HOME       >>       Science and Technology

Evolution Or God... How were we created?


Sapien

In my view . Creationism isn't science , it just fills in what ever science hasn't yet explained , although creationism calls it self a science it is by far no means anything scientific since it does not pass the scientific mode of reasoning .


computerjoe

I don't believe in any religion, as it is impossible that a 'god' could exist. However, the theory of evolution doesn't answer all questions; why are we here in the first place.The only way we can ever know is if we know how the universe was made, and the big bang isn't correct (where was the matter in the first place).


Sapien

computerjoe ,

 

>of course god can exist .. just not as a being which some disillusioned biblical people may think . It can exist in any form imaginable ... even Michio Kaku ( revered and famous scientitist ) has his thoughts on the mind of God . We have to think outside the box sometimes or else how can we call ourselves explorers , Stephen Hawking is a metaphysicist and even he reaches out to the divine in attempt to glorify the cosmos in some grandious meaning .

 

>But the big bang may be plausible if the higgs-field is proven true .. I have once thought the idea of a multi-verse but now I'm reflecting back on the subject of HOW it is possible for something , our universe , to be created out of apparently nothing .

 

>also ... Don't confuse creationism with religion .. although it may correlate with some facets of religion , much of the arguments supplied by creationists have made disassociative efforts in distancing religions involvement with all this , most of the well known creationists are actually scientists , mathematicians etc ...

 

as far as the implication of introducing intelligent design theory ,, then who knows , conspiracy theorists are always ready to jump at such things .


MajesticTreeFrog

>also ... Don't confuse creationism with religion .. although it may correlate with some facets of religion , much of the arguments supplied by creationists have made disassociative efforts in distancing religions involvement with all this , most of the well known creationists are actually scientists , mathematicians etc ...

 

as far as the implication of introducing intelligent design theory ,, then who knows  , conspiracy theorists are always ready to jump at such things .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. As such, attempts to inject it into scientific discussion is due to religious, not scientific, beliefs.

 

Really, intelligent design is simply a non-denominational version of christian creationism, wrapped in a fancy wrapper.


xboxrulz1405241485

well, this debate has gone for years, probably for hundreds of years. There is a theory stating that if one finds out what was the creation of the universe and finds out why we exist, the universe will quickly collapse and a new and more complicated one appears. (Source: The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, book version)I do believe that the universe is created by the Big Bang, and there are solid proof that it did happen. The Big Bang was caused by the most basic element, which we all know is Hydrogen. When the massive hydrogen body assembled, the mass was too big, and it had to explode (like when clouds hold too much water and rains) causing other elements to form and stars to also form. If you look through the telescope and find a start composed with pure hydrogen, then you have found an old star. (Source: my theory and Guiness World Records).I do believe in evolution, why do u ask? It is because our bone structures are very very similar to apes and they're not that stupid as we might think. Viruses (bio) often evolves, like SARS, AIDS, and other major diseases from smaller ones. Our immune system has also made the common cold from a deadly disease to a common infliction that is easily cured, why? It is because our biological DNA only picks the best set of chromosomes to create a new baby instead of the bad ones.That's IMO,xboxrulz


mitchellmckain

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.  As such, attempts to inject it into scientific discussion is due to religious, not scientific, beliefs. 

 

Really, intelligent design is simply a non-denominational version of christian creationism, wrapped in a fancy wrapper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I just wanted you to know that even though I am a Christian, I agree with you 100%. The reason is probably because I am also a scientist. Creationism and intellegent design are not science, they are representative of a growing number of groups who try to clothe their religous or philosophical beliefs in the terminology and appearance of science. They have done this largely because of atheists or anti-theists who have clothed their religious or philosophical beliefs in science for nearly a century. This practice went unchallenged for too long, but more recent results in science and logic have invalidated this (Quantum mechanics and the unprovability of the consistency of mathematics by Kurt Godel). Science is now neutral on the issue as it should be. However, the damage is already done and true science has lost a great deal of credibility among the large portions of the public. This is why we see this rising pseudo-science, where science has been reduced to rhetoric.

 

Scientist must and do guard the process of scientific discovery just as jealously as the Christians guard the life transforming message of Christianity. It is my dearest hope to heal the widening breach between them, which this issue of evolution versus creationism has become. The only way I can see this happening is for both to give up a little of their misconceptions. Evolution cannot be a deterministic, automatic or random process because it involves living things, which make choices creatively with both intention and purpose, with the input of teachers and caregivers. Creation cannot be design and manufacture when it involves living things, which learn things for themselves and determine what they will become, every step of the way, by means of their own choices.

 

God created the world and everthing in it, but not as a watchmaker. How could anyone in their right mind compare our world to a smoothly running clockworks. God created created the world as the shepherd raises his sheep. The idiot sheep run astray constantly and some are injured despite the best the shepherd can do.

 

Evolution in its simplest terms is just the plain fact that living things learn and make choices as whole population (genetic pool) as well as individually. It is driven by genetic variation which derives from the creative process inherent in all living things, both individually and as groups.

 

The conflict between creation and evolution derives entirely from an inadequate understanding of the nature of living things. And this conflict will eventually fade as we learn more an more about ourselves.


miCRoSCoPiC^eaRthLinG

Rodneylay...you don't believe in evolution at all? Well, answer me this...The giraffe...If I remember correctly, they didn't always have long necks. How did they get long necks so they can reach the high trees? How did the fish in the deep ocean obtain those lights they have?

 

I don't think they are coincidence...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Going a little off-topic here but kinda related. There seems to be a massive misconception that Giraffes grew long neck through evolution and similarly other much-needed features developed in other animals as per need. Let me remind you this wasn't the case at all.

 

This is where a big part of darwins theory - Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest comes into play. Lets take up the case of giraffes for example. They didn't sprout long-necks coz they wanted to reach up to the juicy leaves high up on trees. DNA's the root of all evil here For any given animal/plant species, you get an amazing variation in the gene pool - even for closely related offsprings. What happened in essence was, that there were say, hundreds of different types of giraffes - some with long necks, some short and some in between. The ones with longer necks and feet were always at an advantage - better food, better pace.. thus this particular breed survived better than the rest, both in forraging and eluding predators. The other shorter breeds gradually died out coz they couldn't cope up with the changing environment. While this presents an elitist viewpoint - this infact, is the most logical explanation amongst all. If you apply Occam's Razor to the theories of evolution - this shines outright as the simplest and most plausible one. Nature always picks out the best it can find from the gene pools so that only the best genes are passed down to the future generations - that way, they always stand a better chance of survival and not become extinct. After all, mama nature wants her children to be hale and hearty and ever playful in her lap.

 

I do believe in God - or at least in some supreme power - but I also do believe in evolution. The idea of Adam being created out of thin air and then Eve being born out of his rib is err.. excuse me - but hardcore *BLEEP*. If that was the case - we'd see women being born the same way till date. (Although this presents a very interesting idea - CLONING.. but how can you clone a man and give birth to a woman instead ?? Unless you did some massive genetic reengineering, which we're incapable of even today, with our limited knowledge.. so please.. a couple of million years ago ??? OH PHULEEZZZ)

 

What I think is that dear God, just provided us with that primordial soup of life and sparked off reaction that gave birth to the first live ever on planet earth. From then on - it was all rest and rest and rest for him.. r maybe he got busy with any of the umpteenthybillion planets in our universe. But anyways, he let mother nature and the sun of evolution take course since then. He just built the basic stage and sat back to watch the fun.

 

More later ..

m^e


DigitalDingo

How can people say that God created the universe and dumped life on Earth? Listen to yourself! It makes no sense! Some old man sitting in the sky and when he wants some fun he creates some life on a planet. With all the things science has discovered how can anybody still believe this?Some believers defend themselves by saying “if God doesn’t exist, then who created our universe?” I can’t answer that – and nobody can – but I usually ask back “then who created God?” It’s the same question, but I just get the answer “he was always there…” Please, believers, just listen to yourselves sometimes…


xboxrulz1405241485

The universe was never created, remember this: "matters cannot be created nor can it be destroyed" Therefore, that proves that it can't be created, there could be more than 1 universe. I don't know. Yet, the Big Bang theory might be composed of these matters that grouped up and got too heavy, then it exploded causing the fragments to become stars.DigitalDingo is right, science has proven religion wrong. Just like how did the guy created the ark to carry 2 of each animal to be 600+ years old? It was before the medieval ages!xboxrulz


mitchellmckain

How can people say that God created the universe and dumped life on Earth? Listen to yourself! It makes no sense! Some old man sitting in the sky and when he wants some fun he creates some life on a planet. With all the things science has discovered how can anybody still believe this?

Some believers defend themselves by saying âif God doesnât exist, then who created our universe?â I canât answer that â and nobody can â but I usually ask back âthen who created God?â Itâs the same question, but I just get the answer âhe was always thereâŚâ

Please, believers, just listen to yourselves sometimesâŚ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are plenty of scientists who know a great deal more science than you do, yet they still believe in God. Now, this may be because the more you know of science the more you realize how little we know after all, but I don't think so. I think that no matter how much we learn the question of the existence of God will remain something that we will simply choose to believe or not. However, I think the only people who think that God is as you describe are atheists, for they have simply created this image for the purpose of ridicule. Tradition has it that God is an infinite being and therefore has no need of a creator. Now if you are thinking that as an explanation for the existence of the universe, this is very unsatisfying, then I agree with you. As an explanation for things God does not do a good job at all. But that is not the true role of God in the live of those who believe in him.

 

The universe was never created, remember this: "matters cannot be created nor can it be destroyed" Therefore, that proves that it can't be created, there could be more than 1 universe. I don't know. Yet, the Big Bang theory might be composed of these matters that grouped up and got too heavy, then it exploded causing the fragments to become stars.

 

DigitalDingo is right, science has proven religion wrong. Just like how did the guy created the ark to carry 2 of each animal to be 600+ years old? It was before the medieval ages!


Ah but matter is created all the time and even energy is not conserved absolutely. All these laws of physics have their exceptions. The current theory of the big bang put forward by the physics community is that this event created all of matter, space and time. Some even think that many of the physical laws of our universe were created at the same time as the result of a symmetry breaking phenomena.

 

Of what science do you speak? The physical sciences are all about the mathematical relationship between measurable quantities. And the other sciences have yet to prove much of anything at all. For the most part they simply observe and record the results.


stusrud

I think religion has something to do with science, but not too much, scientists are pretty smart and they try to figure things out as best as they can, even though sometimes they are completely wrong, they try there best, I believe in God, there is no other way, I hear all these very far fetched ideas about meteors or "the big bang" and I'm like, give me a break, those aren't that believable, still many peole believ in those theories, ans thats all they are, just one idea some person came up with, it's just a theory, nothing more, so the world could have been created by any number of reasons. Agree or disagree, this is just my opinion!


chickenside

Disagree.I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate, but I'm a very science oriented person, seeking explanations even if the stakes are high. I, personally, find the theory of evolution and the "big bang" seem more plausible than an almighty, all powerful being.The evidence of the "big bang" is (as I've outlined and made quite evident in my other posts) the expansion of the galaxy.


xboxrulz1405241485

Everybody can be a scientist, yet they might have different theories. I think that the Big Bang DID NOT created space and time, it only created fragments that we call stars. It created the elements, but space and time was always here. To refer to the guy who said God has been here all along, we can prove that it's not true at all, just like all beings we know, everything has a start and end except for matter. Since stars have lifespan too, then so can "God". Matter cannot have start and end because it is the creator of the objects that we have. It groups up to become what we see today. You can ask me, what created matters, why don't you just wait for a while, I'm sure that we'll find in within this century.That's IMOxboxrulz


Mahanon

A very good question to propose and no matter which way you look at it you will not get a truly difinative answer on which one is the actual truth.In my opinion I believe that we are simply evolving, and it makes sense. For instance if look back to the time when all living creatures only lived in the vast oceans, even then you tell that when they began to migrate out of the sea and eventually to what they become in modern times it is evolution.But when you get to human beings this causes a problem (not picking) some think evolution did not occur but instead they were created by a high being, and I am not knocking that it can't really be proved if it ever can. Then there are the people that look toward science for their answer and it gave them one, these people beleive evolution did in fact happen by looking at our closest mamalian relative the Gorilla, monkey, ect. this gave them an answer by showing genetic similarities between the two species. I would lean over the the side of Evolution for the most part because it can give us an answer, facts, and evidence that could prove it to be true.


stusrud

I agreee with all of you in a sense, all your theories and explantions are a "plausable" reason for why we exist today. Howerver, in my belief, something like the "big bang" could have created the stars, but definately could not have craeted space, time, and Earth. There must be another Theory out there, most peole think the idea of a "higher being" is nonsense, but I really do believe that may be the best answer, after all science can't always explain everything, even though you may think it can.Evolution, even though I find it hard to believe we came from monkeys, I would surely not want to ever come from a monkey, it's almost a laugh in our face, why would you want to go around saying you came from monkeys? In my opinion, science screwed it up big time on that one.


OhMyBosh

Evolvution, It's hard to know exactly where we came from.. but I'm an atheists.


andrwxsCOL

This is a fragment of a work that I do for my college, I hope you like it, In the first place, I would like to introduce to me with a small Biblical versicle that says:"inicuo, according to its arrogance, does not make verifications. All their ideas are; "there is no God." " (Psalms 10:4)Before this fact which we see in the people of the world, we would haveto ask the following thing to us:Exists God?I make verifications about if it really exists?If it exists; Why and why it has created to us?What intention has the life?If it exists; Why we died, we underwent and we see all the tragedies thatwe are seeing every moment of the day?If God allows all this suffering, some reason will have; Which is?If God has bothered so much in creating the Earth and each one of the existing forms of life, why allows that the man is destroying it?God has put some solution for all this catastrophe? As?What requests God of us?...The origin of the belief in God comes from the origin of the human life.It has been for relatively just a short time that the man has left of side this belief, Why?Part of the answer is seen in the cruelty that has existed because ofthe different religions, the instilled lies that these same ones have been enlarging, the had holy wars and that still continue, contradictions and fears to force to believe, etc...But... if truely a God exists, How we can answer the actions that have lived and made the man? Why it would allow that it passed everything what (still) is happening?He is antiscientist to believe in God?Nowadays, in the schools, single standard that the life, the man and the different existing animals came from a universal explosion called Big Bang.Thanks to this explosion (without direction some), were created so of formextraordinary and ordered all the galaxies, stars, planets... all of them with its mathematically exact orbits, titánicas starswith an extraordinary power, etc... (by pure chance).That after all it, in a planet that "peculiarly" was in the suitable place, with an exact orbit, the necessary and precise conditions for the life and so and as (but always by pure chance), the first unicellular alive organism was created that originated to all the different animal species that now exist by means of a evolution...They explain the profits to us about the creation of amino acids (by Stanley Miller) and the theory of Geoge Wald on "the time does everything".At first, it seems pretty, No?More than nothing because this would be the explanation of the origin of the life withoutnecessity of which it created it. Of this form, nobody has norobligation, nor to have moral to thank for the life to him to anybody. But... It is that certain one? It is as teaches to the evolution the real existence of the life?In 1953, Stanley Miller, a young student of the University of Chicago, makes an experiment that revolutionizes the scientific community, and specially satisfies those scientists who tried to look for in science an alternative explanation the origins of the existence. An explanation that it did not have to do with God.Stanley Miller gave the answer them that they looked for. It made an experiment,a experience of laboratory to demonstrate how it had appeared the life, from random circumstances. Miller took a little from distilled water, along with gases of ammoniac, methane and hydrogen and applied to flashes of electrical unloadings during two days and means, almost three. Later it analyzed the content of the water and detected amino acids. The amino acids are the fundamental elements for the proteins, that are the bricks of the life.Therefore, it had been demonstrated, scientifically, that the life can appear by chance and without direction some.A famous scientist, Nobel prize, George Wald, publish in Scientific American, 1954, all this experience, extending it much more, and he analyzes it saying that definitively science demonstrated that the life could appear by chance. George Wald writes the following thing: "the time does everything, ' given enough timé (given sufficient tiempo)lo impossible becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing." The time makes the miracles. I believe that if we had to look for a poetry of the agnosticism, or the atheism put in a poem, we would not find something more beautiful andseducer who this...: "the time does todo”. Given the sufficient time, the impossible thing becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing. The time is the one that makes the miracles. God is then excluído, because we with no need found the origin of the life of a Creator, by simple flashes of light that attack on fundamental gases.Was then this the answer to the creation of the Earth life?In 1959, the scientific community is shocked again. why? Because this time a called scientist Harold Morowitz discovers a small problem in the theory of Miller and Wald. It discovers what Ortega and Gasset would define as the great problem of the specializations: famous filosofo Spanish said that we are arriving at a society in where everyone knows more on less things. And here it passed something similar. Wald a fantastic biologist,apparently it was not very good in mathematics. And what is what discovers the Dr Morowitz? Morowitz discovers, and Scientific American publishes it, that the probability that a bacterium arose by chance from the anything, of the same form that had induced it in laboratory Stanley Miller in 1953, was so minimum that the time which science attributes to the universe had reached. Simply enough Time "of Wald did not exist"... It must have happened much more...Harold Morowitz, physicist of the University of Yale, published in 1968book Flowing Biology. Next to other physicists and mathematicians he had seen with preoccupation the facility whereupon some scientists gave by seated, when studying the origin of the life, who took place probable events so little. These scientists accepted such occurrence without at least trying a rigorous investigation on the probability that indeed he happened. Morowitz calculated the necessary time so that random chemical reactions (= accidental) formed a simple bacterium. Not a complete organism, we are not speaking of a human being, not even of a flower, only one simple unicellular bacterium. Basing its calculations on a quite optimistic speed of these reactions and supposing that all the chances are going away to give, it concluded that the time to form a bacterium not only exceeded in 4.500 million years the age of the Earth, but also 15,000 million years the age that science attributes to him touniverse."For decades no serious and honest scientist it has been accepting that the life has been originated by chance. This theory is considered mathematically impossible. The sufficient time did not exist so that those chances occurred. Scientist called George Ferrows, that calculated the mathematical probability that the Big Bang has been accidental, also made the following analysis about the possibilities so that a physical law, a single physical law of which they govern our Universe, has been able to arise by chance. He is a secular scientist so it is not necessary to suspect anytendenciosidad... It said that the probability that it appeared byexample the entropy or the law of gravity by themselves is 1 on 10 to the 123. What means 1 on 10 with 123 zeros above to the right... And therefore this secular scientist, Dr Ferrows, conclude that necessarily an intelligent Creator must them have created, since is virtually impossible that it by chance happens something whose probability is 1 on 10 to the 123. He does not mention God, but he speaks of a Creator, speaks of a superior intelligence that he had to have taken part. By chance he could not have happened.Something more interesting still. Stephen Hawking wanted to demonstrate the opposite thing, that the possibility exists of conceiving a Universe that has arisen without intelligent intervention. Stephen Hawking is perhaps the most famous astrophisicist of the world. No physicist never sold so many books to the open public. Few scientists have been as popular as he. Of course that not only by its ideas, but by their personal drama, its untiring fight, its biography etc. Hawking, a genius of the Astrophysics, wrote in its book "The Brief History of Time" "the brief history of the time" the following thing:"In truth the universe could have conceived to the life, could by chance have conceived." Know You it metaphor the monkeys on a typewriter? They say that supposition that the world had been able to arise by chance would be as if we said that 10 monkeys on 10 typewriters could write - giving them to sufficient time a soneto of Shakespeare. Then Hawking says thus "Is something similar to the good well-known example of the horde of monkeys hammering on typewriters. greater part of which they write will be waste, but very occasionally, by pure chance, they will imprimirán one of the sonetos of Shakespeare ". It sounds well?If Stephen Hawking says to it... But they do not let notice that there is onedifference between Ferrows and Hawking. Ferrows gives a number me. Stephen Hawking makes a calculation rather qualitative. It does not give a number me... What must make a good scientist from which Stephen Hawking says? To verify it. To quantify the probability. We are going to make the duties that Professor Hawking gave us! We are going to calculate with what probability could appear a soneto by chance of Shakespeare...... The sonetos of Shakespeare have 14 verses. Let us take one from them, the one that takes like example Gerald Schroeder, has in its 14 verses, 488 letters. Howwe let the calculation to know the probability? There are 26 letters in the English alphabet (without elle and the Che). In order to define which is the probability that by chance this happens we are going to begin to calculate 26 to the 488, or expressed in decimal, that would be 10 to the 690. It is to say 1 possibility in 10 to the 690.And here the manipulation that I am denouncing...Somebody realizes of which this number means?What meant Hawking? Apparently which the universe could be created by chance "most will be sweepings, but with time, some soneto will arise...". When somebody distraídamente reads that says, good, if Stephen Hawking says it already... will have made the account... I do not believe that he has ignored that the probability that it was giving him was even inferior to the one of the own Ferrows. So that you they have notion of which it means is exorbitant number 10 to the 690 I am going to give some examples to them: The universe has, according to the theory of the Big Bang, an age 15 billion years clock-man. Somebody knows how many seconds has in 15.000 million years? In 15.000 million years there are 10 to the 18 seconds.Nothing else that that. So that these chances occur all, this 1 on 10 to the 690, one per second, would not reach nor dreaming the 10 to the 18. They would never reach... They know which is the TOTAL mass of the universe? Not even we can conceive it... Good they know how much is in grams? 10 to the 56 grams. That is all the mass of the universe. Therefore, if we go again to the statistics, the Dr Schroeder says who "to write by chance one of the sonetos of Shakespeare would be necessary that all the monkeys of the world, in addition to all the other existing animals, pounded machines ofto write made the existing iron of the universe yet, duringperiod superior to all passed from the Big the Bang, to a rate of one proves random by second and even so the probability that it appeared a soneto would be infinitely small ". In order to form a single phrase of 16 letters, with all the possible combinations it would take 2,000 trillions of years.The universe has been existing, according to its calculations, only for closeof 15,000 million years. What is selling us Hawking, then?More details exist very many than they demonstrate the existence of God,between that they are the origin of the thought, the capacity to love, justice, the necessity to look for the happiness...According to the greatest scientists:Single we used a maximum of 3% of our mental capacity, andimpressive 0.0001% of our capacity of storage in our brain, during all our life.The question that we must do to us is: Porqué the evolution (forevolucionist) have flattered to us of so generous form with a brain so immensely powerful, if single we lived between 80 and 90 and few years?According to the evolutionary theories, the nature offers to its creatures according toit is needing, no? When the man dies, he has more of 99% of space in the brain that never used, and more of 97% of mental capacity that according to is never watched somebody existed that never needed her in human history!why, if never we have needed it living less than 100 years, the nature was so generous with us?To case it knew that in a distant future we would get to live more, and byas much us it granted it in advance "so that we did not complain" andwe were "superior" or "dominant"?It would not be more logical that the human brain has all this capacity, because of being "designed" to much more live that so single 100 years?I belive in God, but also in the Science. is just complement of each one.


ASR1405241491

Easy put... Evolution makes more sense.... Religion is created for hope in life... Religion: People are asked to have faith and believe in their religion without any facts or evidences..Evolution: facts and evidences are apparent... it doesnt require faith or anything....Chin chin...


xboxrulz1405241485

andrwxsCOL, that's the longest post I've ever seen, I just scanned it and didn't read it in details since it's too long. ASR's idea of summarizing, IMO, is correct.


stusrud

This is a fragment of a work that I do for my college, I hope you like it,

In the first place, I would like to introduce to me with a small Biblical versicle that says:

"inicuo, according to its arrogance, does not make verifications. All their ideas are; "there is no God." " (Psalms 10:4)

 

Before this fact which we see in the people of the world, we would have

to ask the following thing to us:

Exists God?

I make verifications about if it really exists?

If it exists; Why and why it has created to us?

What intention has the life?

If it exists; Why we died, we underwent and we see all the tragedies that

we are seeing every moment of the day?

If God allows all this suffering, some reason will have; Which is?

If God has bothered so much in creating the Earth and each one of the existing forms of life, why allows that the man is destroying it?

God has put some solution for all this catastrophe? As?

What requests God of us?

...

 

The origin of the belief in God comes from the origin of the human life.

It has been for relatively just a short time that the man has left of side this belief, Why?

 

Part of the answer is seen in the cruelty that has existed because of

the different religions, the instilled lies that these same ones have been enlarging, the had holy wars and that still continue, contradictions and fears to force to believe, etc...

 

But... if truely a God exists, How we can answer the actions that have lived and made the man? Why it would allow that it passed everything what (still) is happening?

 

He is antiscientist to believe in God?

 

Nowadays, in the schools, single standard that the life, the man and the different existing animals came from a universal explosion called Big Bang.

 

Thanks to this explosion (without direction some), were created so of form

extraordinary and ordered all the galaxies, stars, planets...

all of them with its mathematically exact orbits, titĂĄnicas stars

with an extraordinary power, etc... (by pure chance).

 

That after all it, in a planet that "peculiarly" was in the suitable place, with an exact orbit, the necessary and precise conditions for the life and so and as (but always by pure chance), the first unicellular alive organism was created that originated to all the different animal species that now exist by means of a evolution...

They explain the profits to us about the creation of amino acids (by Stanley Miller) and the theory of Geoge Wald on "the time does everything".

 

At first, it seems pretty, No?

More than nothing because this would be the explanation of the origin of the life without

necessity of which it created it. Of this form, nobody has nor

obligation, nor to have moral to thank for the life to him to anybody. But... It is that certain one? It is as teaches to the evolution the real existence of the life?

 

In 1953, Stanley Miller, a young student of the University of Chicago, makes an experiment that revolutionizes the scientific community, and specially satisfies those scientists who tried to look for in science an alternative explanation the origins of the existence. An explanation that it did not have to do with God.

 

Stanley Miller gave the answer them that they looked for. It made an experiment,

a experience of laboratory to demonstrate how it had appeared the life, from random circumstances. Miller took a little from distilled water, along with gases of ammoniac, methane and hydrogen and applied to flashes of electrical unloadings during two days and means, almost three. Later it analyzed the content of the water and detected amino acids. The amino acids are the fundamental elements for the proteins, that are the bricks of the life.

 

Therefore, it had been demonstrated, scientifically, that the life can appear by chance and without direction some.

 

A famous scientist, Nobel prize, George Wald, publish in Scientific American, 1954, all this experience, extending it much more, and he analyzes it saying that definitively science demonstrated that the life could appear by chance. George Wald writes the following thing: "the time does everything, ' given enough timĂŠ (given sufficient tiempo)lo impossible becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing." The time makes the miracles. I believe that if we had to look for a poetry of the agnosticism, or the atheism put in a poem, we would not find something more beautiful and

seducer who this...: "the time does todoâ. Given the sufficient time, the impossible thing becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing. The time is the one that makes the miracles. God is then excluĂ­do, because we with no need found the origin of the life of a Creator, by simple flashes of light that attack on fundamental gases.

Was then this the answer to the creation of the Earth life?

 

In 1959, the scientific community is shocked again. why? Because this time a called scientist Harold Morowitz discovers a small problem in the theory of Miller and Wald. It discovers what Ortega and Gasset would define as the great problem of the specializations: famous filosofo Spanish said that we are arriving at a society in where everyone knows more on less things. And here it passed something similar. Wald a fantastic biologist,

apparently it was not very good in mathematics. And what is what discovers the Dr Morowitz? Morowitz discovers, and Scientific American publishes it, that the probability that a bacterium arose by chance from the anything, of the same form that had induced it in laboratory Stanley Miller in 1953, was so minimum that the time which science attributes to the universe had reached. Simply enough Time "of Wald did not exist"... It must have happened much more...

 

Harold Morowitz, physicist of the University of Yale, published in 1968

book Flowing Biology. Next to other physicists and mathematicians he had seen with preoccupation the facility whereupon some scientists gave by seated, when studying the origin of the life, who took place probable events so little. These scientists accepted such occurrence without at least trying a rigorous investigation on the probability that indeed he happened. Morowitz calculated the necessary time so that random chemical reactions (= accidental) formed a simple bacterium. Not a complete organism, we are not speaking of a human being, not even of a flower, only one simple unicellular bacterium. Basing its calculations on a quite optimistic speed of these reactions and supposing that all the chances are going away to give, it concluded that the time to form a bacterium not only exceeded in 4.500 million years the age of the Earth, but also 15,000 million years the age that science attributes to him to

universe."

 

For decades no serious and honest scientist it has been accepting that the life has been originated by chance. This theory is considered mathematically impossible. The sufficient time did not exist so that those chances occurred. Scientist called George Ferrows, that calculated the mathematical probability that the Big Bang has been accidental, also made the following analysis about the possibilities so that a physical law, a single physical law of which they govern our Universe, has been able to arise by chance.

 

He is a secular scientist so it is not necessary to suspect any

tendenciosidad... It said that the probability that it appeared by

example the entropy or the law of gravity by themselves is 1 on 10 to the 123. What means 1 on 10 with 123 zeros above to the right... And therefore this secular scientist, Dr Ferrows, conclude that necessarily an intelligent Creator must them have created, since is virtually impossible that it by chance happens something whose probability is 1 on 10 to the 123. He does not mention God, but he speaks of a Creator, speaks of a superior intelligence that he had to have taken part. By chance he could not have happened.

 

Something more interesting still. Stephen Hawking wanted to demonstrate the opposite thing, that the possibility exists of conceiving a Universe that has arisen without intelligent intervention. Stephen Hawking is perhaps the most famous astrophisicist of the world. No physicist never sold so many books to the open public. Few scientists have been as popular as he. Of course that not only by its ideas, but by their personal drama, its untiring fight, its biography etc. Hawking, a genius of the Astrophysics, wrote in its book "The Brief History of Time" "the brief history of the time" the following thing:

"In truth the universe could have conceived to the life, could by chance have conceived." Know You it metaphor the monkeys on a typewriter? They say that supposition that the world had been able to arise by chance would be as if we said that 10 monkeys on 10 typewriters could write - giving them to sufficient time a soneto of Shakespeare. Then Hawking says thus "Is something similar to the good well-known example of the horde of monkeys hammering on typewriters.

greater part of which they write will be waste, but very occasionally, by pure chance, they will imprimirĂĄn one of the sonetos of Shakespeare ". It sounds well?

 

If Stephen Hawking says to it... But they do not let notice that there is one

difference between Ferrows and Hawking. Ferrows gives a number me. Stephen Hawking makes a calculation rather qualitative. It does not give a number me... What must make a good scientist from which Stephen Hawking says? To verify it. To quantify the probability. We are going to make the duties that Professor Hawking gave us! We are going to calculate with what probability could appear a soneto by chance of Shakespeare...... The sonetos of Shakespeare have 14 verses. Let us take one from them, the one that takes like example Gerald Schroeder, has in its 14 verses, 488 letters. How

we let the calculation to know the probability? There are 26 letters in the English alphabet (without elle and the Che). In order to define which is the probability that by chance this happens we are going to begin to calculate 26 to the 488, or expressed in decimal, that would be 10 to the 690.

 

It is to say 1 possibility in 10 to the 690.

And here the manipulation that I am denouncing...

Somebody realizes of which this number means?

What meant Hawking? Apparently which the universe could be created by chance "most will be sweepings, but with time, some soneto will arise...". When somebody distraĂ­damente reads that says, good, if Stephen Hawking says it already... will have made the account... I do not believe that he has ignored that the probability that it was giving him was even inferior to the one of the own Ferrows. So that you they have notion of which it means is exorbitant number 10 to the 690 I am going to give some examples to them: The universe has, according to the theory of the Big Bang, an age 15 billion years clock-man. Somebody knows how many seconds has in 15.000 million years? In 15.000 million years there are 10 to the 18 seconds.

 

Nothing else that that. So that these chances occur all, this 1 on 10 to the 690, one per second, would not reach nor dreaming the 10 to the 18. They would never reach... They know which is the TOTAL mass of the universe? Not even we can conceive it... Good they know how much is in grams? 10 to the 56 grams. That is all the mass of the universe. Therefore, if we go again to the statistics, the Dr Schroeder says who "to write by chance one of the sonetos of Shakespeare would be necessary that all the monkeys of the world, in addition to all the other existing animals, pounded machines of

to write made the existing iron of the universe yet, during

period superior to all passed from the Big the Bang, to a rate of one proves random by second and even so the probability that it appeared a soneto would be infinitely small ". In order to form a single phrase of 16 letters, with all the possible combinations it would take 2,000 trillions of years.

 

The universe has been existing, according to its calculations, only for close

of 15,000 million years. What is selling us Hawking, then?

 

More details exist very many than they demonstrate the existence of God,

between that they are the origin of the thought, the capacity to love, justice, the necessity to look for the happiness...

 

According to the greatest scientists:

Single we used a maximum of 3% of our mental capacity, and

impressive 0.0001% of our capacity of storage in our brain, during all our life.

 

The question that we must do to us is: PorquĂŠ the evolution (for

evolucionist) have flattered to us of so generous form with a brain so immensely powerful, if single we lived between 80 and 90 and few years?

 

According to the evolutionary theories, the nature offers to its creatures according to

it is needing, no? When the man dies, he has more of 99% of space in the brain that never used, and more of 97% of mental capacity that according to is never watched somebody existed that never needed her in human history!

 

why, if never we have needed it living less than 100 years, the nature was so generous with us?

 

To case it knew that in a distant future we would get to live more, and by

as much us it granted it in advance "so that we did not complain" and

we were "superior" or "dominant"?

 

It would not be more logical that the human brain has all this capacity, because of being "designed" to much more live that so single 100 years?

 

I belive in God, but also in the Science. is just complement of each one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


One word, wow, very well said, I agree, there are alot of differnt reasons and explantions out there, it is very hard to pick which one is right oe true, I also agree very strongly with your last sentence, I too believ in God, but also in science, so it is hard to figure out which one is right, I guess a bit of both of them!



Pages :-

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


VIEW DESKTOP VERSION REGISTERGET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.