Huntard, thanks for opening the thread,
Hi chemsci,
chemsci writes:
On the Origin of the Universe there are generally agreed to be only 2 possibilities. A. God created the both the design and substance of the universe. I hold this belief, which has a great economy for comprehension: God did it.
There are only 2 possibilities? No, there is only 1 possibility, God did it.
Currently no cosmologocal model assigns the universe a
beginning therefore there is no moment of creation from nothing.
So if your question is 'what created the universe', then there is only one answer, God. In cosmology the universe requires no beginning, no creation point, so the question of 'what create the universe' does not apply and is nonsensical. It is a faith based question that tries to force science to give an answer.
B. Somehow the universe designed and created itself out of nothing. Usually evolutionists believe this. This necessitates an infinite series of undirected fortunate events producing all creation.
If you understood the cosmological models you would understand that there is no
creation point from nothing. There is an expansion, however, since this is not a class to teach cosmology I will ignore the rest of what you said and let you continue to bury yourself...
1. “Every effect must have an equal cause” derives from the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms.
This is a typical creationist misunderstanding of the 1st LOT. Huntards definition is perfect. Also, since the universe does not come from nothing, the 1st law is not violated.
2 & 3 “100 Billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom: is the basic premise of the Big Bang paradigm, which posits that all matter & energy were originally compressed into a sub-microscopic point which exploded into our universe. BBT (Theory)holds that nothing existed prior to the BB
You are not looking to good yet...
Being that galaxies cannot exist until there is a universe for them to exist in, and a cool enough universe at that, your "100 billion galaxies compressed into an atom" is nonsense.
There was no
explosion, and here again is another nonsensical statement. The universe expanded from one state(quantum state) into another state(our current universe).
The BBT deals with the expansion of the universe and NOT with what came before.
4. The explosion event is called a Singularity by believers.
This is nonsense, I wont even address the rest.
Right here comes an unanswerable objection which is expressed in Colin Ronan’s book “The Universe Explained”:
You use the word explosion, then you quote a book that uses the word expansion, I don't like where this is going for you my friend...
One of the most vexed questions facing astronomers is that of how much matter there is in the universe . results suggest there is barely 1% OF THE MASS THAT THE UNIVERSE SHOULD CONTAIN ACCORDING TO THE BIG BANG THEORY. There must be a vast amount of “dark matter that we simply cannot see.”
“There must be” is a statement of faith, metaphysics.
Digging deep for it aren't you? Why don't you give the evidence that lead to what you refer to as a faith based statement? It wasn't just a blind assertion that lead to his comment, there is evidence for dark matter, one being that the universe is expanding, hence the name of that book "The Universe Expanded".
6 & 7 Dark matter & dark energy are now imagined to supply the necessary mass (weight) required to make the BBT possible.
No, this statement again is just a complete lack of understanding.
Dark matter and dark energy lend nothing to the BBT. DE and DM help understand the current accelarated expansion, the BB is not affected.
Ok looks like the cosmology portion is over.
8. In 1952 H. Urey & Stanley Miller at the Univ/Chicago produced amino acids by exposing a mix of gasses (CO2, Methane CH4 & Ammonia NH3) to a 50,000 volt spark for a week. The reaction products were isolated from the energy source to prevent decomposition. They assumed that Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, non-oxygenic, similar to the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus; and lightning & cosmic radiation supplied the energy to duplicate their lab experiment, forming amino acids which precipitated into the sea until it became a vast “pre-biotic soup”.
This is called the “Spark in the Soup Theory “ in Richard Milner’s Encyclopedia of Evolution.
9. There’s no evidence at all that Earth had such an atmosphere, which would be evidenced geologically. It would be fatal to life. No one explains how it converted to the 78%N + 21%O we enjoy.
10. Amino acids are small structures, over 100 have been identified. Random synthesis produces equal quantities of right handed and left handed ones, but only levo, left-handed, are used in the proteins of all living things. There are 20 in our flesh, composed of 10 to 27 atoms each, variously assembled into 30-50,000 proteins some with 10,000 amino acids, strung together like beads on a chain which electrostatically influence their configuration with one another in such a way to form the specific molecules of life.
AAs are labil, break down easily. Linked AAs are called peptides. Proteins could be called large biological polypeptides. For example hemoglobin is a construction of 574 amino acids in 4 polypeptide chains. These are absolutely specific. Substitute Valine for Glutamic Acid at position 6 of the B chain and you get Sickle Cell Anemia.
11. The assembly of AAs into proteins takes place in our cells by a linkage which involves the loss of 2 Hydrogen atoms from the amino [NH3] site and the loss of an atom of oxygen form the carboxyl [CO2] site of the adjacent amino acid, forming a molecule of H2O. It’s a DEHYDRATION PROCESS and could not accumulate in the sea, nor persist, because peptides dissolve when hydrolyzed.
On authority lists 19 separate steps and dozens of enzymes required for protein synthesis within cells. The critical question is: Source of information? Where did the precise design for tens of thousands of proteins in you originate? Or for the tens of millions of species which have existed on our planet?
Study biology, and chemistry, and perhaps persue a career as an Abiogenesis research scientist.
I think the doctrine this perfection of precision came without a designer is simply ludicrous!
Ok...so? An argument from incredulity is not an argument.
No matter how many athiestic materialists shout the evidence down: it calls for a design & designer, who's name alone is Jehovah.
But you have presented no evidence for design, all you stated were the processes that take place and then
"I can't believe this happens without design". Well fine, but it seems like there is a general consensus among scientist that a natural process took place, it is studied in the different fields that are covered by abiogenesis. There is much literature on this if you care to study it. But more specifically you have not said one thing that even remotely concerns evolution. You keep using the
word evolutionist, you keep refering to what
evolutionist believe but you've only talked about cosmology and abiogenesis. Do you see where I get the nonsense statement from now?
You're 20 issues were supposed to deal a blow to evolution and evolutionist, you have done none of this. You tried to deal with cosmology and showed that you really don't know much about it, then you tried to show how complex we are and how
you can't imagine it happening without God, which actually doesn't prove or show evidence against anything.
In my eyes it was nonsense...
SO WHERE'S THE "FLAT OUT NONSENSE", ONIFRE?
Im sorry, it was
flat out nonsense.
Edited by onifre, : spelling
"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
™ Version 4.2
