Politics & Stuff

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Again your assumptions and believe that in the future it would be something else is just about as close as you can get to faith.

It's always funny when someone decides to use a whole bunch of semiconductor material assembled as processors and logic gates. be it a computer or a phone, connected to a global network of fiber optics that links almost everyone on the planet together, to doubt the entire scientific method  

[lucio 5,391]

why does anyone doubt evolution? old species disapear and new ones emerge in the fossil record. it really is simple

[Stingray 9,441]

Ok. Im going there about evolution. I will respond (maybe late cause i lack motivation). Sigh. Fernando, if you wanna talk science, i have been into the heart of evolutionary theory for decennia. But you do not make sense and you abuse data. I can safely say i have been at the top tier of the evolutions research group for years. What I will not do, is lower the bar for belief, and up the bar for science.

[Fernando 6,376]

1 hour ago, Dion said:

Evolution deals with how organisms change over time and differentiate themselves from one another. It has nothing to do with the origin of life or universe. It only deals with life after it appeared and it has nothing to do with how it was originated. It is even compatible with creationism somewhat if we assume god created the first organisms who then evolved through mutation and natural selection. The origin of everything and evolution are not tied up. To be honest, most of the complaints I see from ordinary people about evolution come from a poor understanding of it.

Yes but then you have a faulty reasoning. Information comes from somewhere. We pass information by our biology as you gave an example about this.

So if the universe had a beginning, and there was nothing then how you get stuff from nothing?

How do you jump from nothing to information?

[Fernando 6,376]

2 hours ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

I'm not sure as to what you're referring in there, but we do have CMB to provide evidence of the big bang.
A god, this, i assume, enormous being that sits upon a throne of interstellar medium and engineered all of life, has what exactly to provide evidence to its existence? A book written by men?
All of the universe it's evidence to its existence? And what exactly links it to him? Men's imagination?
Too simplistic. And why choose our people to transfer his words in written material? Out of the surely thousands of life forms out there.
In one of your posts you wrote how without these goldilocks circumstances there would be life. To that sentence i would add "as we know it" There wouldn't be life as we know it.
Too self entitled in my opinion.
Surely if he engineered this beautiful creation, he would have made sure at least on one planet people would know for sure of its existence, as one being and one only; and yet each culture has its own god, maker, whatever you want to name it. So is it only one god, or is it multiple gods out there? Or it's all the same god, only people gave him different names? Or is it god just a makeshift object of our minds, which in their frailty try to explain as best as they can something they cannot yet grasp?
Surely if we would walk together, say in a park, and a lighting out of nowhere would strike the ground near us, you would scoff at me if i would say "Zeus made that!"
And why is that? Because you know, i assume, it's just the product of an electrical storm, not a god who sent that upon us. The greeks, centuries ago would have disagreed, probably the most fanatics would have killed you on the spot, claiming that it was Zeus' will (hyperbole i know).
Surely you can relate the examples to different set of circumstances.
Does god exists? Yes, if you name him chemistry, fundamental forces and chance, and don't believe all of this is some kind of intelligent design.

But this is what I'm saying. There's only evidence for a big bang. A big bang suggest there's a creator.

[Dion 2,476]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Yes but then you have a faulty reasoning. Information comes from somewhere. We pass information by our biology as you gave an example about this.

So if the universe had a beginning, and there was nothing then how you get stuff from nothing?

How do you jump from nothing to information?

That's what YOU are not understanding. What you call the first information is the first organism. Evolution does not explain how the first organism was originated it explains how it changed and also tries to explain the mechanisms involved in that process. It's not faulty reasoning, it's you failing to understand what's the phenomena that evolution deals with. How do you jump from nothing to information is not what evolution explains or tries to explain. That would be what primordial soup tries to explain.

[Fernando 6,376]

1 minute ago, Dion said:

That's what YOU are not understanding. What you call the first information is the first organism. Evolution does not explain how the first organism was originated it explains how it changed and also tries to explain the mechanisms involved in that process. It's not faulty reasoning, it's you failing to understand what's the phenomena that evolution deals with. How do you jump from nothing to information is not what evolution explains or tries to explain. That would be what primordial soup tries to explain.

But you do realize how silly it sounds? 

In the beginning there was nothing, then there was an explosion out of nothing... And out of nothing you and I exist.

 

[Dion 2,476]

5 minutes ago, Fernando said:

But you do realize how silly it sounds? 

In the beginning there was nothing, then there was an explosion out of nothing... And out of nothing you and I exist.

 

You realize what you have just said has nothing to do with evolution, right? Also, I never said there was nothing. I actually have said that I think it is more likely that things have always existed than a creator has always existed, which is what creationism preaches. At least I have evidence that things exist now, whereas I have no evidence that a creator has ever existed.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

9 minutes ago, Fernando said:

But this is what I'm saying. There's only evidence for a big bang. A big bang suggest there's a creator.

And as i pointed out in the original post:
All of the universe it's evidence to its existence? And what exactly links it to him? Men's imagination?

Just replace "all of the universe" with "the Big bang" 

[Fernando 6,376]

13 minutes ago, Dion said:

You realize what you have just said has nothing to do with evolution, right? Also, I never said there was nothing. I actually have said that I think it is more likely that things have always existed than a creator has always existed, which is what creationism preaches. At least I have evidence that things exist now, whereas I have no evidence that a creator has ever exis

Yes but evolution is that you evolved from something right? 

If that's true then when you go to the origin how did that orgasim got there? 

From what it evolved? 

[Dion 2,476]

5 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Yes but evolution is that you evolved from something right? 

If that's true then when you go to the origin how did that orgasim got there? 

From what it evolved? 

Are you trolling me?

[Fernando 6,376]

11 minutes ago, Dion said:

Are you trolling me?

No its just using the same logical thinking you told me about. 

Everything evolved, okay I get your view. But go back further enough how did you get that chemicals that got this thing to evolved? 

The only thing that makes sense is either a god existed or that the universe always existed. 

Because the elements had to appear from somewhere. 

You can't get something from nothing. You need some type of elements to make things work. 

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

No its just using the same logical thinking you told me about. 

Everything evolved, okay I get your view. But go back further enough how did you get that chemicals that got this thing to evolved? 

1.The only thing that makes sense is either a god existed or that the universe always existed. 

2.Because the elements had to appear from somewhere. 

You can't get something from nothing. You need some type of elements to make things work. 

1. Why?

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis Most basic answer.Also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[Dion 2,476]

23 hours ago, Fernando said:

No its just using the same logical thinking you told me about. 

Everything evolved, okay I get your view. But go back further enough how did you get that chemicals that got this thing to evolved? 

The only thing that makes sense is either a god existed or that the universe always existed. 

Because the elements had to appear from somewhere. 

You can't get something from nothing. You need some type of elements to make things work. 

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even.

This is very tiresome, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

[Dion 2,476]

In addition to everything, I think it is a bit hypocritical that creationists are perfectly okay with saying that God, an entity which we have 0 evidence of having ever existed or even existing right now, just came to be out of nothing or has always existed but the universe, which we can currently experience and produce evidence about, can't be perpetual or have been originated out of nothing. If anything, our experience should point us to the direction that things have always existed. As far as I know we seem to be unable to create or destroy matter. I also don't think we have ever seem it be created or destroyed either.

[Fernando 6,376]

36 minutes ago, Dion said:

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even.

This is very tiring, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

Okay I get your point. Evolution only explain when life appear not how it started. In that case you have a point. Not that I believe in evolution but I see your point there.

34 minutes ago, Dion said:

In addition to everything, I think it is a bit hypocritical that creationists are perfectly okay with saying that God, an entity which we have 0 evidence of having ever existed or even existing right now, just came to be out of nothing or has always existed but the universe, which we can currently experience and produce evidence about, can't be perpetual or have been originated out of nothing. If anything, our experience should point us to the direction that things have always existed. As far as I know we seem to be unable to create or destroy matter. I also don't think we have ever seem it be created or destroyed either.

Not 0 evidence but as your state our experience show us.

But then our experience don't matter here. We are talking about what science has been able to prove. And so far science has been able to prove the big bang theory. Meaning that it had a beginning.

[Dion 2,476]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Okay I get your point. Evolution only explain when life appear not how it started. In that case you have a point. Not that I believe in evolution but I see your point there.

Not 0 evidence but as your state our experience show us. Just like you said.

But then our experience don't matter here. We are talking about what science has been able to prove. And so far science has been able to prove the big bang theory. Meaning that it had a beginning.

Well, the matter that got expanded in the big bang, it had to exist before didn't it? There was a condensed mass of matter before the big bang. Matter existed before, the big bang theory does not say matter was created there, it says the expansion of our universe started there. The beginning you're talking about is the beginning of the expansion, not the beginning of everything. Just the beginning of the universe as we know it.

[Fernando 6,376]

1 hour ago, Dion said:

Well, the matter that got expanded in the big bang, it had to exist before didn't it? There was a condensed mass of matter before the big bang. Matter existed before, the big bang theory does not say matter was created there, it says the expansion of our universe started there. The beginning you're talking about is the beginning of the expansion, not the beginning of everything. Just the beginning of the universe as we know it.

So that's the answer you was looking for. Universe always existed in some kinda of form. 

Now the question we must find out is why? Why did it explode and expand?