How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hyom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eric_Hyom said:
But isolate just one species with a complex eye. Starting from abiogenesis; how did it go through a thousand plus incremental steps to get to this eye?
Click to expand...
From abiogenesis we have blind primitive cells. Then single cells with a light sensitive organelle. That carried over into metazoa, so we have light sensitivity in plants, though no brain and no nervous system. Jellyfish have light sensitivity and a nervous system but no brain. Amphioxus has a brain (just about) nerves and a few light sensitive cells on its surface. Add curvature on the surface – a cup eye – to allow detection of the direction light is coming from. Mostly close the cup and fill it with transparent gunk to protect the light sensitive cells. Harden the gunk nearest the outside to start making a lens. Add muscles to shrink or expand the opening as needed. Some of these changes happened in parallel and some species did not develop all of them. Nautilus do not have a lens for example, though squid and octopus do.

Other organisms – protostomes – generally started with a dome eye for detecting direction, not a cup eye. They followed a different path and ended up with compound eyes.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
Freddy:
We have examples of the simplest light sensing cells to the most complex eyes and all stages in between.
Click to expand...
All the nature programmes on tv prove what you say.

But isolate just one species with a complex eye. Starting from abiogenesis; how did it go through a thousand plus incremental steps to get to this eye?

The Nilsson model shows seven specific goals. But we know mutation and natural selection are blind and they have no goals. Is this a true model of how the eye evolved?
Click to expand...
See the excellent post above this one.

At some point you are surely going to need to say something along the lines of: ‘Well, that seems to be a possibility’.
 
rossum said:
From abiogenesis we have blind primitive cells. Then single cells with a light sensitive organelle. That carried over into metazoa, so we have light sensitivity in plants, though no brain and no nervous system. Jellyfish have light sensitivity and a nervous system but no brain. Amphioxus has a brain (just about) nerves and a few light sensitive cells on its surface. Add curvature on the surface – a cup eye – to allow detection of the direction light is coming from. Mostly close the cup and fill it with transparent gunk to protect the light sensitive cells. Harden the gunk nearest the outside to start making a lens. Add muscles to shrink or expand the opening as needed. Some of these changes happened in parallel and some species did not develop all of them. Nautilus do not have a lens for example, though squid and octopus do.

Other organisms – protostomes – generally started with a dome eye for detecting direction, not a cup eye. They followed a different path and ended up with compound eyes.
Click to expand...
Change a few words here and there and this could also explain why we have unicorns running around.
 
rossum said:
Erm… Unicorns are in the Bible. Was that the point you were trying to make?
Click to expand...
All one horned animals are not Unicorns. The point is that your imaginative wondering still lacks an actual observation.
 
o_mlly said:
All one horned animals are not Unicorns.
Click to expand...
How is that relevant to the various mentions of unicorns in the Bible?

How is that relevant to the evolution of eyes?

How is that relevant to the question asked in the title of this thread?

Are you still trying to distract from the fact that you have no theologically produced purines or pyrimidines? Science has both.
 
o_mlly said:
Change a few words here and there and this could also explain why we have unicorns running around.
Click to expand...
Why don’t YOU do the honors of changing those few words here an there? And then we shall be able to see those unicorns. I can hardly wait. And while you are at it, change those words to prove that “winged horses” (Pegasus) are still with us.
 
rossum said:
How is that relevant to the various mentions of unicorns in the Bible?

How is that relevant to the evolution of eyes?

How is that relevant to the question asked in the title of this thread?

Are you still trying to distract from the fact that you have no theologically produced purines or pyrimidines? Science has both.
Click to expand...
Dodge ball anyone?

What we are all waiting for but not getting is an “actual observation”. Absent that, fanciful imaginations are entertaining but, according to Rossum’s Rule, they are not science.
 
Abrosz said:
Why don’t YOU do the honors of changing those few words here an there? And then we shall be able to see those unicorns. I can hardly wait. And while you are at it, change those words to prove that “winged horses” (Pegasus) are still with us.
Click to expand...
No, I’m a scientist. You may do so if you like and submit your work to DC comics.
 
Philosophical proof is found in the impossibility of an infinite regress. Scientific proof is found in the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin Theory.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
What we are all waiting for but not getting is an “actual observation”.
Click to expand...
We have actual observations of amphioxus and their optical system.

We do not have actual observations of theologically created purines and pyrimidines.

Where are your actual observations?
 
rossum said:
40.png
o_mlly:
God, being eternal, can have no start .
Click to expand...
Hence life has no start. Thus life did not have a cause. Hence God cannot be the cause of life. That which has no start cannot have a cause.

All claims that God caused the first life are incorrect. God is in the same position as other living things, He is a secondary cause of life.
Click to expand...
Infinite regresses are not very satisfying explanations.
The concept itself is the product of human observation and intellect.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
We have actual observations of amphioxus and their optical system.
Click to expand...
Dodge ball again?

We are anxiously awaiting an actual observation of either something from nothing or life from non-life. Got anything yet?
 
We cannot have a cyclical universe because of the impossibility of infinite regress. How would we ever arrive at “today” if we have to go through an infinite number of events to get here?
 
Last edited:
On the quantum level protons appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top