take this poster’s advice; it’s clearly in order:
You are welcome to do that. But that isn’t science.
L
lelinator
Guest
Contrary to what @jan10000 claims, quantum physics suggests that we’re actually living in an observer created reality.For the purpose of this thread, can we define God as the creator of all that is seen and unseen.
That being the case, and using your definition of God as being the "creator of all that is seen and unseen". There is indeed a God, and it’s me.
----You do realize however that your definition of God is flawed. Because if God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, then God must be the creator of Himself.----
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
You just need to dig deeper but of course you are made in the image of God.Contrary to what @jan10000 claims, quantum physics suggests that we’re actually living in an observer created reality.
That being the case, and using your definition of God as being the " creator of all that is seen and unseen". There is indeed a God, and it’s me.
----You do realize however that your definition of God is flawed. Because if God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, then God must be the creator of Himself.----
God creates through men.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
This isn’t shown to be the case by experiment. Quantum observables do not require consciousness to resolve. Measurements do not require consciousness. This was once a fringe interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but no longer.
1.Physics deals with physical properties and consciousness is not one of the physical properties so Physicists will tend to exclude it even if experiments show otherwise.Around 5% of physicists consider this still of interest. Wigner himself ended up rejecting his own theory.
- I’m not a physicist and i wasn’t talking about Quantum mechanics, just a normal everyday observation which i try to align with my beliefs and the bible.
- It is not the hardest thing to realize that consciousness creates reality by experiencing ‘passage of time’.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
As you wish, but how did the universe come into existence by natural causes?----You do realize however that your definition of God is flawed. Because if God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, then God must be the creator of Himself.----
L
lelinator
Guest
I do believe that Stephen Hawking explained it succinctly enough…a quantum fluctuation. His theory may not be the end all and be all of the argument, but it does go a very long way to explaining how the universe arose from natural causes.As you wish, but how did the universe come into existence by natural causes?
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Arguments mean we don’t know. You should have said, "it might explain how the universe arose by natural causes.His theory may not be the end all and be all of the argument, but it does go a very long way to explaining how the universe arose from natural causes.
R
rossum
Guest
Just as Vishnu might explain how the universe arose. There are a great many gods (and goddesses) that might explain it.Arguments mean we don’t know. You should have said, "it might explain how the universe arose by natural causes.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
If you want to talk about Vishnu or any other god; please can you start another thread.Just as Vishnu might explain how the universe arose. There are a great many gods (and goddesses) that might explain it.
You have already said; that you do not know how the universe came into existence by natural causes.
Can we get back to evolution please. How could the eye evolve by natural causes?
You mentioned Nasa antenna design. But that uses the word design, which means you have an end product in mind. Evolution is blind, it has no design to aim for.
You mentioned cosmic rays could influence mutations. But how could rays cause 1,800 incremental mutations to form an eye lens?
R
rossum
Guest
You are forgetting populations. Evolution happens in populations. The average human has about 75 mutations at birth. With a population of 7 billion, that is a total of 7e9 x 75 = 5.25e11 mutations in the whole human population. That is over 290,000,000 mutations for natural selection to pick from for every one of your 1,800 eye mutations.You mentioned cosmic rays could influence mutations. But how could rays cause 1,800 incremental mutations to form an eye lens?
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Out of the 75 mutations, how would natural selection focus on the individuals with less than a 0.1% improvement to their eye lens? The other 74 mutations would make natural selection a very fuzzy process.The average human has about 75 mutations at birth.
Same question again with a population of 7 billion, how will selection be able to spot the individuals with less than a 0.1% improved eye lens? What are the odds of that happening? Repeat 1800 times.With a population of 7 billion, that is a total of 7e9 x 75 = 5.25e11 mutations in the whole human population. That is over 290,000,000 mutations for natural selection to pick from for every one of your 1,800 eye mutations.
Mathematically, I would suggest these big numbers would stack the odds against natural selection happening.
Of course these numbers do not take into account that if the eye lens improves by 0.1%. The optical nerves, neural processing and the limbs would have to improve at the same rate.
R
rossum
Guest
You need to learn more about how natural selection works. If there is an improvement, any improvement to any function: eyes, digestion, running speed, whatever that results in an increase in the average number of offspring, then natural selection will preferentially spread that mutation through the population. Remember also, that those 1,800 mutations do not have to happen in a specific order. One part of the population may have a slightly better retina, while another part has a slightly better lens. As those separate beneficial eye mutations spread at one point they will combine in a child inheriting one change from one parent and the second change from the other parent.Out of the 75 mutations, how would natural selection focus on the individuals with less than a 0.1% improvement to their eye lens?
It is an error to think of evolution as a purely serial process. It happens in parallel throughout the population.
L
lelinator
Guest
It seems to me that Hell is Catholicism’s version of Botany Bay, therefore I vote that if need be, we rewrite this song as our eternal anthem.We are one, but we are many…
‘I Am Australian’ Everyday Choir | Virtual Choir | ABC Australia
I always get something in my eye when I listen to this song.
We’ll show’em what the stone the workmen rejected can become.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
I have tried for many years, the only way evolution makes sense to me; is if it is guided by God.You need to learn more about how natural selection works.
The example you gave of antenna design is just confirmation. The computer programme may well be based on evolution algorithms; but it is all set up by intelligent engineers. The programme only works because they give the computer very clear goals to achieve.
You keep ignoring minor details. Random mutation would have to improve the lens, optic nerves, neural processing and limb reaction all at the same time. Otherwise the 0.1% improvement to the lens is of no benefit and natural selection will fail 1800 times.Remember also, that those 1,800 mutations do not have to happen in a specific order. One part of the population may have a slightly better retina, while another part has a slightly better lens.
You keep saying what needs to happen; but where is the science to show how it did?It is an error to think of evolution as a purely serial process. It happens in parallel throughout the population.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Australia is not the only country in the world. As catchy as the tune is, it ignores the billion or so people living on less than a couple of dollars a day.It seems to me that Hell is Catholicism’s version of Botany Bay, therefore I vote that if need be, we rewrite this song as our eternal anthem.
We’ll show’em what the stone the workmen rejected can become.
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
R
rossum
Guest
Why? Some people have short sight. That is a disadvantage on its own. A mutation that reduces the chance of short sight is advantageous even with no changes in the rest of the optical system.You keep ignoring minor details. Random mutation would have to improve the lens, optic nerves, neural processing and limb reaction all at the same time.
Some protists have a light sensitive spot, but no lens, nerves or brain. Jellyfish have eyes and nerves but no brain. A nautilus has eyes, nerves, brain but no lens. We have living examples of partial eyes, of eyes like ours and eyes that are better than ours: bees can detect polarization in light which we cannot.You keep saying what needs to happen; but where is the science to show how it did?
All of that is observable here and now. We see parts of our optical system present in other animals, and those parts work perfectly well for those animals in their environments.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Science is able to catalogue a whole range of eyes that are observable now. But the problem starts from abiogenesis when none of these eye forms existed.Some protists have a light sensitive spot, but no lens, nerves or brain. Jellyfish have eyes and nerves but no brain. A nautilus has eyes, nerves, brain but no lens. We have living examples of partial eyes, of eyes like ours and eyes that are better than ours: bees can detect polarization in light which we cannot.
All of that is observable here and now.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
A component of speculation is imagination.My current view is that there is a perpetual energy fabric of potentials in spacetime that periodically crosses certain thresholds, perhaps caused by the death of a previous universe, perhaps caused by the collision of two existing universes, what have you. This event causes a point of energy potential to begin to expand (a “Big Bang”). Some of these baby universes possess universal constants that allow them to continue to expand. Some do not and collapse. A few expand and even can support life. In other words, there are universes forming all the time. We just can’t see them.
This viewpoint is consistent with Occam’s Razor. For instance, at one time people though the earth was all there was. Then we found other planets. Then we found other solar systems. Then other galaxies, and so on. Why not other universes?
This is all speculative …
A synonym for imagination is fantasy.
Why not consider the revelation of Jesus Christ as shown in several millennia of Judaeo-Christian history that includes the Incarnation-Birth-Teaching-Miracles-Crucifixion-Resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as 2000 years of Church History where the Holy Spirit has not been absent?
If we believe the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures, then there is an eternal heaven or hell waiting for each of us after death. Jesus rose from the dead to live forever and the same will happen to us. Our earthly existence will come and go. The starry heavens and earth will pass away. What could be more important than preparing for that eternity to come?
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
IMHO/IMAO, the problem starts with the single-celled amoeba whose genome can be 100 larger than the human genome. How did all that structure and ordered complexity get there? How could it have possibly ordered itself accidentally?Science is able to catalogue a whole range of eyes that are observable now. But the problem starts from abiogenesis when none of these eye forms existed.
Before that, how did light, darkness, matter, energy get there?
Regarding evolution since the single-celled amoeba, what is the cause and what is the effect? Were there any dormant genes in the single-celled amoeba that became activated in the later generations and caused the changes that some call evolution. Did the dormant genes cause the evolution? Or, did random processes modify the genes? I don’t see how random processes could order the genes at the beginning in the single-celled amoeba. I don’t see how random processes could modify the genes in subsequent generations of “creatures”.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.