Slashdot Mirror
NASA Proposes "Water World" Theory For Origin of Life
William Robinson (875390) writes "A new study from researchers at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has proposed the "water world" theory as the answer to our evolution, which describes how electrical energy naturally produced at the sea floor might have given rise to life. While the scientists had already proposed this hypothesis called 'submarine alkaline hydrothermal emergence of life' the new report assembles decades of field, laboratory and theoretical research into a grand, unified picture."
This is the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is how life changes, not how it got started.
It is well understood that electrical energy is important in the process of imbuing inanimate matter with life.
And then what mind-boggling intelligence begat the mind-boggling intelligence that begat us? Turtles all the way down, mate.
+1
Evolution doesn't try to explain how life began.
It is therefore funny to me thatsome people think there's a contradiction between evolution and ancient stories about how it began. Even more odd, some people assume the HOW is incompatible with ideas about WHY life exists. Those are three separate questions.
Such mind boggling intelligence does not necessarily need to come from something. It can come out of nothing. It's was even on slashdot the other day.
Sounds like NASA finally discovered Maxwell's Demon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Random processes
The variation may be random (whatever that really means). The selection is not random.
The whole process, evolution by variation and selection (yes, "abiogenesis" is as specious as the notion of "nonliving" matter), is decidedly not random.
I'm just sayin'...
#DeleteChrome
until the UFO aliens reveal themselves.
Time is such a universal concept... in that it only applies inside the universe, as far as we know. Furthermore, since undoubtedly something exists, we either have to assume it's possible for something to come out of nothing, or for something to have existed since forever, "just because". So then why not grant this to a theoretical god, too? It's not really logic when you apply it that selectively.
I think even the weirdest god you could dream up would not make reality any weirder, it'd be like a drop in the ocean. Considering that, it's hilarious with how much seriousness we debate what is real or true and who is right when it comes to the final things, and if there is no higher being to see this and have a good chuckle at it, it would have need to be invented.
Everyone knows that life was started when inanimate matter was touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Have gnu, will travel.
Carl Sagan, in Cosmos:
If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly, somehow created? How did that happen?
In many cultures, the customary answer is that a "god" or "gods" created the universe out of nothing. But, if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: Where did God come from?
If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, then why not save a step, and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? There's no need for a creation—it was always here.
These are not easy questions; cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, with the questions that were once treated only in religion and myth.
If complexity must come from more complexity, where does that f**king complex "God" come from? There should be more complex being than "God" exists.
mind-boggling complexity of life that could never be duplicated but by a mind-boggling intelligence
Complexity can arise spontaneously out of simple interactions. We see this over and over and over again. Pretending it requires intelligence just reveals our collective cognitive bias towards personifying the world and ascribing agency to inanimate objects and processes.
This is our tax dollars being spent on a national religion.
No, it's merely a line of scientific questioning that threatens your worldview. A lot of things can threaten a worldview (science, humanities, foreign travel, self-reflection, getting older, etc.), but we should only call them a "religion" if they substantially function like a religion (e.g., providing things like community, life ceremonies, spirituality, moral codes, holy texts, etc.).
Duplicating all pagan religions. They start with water because Genesis starts with the Holy Spirit hovering over the water.
Civilization begins with agriculture, and agriculture begins with water. It was true in lower Mesopotamia (the world's first civilization) and on the banks of the Nile (Egypt, the second civilization). It seems appropriate, then, that many creation myths--including those much older than the Genesis 1:1 account--feature water as prominent (and often chaotic) element.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Duplicating all pagan religions. They start with water because Genesis starts with the Holy Spirit hovering over the water. The obvious implication is that this is the point when Lucifer was created and he decided at that point that both he and God came out of that water there. The reason this is ridiculous is that it ignores Crick's, Franklin's, and Watson's work proving the mind-boggling complexity of life that could never be duplicated but by a mind-boggling intelligence. "Random processes"? Any randomly assembled amino acid randomly disassembles as well; even Miller proved that. This is our tax dollars being spent on a national religion.
Why are you so arrogant as to place limits on what is possible?
We can't "save a step and conclude that the universe always existed" because we think the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang. We could have saved that step if we thought the universe was Steady State. Dr. Sagan is asking this as a rhetorical question, yet he himself gave the answer not 20 pages earlier in the same book when he addressed the Steady State/Big Bang controversy in historical physics. That's showing a completely non-scientific bias and committing a logical error, and I really hoped for better from the good doctor. Fortunately, if there Is a real God, I suspect "he"s not going to be that hung up on whether his creations beleived without evidence or not.
Who is John Cabal?
Life appearing from nothing isn't logical or scientific. Anything appearing from nothing isn't logical or scientific. I used to be all Atheist, before I realized that the only logical thing to be is Agnostic. (Meaning you realize that you cannot know either way, whereas Atheism is the stupid religion of thinking that you "know" that there is no God, which is the opposite of scientific reasoning.)
If complexity must come from more complexity
Good question, and since you're the only one proposing it, I'll await your answer. Theists don't say "must," they say "plausibly."
Yes, I know you added that constraint specifically to fit your argument. Enjoy it, it's yours. But since you'd have no difficulty claiming that a car is designed, but an Engineer isn't designed, I assume you don't have a problem with the notion of some things being designed, and some things not. Even for the viewpoints where among the "not" is a god.
Tiamat In Mesopotamian Religion (Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian and Babylonian), Tiamat is a chaos monster, a primordial goddess of the ocean, mating with Abzû (the god of fresh water) to produce younger gods. It is suggested that there are two parts to the Tiamat mythos, the first in which Tiamat is 'creatrix', through a "Sacred marriage" between salt and fresh water, peacefully creating the cosmos through successive generations.
What scientist call the universe and what philosophers call the universe are two different things, for the philosopher the universe means absolutely everything, it can not have a creator because the creator would have to create it's self, if you exclude something from the universe to explain its creation then you are not answering the question of how did their get to be something in the first place. For scientist the universe can have different meaning depending on the context, it can mean the space and time we occupy, it can mean just points in space and time which we are connected to. This is why scientist can talk about multiverses, if they where talking about the philosophers universe this would make no sense. When the god question comes up it in relation to the philosophers universe, but to use this argument for god is cheating because you are excluding something and so no longer talking about everything.
"Random processes"? Any randomly assembled amino acid randomly disassembles as well; even Miller proved that.
The randomly assembled amino acid does randomly disassemble as well, but that is not what it must do. An amino acid may stay the same, disassemble, or it it may form a more complex molecule.
Here is a little demonstration of "randomly" assembling complexity in behavior. I have given each entity the ability to sense the left and rightness and ahead and behindness of 'energy' dots and their nearest peer. They also get a sense of their relative energy vs their peer. The inputs can affect two thrusters which operate like "tank treads". However, their minds are blank. They don't know what to do with the inputs or how they map to the outputs. The genetic program introduces random errors as copies runs of a genome from one parent then the other switching back and forth randomly. The selection pressure simply favors those with the most energy at the end of each generation by granting a higher chance to breed. Use the up/dn keys to change the sim speed, and click the entities to see a visualization of their simple neural network. The top left two neurons sense nearest food distance, the right two sense nearest entity, middle top is the relative energy difference of nearest peer. Note that randomness is constantly introduced, and yet their behaviors do not revert to randomness or inaction, they converge on a better solution for finding energy in their environment.
There is no pre-programed strategy for survival. Mutations occur randomly, and they are selected against, just as in nature. Given the same starting point In different runs / populations different behaviors for survival will emerge. Some may start spinning and steering incrementally towards the food, others may steer more efficiently after first just moving in a straighter path to cover the most ground (they have no visual or movement penalty for backwards, so backwards movement is 50% likely). As their n.net complexity grows their behaviors will change. Movement will tend towards more efficient methods. Some populations may become more careful instead of faster, some employ a hybrid approach by racing forwards then reversing and steering carefully after the energy/food is passed. Some entities will emerge avoidance of each other to conserve energy. Some populations will bump into each other to share energy among like minded (genetically similar) peers. Some will even switch between these strategies depending on their own energy level.
Where do all these complex behaviors come from? I didn't program them, I didn't even program in that more complex behaviors should be more favorable than less complex, and yet they emerged naturally as a product of the environment due to selection pressure upon it. Just because I can set the axon weights manually and program a behavior favorable for n.nets to solve the problem, doesn't mean randomness can't yield solutions as well. Today we can watch evolution happen right on a computer, or in the laboratory. All of this complexity came from a simple simulation of 32 neurons arranged in a simple single hidden layer neural net, with 5 simple scalar sensors and the minimal 2 movement outputs, with a simple single selection pressure. Each time you run the sim it produces different results, but all meeting the same ends, collect energy, reproduce. Just imagine what nature can do with its far more complex simulation and selection pressures... You don't have to imagine, you can look around and see for yourself.
In other more complex simulations I allow the structure of the n.nets and form of sensors to be randomly introduced and selection pressure applied. In larger simulations I allow the breeding and death of generations to occur continuously across wider areas and speciation will occur. Entities will develop specialized adaptations for a given problem space of the environment. I have created simulatio
One thing which bugs me is that, after all the years since the first experiments took place which synthesized amino acids by putting CH4, NH3, etc. in a flask and passing electrical discharges through it, why hasn't anyone managed to synthesize at least a self-replicating, metabolizing, proto-cell or something "alive" in the lab? I mean, given that we should be able to simulate the optimal conditions and energy inputs, it's just a bit strange that we haven't produced this result. If such a simulation could yield a living cell or even a molecule blob that clearly has the characteristics of life (energy in, copies of itself out), yet some fundamental chemistry differences that make it clearly "alien" then Ohhh what a big deal that would be...
why not grant this to a theoretical god, too?
Because the god adds nothing to the explanation. Hence Occam's razor. Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Theists don't say "must," they say "plausibly."
[laughs]
Supergod created god and god's god-verse. And megagod created supergod and supergod's super-verse. And hypergod created megagod and megagod's mega-verse.
AND NOTHING CREATED HYPERGOD. HYPERGOD IS ETERNAL. ALL HAIL HYPERGOD.
[BTW, turtles-all-the-way-down means that our god is the worst god of all. Since he was unable to create a being capable of creating a universe.]
because we think the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang.
That's not an accurate description - there's no requirement that the Big Bang be the beginning of everything. Something may have existed prior to that point; the Big Bang Theory makes no attempt to describe it.
The earth had a billion years and the entire surface to a depth of some hundreds of metres.
That's a lot replicates for an experimental team limited to 500 ml flasks in a lab.
Fortunately, if there Is a real God, I suspect "he"s not going to be that hung up on whether his creations beleived without evidence or not.
Most religions claim otherwise. I think those religions that "survive" the competition from other religions (like an evolutionary process), are those that "procreate" well into the next generation.
Therefore, successful religions must force people (with the threat of divine punishment) to adopt the theory, like belief in god.
Religions that would not mandate a belief in god, and promise punishment to those that don't, would die out fast.
Sounds like pussy cop out.
"Well we don't understand this and probably never will, so we should ignore it." Precluding the idea that just maybe there is something critical that will be missed.
If it WAS created, then what? You are going to look pretty fucking stupid standing before the creator when you die, as smart as you think you are now. The bigger they are etc.....that also includes your EGO.
My perspective is almost the same conclusion but different reasoning. The reason it is a pussoy cop out is because we keep talking about this bullshit, even acting as it means a single fucking iota of relevance in schools, and in the end your stance means not a damn thing to humanity or society. If you want me to give a shit about creation, make the freaking "live forever" pill first. Life is too damn short to waste on this bullshit.
why not grant this to a theoretical god, too?
Because the god adds nothing to the explanation. Hence Occam's razor. Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
More importantly because they're not granting a non-interventionist god with unknowable. People run in circles to try and have god added to the picture, because in the next heartbeat they then want to tell us all about exactly what he's like and how he definitely hates gays or something.
I mean, the earth had a lab in the scale of hundreds of millions of square kilometers, performing concurrent "experiments" over millions of years in order to produce life. Do you think a random creation experiment can give results in a human lab in just a few years?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
It was true in lower Mesopotamia (the world's first civilization) and on the banks of the Nile (Egypt, the second civilization).
I was just discussing this with a buddy earlier. Why would it take humans 100,000 years to realize living in a large group is far easier than living isolated? How do we know these are the first and second civilizations? What if there was a socially advanced civilization, with cities and aquiducts and art, 25K years ago that lasted 1800 years before collapsing, and there is nothing left of it, all evidence that it existed has been wiped away by time. What about 30K years ago? 40K years ago? We don't know. And we also don't know if Mesopotamia was first.
"Well we don't understand this and probably never will, so we should ignore it."
Accepting that you don't understand something isn't the same as ignoring it. In fact making up myths about what might have happened is ignoring the reality that we don't know.
If it WAS created, then what? You are going to look pretty fucking stupid standing before the creator when you die, as smart as you think you are now.
This presupposes a long list of arbitrary ideas about the nature of a being that might have conciously created the universe:
There's absolutely no reason to believe any of these arbitrary assumptions to be the case, even if for some reason, apropos of no evidence whatsoever, you do decide to presume the universe is the consequence of a concious act.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Are you talking to me? Pah. I call out broken logic when I see it, is all. And I also note the hybris of pretending to have any sort of "full picture" that makes any sense at all, defending it from introducing elements which don't. That's some pretty dumb shit, and the strawmen about religious people are expected compensation.
Right now, you are telling me how I am like -- take your idiotic projections to someone else, you will have no fun here.
you added that constraint specifically to fit your argument.
No he didn't, you deleted it to fit yours. He wasn't arguing with your generalised concept of what a "theist" does and doesn't think (Enjoy it, it's yours), he was arguing specifically with the OP, who said:
mind-boggling complexity of life that could never be duplicated but by a mind-boggling intelligence.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
>
[BTW, turtles-all-the-way-down means that our god is the worst god of all. Since he was unable to create a being capable of creating a universe.]
Unless we someday create a new universe! This could be by starting a new Big Bang in one of the empty spaces of our universe, or by creating a powerful simulation where the life forms inside it think it is reality or really, it would be their reality. Nobody said we have to create the new universe immediately.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
It is an interesting question, and one that we must ask.
I'll never be convinced the mass of the universe came from nothing. I think that even beyond 4 dimensional manifolds and relativity, whether you're talking Star Trek science, or before the Big Bang; the conservation of mass and energy will always hold. The universe came from something. That assumes the Big Bang theory holds; it always had a pseudo-religious feel to me. I wouldn't be shocked if the steady state universe makes a comeback in our lifetime.
I wouldn't say Sagan gave 'the' answer; he simply posited his thoughts on the matter. If we are going to talk about things that are beyond the state of our science to test and understand; then we can't be afraid to get a little dirty when we are out in the weeds of philosophy.
time on their hands now that no longer have to bother with having a Space Launch System.
What does N.A.S.A. stand for again?
Dr. Nick Lane has a more extended discussion on the possibility of life originating due to naturally-occurring proton imbalances in his book "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life".
As he points out, proton imbalances (across membranes) are actually the way all bacteria generate energy, and the way all life likely did before a phenomenal accident gave us mitochondria (in the case of most eukaryotes, it's proton imbalances across mitochondria within our cells, giving us far more energy for a given cell volume and quite possibly the thing that made multicellular life possible). He also calls the "primordial soup" life precursor picture into serious question, as fermentation is actually more complex, from an enzyme standpoint, than respiration.
Really interesting stuff.
http://www.nick-lane.net/
Kythe
NASA's PRIME DIRECTIVE! Obama told the director that Improving Muslim relations is NASA's top priority!!! Think this anti-Allah is going to help move that priority forward?!? Someone is going to get in trouble with the Boss. I know, it was only intended to piss off Republican Evangelicals, but the collateral damage is too high. If Muslims are willing to attack our Consulate office and murder four Americans including our Ambassador over a year old Youtube video, just imagine the hell this little gem will bring down on us.
Spontaneous generation is now a trendy science meme!
> Although evolution isn't an explanation of how life began, it does introduce some constrictions on what that explanation can include.
> For instance, all life on earth today is descended from a single common ancestor. Plants, animals and humans were not created apart from each other, one at a time.
We know that the iPhone "evolved" from early cell phones via natural selection aka market selection.
We know that the latest cars similarly "evolved" via a process analogous to biological evolution.
We also know that cars and phones don't share a common ancestor - they evolved separately.
We know that one type of bird evolves into another, while on the other side of the planet one type of rodent evolves into another, separately.
How does biological evolution introduce the constraint that there must be a single common ancestor?
I see you have the belief that there may have been a single common ancestor, but I don't see how that's required for evolution to occur.
> Humans are descended from Apes. Without explaining how that process began,
> the evolutionary evidence about this constraint is emphatic and undeniable.
> This flies in the face of one obvious prominent creation myth.
One very narrow interpretation, perhaps, one that few people hold. Most people, I think, realize that the ancient wisdom in Genesis says things happened in this order:
0. There was nothing - the universe was without form.
1. Space (the stars and the heavens)
2. Earth.
3. Oceans and land masses
4. Sea life
5. Animals of the land and air
6. Lastly, humans
For hundreds of years, scientists said that was wrong. Today, we know that Genesis has the sequence correct, and has been correct for thousands of years. Yeah, if you assume that the "yom" between land animals and humans was 24 hours, that's not consistent with evolution. That's not the only meaning of yom, though.
Who's to say that we even exist [outside of our universe]? The fact is we assume we exist in absolute terms. However, this reality could be nothing more then some mathematical construct in a sea of infinite probabilities and random chaos. If the universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth is 4.5 billion years, and the human race is 2.5 million years old, then it's probably reasonable to conclude that the realm outside the universe (i.e. unbound probability) has existed for at least 7 trillion years. If that kind of time has elapsed, and I believe it has, the infinite monkey theorem can easily explain how we came about, and further explain that we only exist in relative terms. I don't think the origin of the universe can ever be proven, but we can certainly come up with an answer that conforms with science and logical reasoning.
Matter interacting with matter.
When you eat some metal such as calcium, that calcium may become incorporated in your bones. Is that calcium all of a sudden ‘animated’ and ‘living’? Is the water that you drink somehow ‘animated’ because it flows through your brain cells?
"A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally there's no discernible difference."
And the slightest arguable difference in evidentiary or inferential support makes it "necessary".
If there were a record for the highest density of people assured they understand a subject with the lowest density of people who actually do, it would be easily won by Slashdot and Occam's Razor.
Deciding you just get to make up an answer because you don't understand it is the egotistic cop-out.
If there actually is a creator who does those things, I think you're the one who will look stupid, despite your lucky guess.
Where are you getting 7 trillion years from?
The bible has been preaching a similar theory for thousands of years, why is this news today? Here are some verses from the book of Genesis chapter 1
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
He wasn't using it wrong.
The structure of this thread is:
Premise 1: The Universe exists.
Premise 2: Either something came from nothing, or something always existed.
Hypothesis: That something is God.
Counterargument: The Universe is also an internally consistent "something" to fit the premise. The Universe necessarily exists due to premise 1. God does not necessarily exist given the premises, and does not better fulfill either premise. Therefore the hypothesis is unsupported.
You need to introduce new premises or arguments in order to endow God with extra attributes so that the God hypothesis passes Occam's Razor.
The short answer is we don't know for sure "why now?", but we do know that unless humans were generated with seed-technology, they would inevitably ask "why now?" when they reach this point because there's a start to civilization *somewhere*.
But one point is that living in large groups is impractical without scaling agriculture, which at minimal technology is impractical to bootstrap in much of the world. The most low-tech-civilization-friendly places on Earth are the ones where we find the first evidence of civilization, and there's some evidence that some of those places had local climate change coinciding with the dawn of civilization.
Note that we *do* have human remains and artifacts from 30-40k years ago. That's when the first bow & arrows seem to have been produced. The evidence of wild grains being cultivated is more recent.
I'm pretty sure you're just describing Maxwell's demon
Heck, that's all this NASA proposal is: Maxwell's demon with a theoretical location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
And you've clarified by moving to a truly ludicrous usage of Occam's Razor.
Pick one of the Interpretations of QM. Everett, Copenhagen, whichever you like. Apply precisely the same "reasoning" to evaluate them. Tell me which fails to "pass" Occam's Razor, or which is thereby shown "unsupported", both terms being utterly meaningless and unrelated in connection with Occam's Razor.
You clearly have not the slightest understanding of it. Occam's Razor is simply a heuristic to maintain conceptual economy for a given model. All else being equal, one does not multiply entities with out some reason to do so (and literally any reason to do so is a valid reason to do so), because, and -only- because, the resultant model is less conceptually unwieldy, and simpler. It makes no other distinction, "unsupports" or "fails to pass" nothing whatsoever. It never has. Only since the recent vogue to use it in an overextended atheistic argument has the understanding of it become as confused and wrong as yours now is, to the detriment of everyone, including science per se.
"Simpler" yet, try running your same sequence on the premise "that book has always existed on that end table, as an internally self-consistent explanation" against your notion of Occam's Razor, and see how scientifically airtight you feel your conclusion is thereby made.
All of that could be correct, you are right. Anything is possible. However that does not represent the prevailing attitudes in these waters.
People should question everything, even if they believe in a creator. I'm pretty sure this is even covered in the bible.
As for people whom rail against those beliefs, I see a lot of questionable mentality. Almost like they want to be told that it's OK not to believe. They sound like a person seeking justice vs. a murder of a loved one, which doesn't make much sense to me. Why get so bent about it? No one is forcing you to do anything. Though I suspect a lot of this is from the gay community, who obviously have issues extending well beyond the notions of religion.
Another thing I suspect is that the "thirst for knowledge" is like an addiction and doesn't always lead you down a better road. Some people fear the unknown more than others.
And then what mind-boggling intelligence begat the mind-boggling intelligence that begat us? Turtles all the way down, mate.
The answer? An even more staggering, self existing, mind-boggling intelligence. Seriously, What exactly is wrong with 'Turtles all the way down'?
Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?
One has nothing to do with the other. Saying a supreme being who exists outside the universe always exists does not suggest that the universe has. Finally, I want God to exist and the bible to be right, just to see the look on all those people's face who denied him and said statements like that above. Why? because there is nothing like the shock when you discover your life is wasted and you don't get the prize.
Ok, I'll bite. Why do you AC deserve the freaking "live forever" pill especially considering several people on /. have expressed abhorrance to that very concept as well as that of immortality.
Isn't it interesting that each of the creators has a list of what is required to appease him or join his family. There aren't thousands of other completely arbitrary assumptions that amount to an almost infinite array of possible mutually contradictory creators. There are actually less than 100. Of those there realistically only 10 who have expressed requirements Today 8 still remain (Norse and Greek/Roman while known to have requirements, those don't remain in print) Yahweh and Yeshua, his son. Allah Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) Xenu Yourself Ahura Mazda So there is a1 in 8 chance of being right.
Or Occam's Razor doesn't apply because he's the creator and therefore outside of it. In my novel universe, Occam's razor doesn't apply to me because I am the creator.
Yep and we are back to Turtles all the way down. I still see nothing wrong with that.
Supergod created god and god's god-verse. And megagod created supergod and supergod's super-verse. And hypergod created megagod and megagod's mega-verse.
AND NOTHING CREATED HYPERGOD. HYPERGOD IS ETERNAL. ALL HAIL HYPERGOD.
[BTW, turtles-all-the-way-down means that our god is the worst god of all. Since he was unable to create a being capable of creating a universe.]
How do you know we aren't capabl? maybe our way is through our books and literature. What if every piece of created story IS another universe. That would make our God best ebcause he created not just one but millions who created millions more.
Why in the name of all that is good and pure would we ' create a new Big Bang in one of the empty spaces of OUR universe?' Why not in 12 dimensional space?
So you going with the Battlestar Galactica theory?
You obviously know what you're talking about, you are very good at ignoring evidence. For example, just recently in Egypt, archeologists discovered Egyptian documents several thousand years old. These ancient Egyptian records show pharoah's army chasing the Jews out of Egypt after the Jews' worship of a false god brought great suffering to Egypt - plagues and the like.
The scene by the Egyptians looks strikingly like another account of the Jews' exodus from Egypt, for the same reasons. The only difference is which side is described as the "bad guys". The same story told, described the same way by the opposing parties - you think that might be evidence that they're describing something that actually occurred?
If you've ever played the telephone game, or been alive on earth for more than five years, you know that anything that gets repeated from person to person to person gets distorted along the way. For you to then purposely distort it further in order to claim the event must not have occurred isn't a belief in evidence - it's a pitiful, transparent attempt to protect an obviously very wounded ego.
You're talking about the god ideas currently in circulation. All of which are no less arbitrary than the gods not yet postulated.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Fortunately, if there Is a real God, I suspect "he"s not going to be that hung up on whether his creations beleived without evidence or not.
My opinion too. For the record I don't believe any intelligent entity was involved in the creation of the universe, but if there was then after 14 billion years I don't think they will give a toss about what any of the multitudinous lifeforms that inhabit it think or do.
As a deterministic construction, the 110 Rule is an interesting idea; seems to entertain a certain possibility of materialistic emergence.
Since animal-life seems to be quadratic instead of binary, there's still a bit of a gap between life today and an iterative genesis (DNA codons being made up of four elements (GACT) instead of just one or two). I don't know if that helps by making the field richer for interactions, I do know it makes modeling it much more difficult with this idea.
Maxwell's demon aside, I was curious if you know of some examples where demonstrations of the binary 110 rule may actually be found in cellular machinery.
I wasn't talking to you at all. So you know, look in the mirror and try not to be blinded.
STAR fire.
Has anyone on this site ever heard of Humility? Are we too proud to truly know anything? Have we learnt nothing from God's inspired Word especially on this weekend? Can the human brain possibly contain all the knowledge in and about this Universe? To all of these questions, not in a Million years and we don't have that much time remaining to learn either! We can theorise and hypothesise till the Cow's come home (or the Lord returns) and we will never know much about our Universe because it is just too big and old. All we can be is Humble in accepting what the Bible (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) has to say about everything and being obedient to the Lord and then when He returns to pick us up, so to speak, we will know all things and have the ability to check it all out as the Sons of God ourselves!!
Unfortunately, most or at least the most vocal "Scientists" are never going to admit there is a God and do what he says to do. So they shall continue to deceive everybody by lying by omission except the one's called the very elect. The Lord, OTOH, says "believe me and you shall live". Not good enough for the "Worms" who live on this planet who want to know everything. At least the True Christians have the Truth and when everyone hears it they have to decide YAY or NAY. The Lord has repeatedly warned the people of the Earth that He will Judge, Jury and Execute or not Obliterate everyone when they finally get where He is and who can escape that? Only 1 group will and that is the group who are raised up to meet the Lord in the air when He returns (that selfsame very elect). That is the Truth from the Christian perspective and if you don't believe me well good luck you'll need it.
Now onto what this passage from Mr. mfwitten is about. I believe the Big Bang was done this way. An infinitely dense blob of matter in HEAVEN (after all, that is where the Lord lives) was "touched" by the Holy Ghost (the creative arm of the Lord) and there was a BB! I only have a pass at Yr12 Physics and nothing else except a bit of Faith obviously so I may be way out with this Hypothesis but it seems to fit what I was taught in High School 41-37 years ago (1973-1977). Neither here nor there though because my kind will know all things one day and be able to see what actually happened as it happened. The Lord gives abilities to all of His Sons and Daughters to be like Him. It is a Spiritual thing which is discerned by the Lord and not revealed to everyone except they come to Him in humility and do what He says in the Word.
On the subject of where did God come from I say this, why not do what He says to do and when we are all finally Saved we will know where He came from and we won't need to ask Him. That will be the ultimate revenge of the Lord over the Devil who has corrupted most things that the Lord made. Be one of the Very Elect and then one day you will join us on the way up. Now if you don't want to do that, the Lord will not help you. On the subject of the unanswerable question, The Lord can answer any question and so will anyone be able to when they are ultimately Saved. It will be an Omni-present, Omni-Scient and Omni-powerful sort of existence. The Lord will give that power to the few who shall be ultimately Saved. With regard to these not being easy questions I agree. They force each of us to face facts which are not so easy to understand. As the Lord says we see through a glass darkly. Even the Christians see very little of what the Lord has done because we can't contain it in our physical bodies.
That is why it has to be a Spiritual experience because that gives us the ability to understand. I am glad you mention religion and myth in the one sentence though because they are both of them the way man worships the Lord. Man joins a religion and believes their myths which entrap man in a worse situation than they we're in before. Now how to do this is simple. All we as a race have to do is Repent, Be Baptised and the Lord will fill us with the Holy Ghost. When we have that experience we can understand things that the Lord wants to teach us. My name is Craig Abernethie and I belong to the Revival Fellowship in Australia for the last 35y2m and 13days since I did what the Lord asked. Feel free to Google us and, hopefully, see you on the way up.
I think you are wrong Mr. AC, the "Scientists" exclude the Lord in any number of ways (google it) and the "Philosophers" exclude Him on the basis of Him not being all in all I think. What if the Universe is in a part of HEAVEN (where the Lord lives after all) and we are just Worms on this Planet who don't want anything to do with Him. That is a much more accurate scenario and so that doesn't help anyone and that is what Satan wants, NO HOPE. The Lord does offer an experience that saves us initially and can lead to supernatural (read Spiritual) Powers beyond the comprehension of man. The reason both groups make no sense is because they are willingly ignorant of what the Lord promises to those who obey Him and they don't believe either when we tell them what He can and has done all around them and everyone. I say this: get off your high horses, people of the Earth, and just do what the Lord says to do (it is simple but not necessarily easy) and we as a group will be ultimately Saved and not be part of the deceived group which are going to burn forever in the lake of Fire and Brimstone. My name is Craig Abernethie and I belong to a group called the Revival Fellowship in Australia and you can google us (just don't be deceived). Happy Trails.