Universe's Origins

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Not for me they dont.
I try to look at everything from the 'middle perspective'

There is why, and there is how. We shouldn't try to completely separate those questions. Each should enlighten the other.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Thank you Yoda.

Yoda has a far better grip on grammar than the typical American.

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Not for me they dont.
I try to look at everything from the 'middle perspective'

We agree.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
So what are you disputing, specifically? That the earliest lifeforms were simple, or that the theory of evolution describes how complex lifeforms emerged from simple ones?

I don't believe in abiogenesis to start, I don't believe you can go from a lifeless world
to one what can have life emerge on it, and have it strive and thrive. There are just to
many things that could end it, lack of food, over heating, cold, the list goes on and on.
The full universe would have to have everything just right for life to spring up, then
maintaining it as is would be even a bigger issue.

I don't believe that you can alter a living system dramatically even a little at a time and not
kill it off if all systems were up for change randomly. If for example you were concern
about blood clots, if the process is hit and miss before it gets dialed in, all the mistakes
die off. You cannot have blood not clotting, the life form would bleed out once any cut
occurs, you cannot have the blood clotting to where does not stop the blood flow because
it continues clotting all the blood. Putting together systems within life forms that work with
other systems, all of this without a plan, purpose, and design...you must have a lot of faith.

If you see life forms that are simple in your view, how do you know they were in something
else's family tree, and not its own species? It is connecting the dots to prove a point, there
is no reason to accept or reject anyone's views on what was related to who?

Different sex's when earlier everything was single sex, where was the advantage in that
for life's sake? How do you get to sex's to evolve at the same time the same ways so
that all the parts function together through time, and this occur in all types of life, from
people, apes, fish, cows, dogs, and so on.

For me I acknowledge the small changes in life, but I reject new systems. I can see an
established system get tweaked, one that was already functioning at a high level, this
makes much more sense to me than starting from scratch and over millions of years
avoiding all things that would kill it all off, and instead diverse into the variety we see today.

You can start with a dog, and you'll end with one, you will not get to a gold fish.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Hmm ... my science must be out of date. S. Hawking wrote "Events before the Big Bang can have no observational consequences so we might as well cut them out and state that Time began at the Big Bang". Also, I thought that Entropy was inevitably going to lead to a hot-death of the Universe in the end.

Math is fun. Pretty sure the universe isn't bound by it.

Originally posted by @fmf
Perhaps the so called "hot death" will simply be an event of some sort that initiates a new chapter and a new form of the universe (a new state about which we currently have no clue), just as we have no clue about what preceded the current state/form of the universe.

I wonder how you feel about the idea that physical constants are, um, not.

I figure that reality isn't quite conforming to our math, unless hey! lets add (or something) this constant. Works pretty good. Except we haven't established that the constant has any basis in reality except, well, it makes our math work.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I don't believe in abiogenesis to start, I don't believe you can go from a lifeless world
to one what can have life emerge on it, and have it strive and thrive. There are just to
many things that could end it, lack of food, over heating, cold, the list goes on and on....

You are incredulous, therefore god. That is a fallacy, you know this right?

Clearly Shiva happened. You know Shiva, right?

At what point, serious question, do your loving eyes open up. Are you a mere victim of the indoctrination you suffered, or are you stronger than that.

Originally posted by @apathist
You are incredulous, therefore god. That is a fallacy, you know this right?

Clearly Shiva happened. You know Shiva, right?

At what point, serious question, do your loving eyes open up. Are you a mere victim of the indoctrination you suffered, or are you stronger than that.

What indoctrination are you referring to?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I don't believe in abiogenesis to start, I don't believe you can go from a lifeless world
to one what can have life emerge on it, and have it strive and thrive. There are just to
many things that could end it, lack of food, over heating, cold, the list goes on and on.
The full universe would have to have everything just right for life to spring up, then ...[text shortened]... ee today.

You can start with a dog, and you'll end with one, you will not get to a gold fish.

Right. So you dispute the theory of evolution in its entirety. Then why not simply say so instead of misleadingly claiming you accept it?

If you wish to learn about the evidence we have in favour of the theory of evolution, read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I don't believe in abiogenesis to start, I don't believe you can go from a lifeless world
to one what can have life emerge on it, and have it strive and thrive....

Abiogenesis is just a word. It doesn't represent a particular model. It merely means that our world formed before there was life, and therefore somehow life got started. Biblical creationism satisfies abiogenesis.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Right. So you dispute the theory of evolution in its entirety. Then why not simply say so instead of misleadingly claiming you accept it?

If you wish to learn about the evidence we have in favour of the theory of evolution, read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

No

Originally posted by @apathist
Abiogenesis is just a word. It doesn't represent a particular model. It merely means that our world formed before there was life, and therefore somehow life got started. Biblical creationism satisfies abiogenesis.

No it doesn't.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No

You don't want to learn more about evolution?
Why doesn't this surprise me?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Right. So you dispute the theory of evolution in its entirety. Then why not simply say so instead of misleadingly claiming you accept it?

If you wish to learn about the evidence we have in favour of the theory of evolution, read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You didn't read what I wrote did you?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No it doesn't.

Explain please? You are saying that creationism (belief in the creation myth from the bible) doesn't give explanation for the origin of life on earth.