Thread: How do you think Humans came to be?

Originally Posted by Black Prince

So why is belief in an invisible all seeing mega being that allegedy did it all more rational somehow ?

First of all, I strongly doubt that you can even begin to fathom the forces involved. I know I don't. Second, why those forces cannot include intelligence is something that even scientists will not reject.

Originally Posted by Black Prince

Always with this kind of argument I reply with the question. So who created God ?

And the reply is another question to which you have no answer either, What created the universe and how the hell would you know that the What is Not a Who?

Thus far, every one of us who follows the science will not reject the possibility that a who has created the universe. Yet, somehow, you feel it is necessary for science to do so when sceince refuses to do so without corrolating evidence.

Don't you see that you're using science as the religion that science itself refuses to play? Science has yet to reject God simply because the forces at play in creating the universe are so hard to understand that we cannot and will not reject intelligence as being part of the process.

We don't know anything before the Big Bang. It could be as simple as the total mass of the universe finally could not be contained anymore or as complex as two other universes colliding ... or God saying, "I am."

You're rejecting the 3rd out of hand. Science will refuse to do so until we have evidence to the contrary ... and we have none.

Originally Posted by bigross86

You've just given me two examples that what's written in the Bible is not unique. All that does is support my claim that the Bible was written by man, not by a so called god.

Then in 2000 years, our world wars will be regarded as mere myths cuz history books were not written by the Generals who effected them.

Rubbish.

But you'll have to agree with me that there is a slight difference between humans writing books about other humans, and humans writing books about god.

In 2000 years they might very well be regarded as myths. The difference is, even in 2000 years there will always be a human who is capable of doing the same feats as said generals. Show me someone who can split the Reed Sea so 12 multitudes of people can cross through it on dry land and then collapse it at will on a pursuing army.

Originally Posted by bigross86

Show me someone who can split the Reed Sea so 12 multitudes of people can cross through it on dry land and then collapse it at will on a pursuing army.

.

Originally Posted by highsea

Of course. Matter gets sucked into black holes too, and is therefore out of commission. Sub-atomic particles are created and destroyed on a constant basis.

But there is still no proton decay ever observed.

Maybe I was a little too narrow in my statement, but writ large, the number of protons in existence is virtually unchanged from the moment after the BB.

Better?

No. Neutrons are not protons.

-dale

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

First of all, I strongly doubt that you can even begin to fathom the forces involved. I know I don't. Second, why those forces cannot include intelligence is something that even scientists will not reject.

And the reply is another question to which you have no answer either, What created the universe and how the hell would you know that the What is Not a Who?

Thus far, every one of us who follows the science will not reject the possibility that a who has created the universe. Yet, somehow, you feel it is necessary for science to do so when sceince refuses to do so without corrolating evidence.

Don't you see that you're using science as the religion that science itself refuses to play? Science has yet to reject God simply because the forces at play in creating the universe are so hard to understand that we cannot and will not reject intelligence as being part of the process.

We don't know anything before the Big Bang. It could be as simple as the total mass of the universe finally could not be contained anymore or as complex as two other universes colliding ... or God saying, "I am."

You're rejecting the 3rd out of hand. Science will refuse to do so until we have evidence to the contrary ... and we have none.

There are a myriad of things we dont know (like next weeks lottery numbers ) ) But that doesnt automatically require a supernatural being be invoked to fill in the gaps.

One has to approach this subject using a modicum of common sense and ask oneself what seems rational and for me invisible mega beings are not frankly. If one looks at biblical scriptural texts in this manner then they certainly fall well short of scientific expanations for much of the world around us. Such texts are unchanging dogma written in ignorance from the 6th century onwards . Science is however continually revising itself as new knowlege and data becomes available. Science in itself will never explain everything but I'd like to think we know a darned sight more about the world around us as a consequence of it than we did when the bible was written . Thats not due to scriptural teachings but scientific discovery whether you like it or not. To call such discovery a religion is to ignore the evidential empirical data upon which 99% of science is based. Citing the failings of theoretical science ignores the fact that such research is by its very nature 'theoretical'. Religious dogma however isnt even theory its bronze age mythological fables given a subjective spin by multiple medieval authors and as a consequence can be dismissed out of hand in my view.

Science inability to prove a negative doesnt necessarily mean that a positive must therefore apply viz God or anything else for that matter ? Just wanting something to exist doesnt necessarily make it so

Originally Posted by dalem

No. Neutrons are not protons.

-dale

I never said they were. But they decay into protons.

In fact, there could be slightly more protons today than the first moments after the big bang, since beta decay has been happening to the neutrons while no protons have decayed.

Since there are a lot more neutrons that aren't formed in neutron stars than are, it's possible to suppose that the number of neutrons could be slightly lower today, and the number of protons slightly higher.

One or two orders of magnitude are insignificant, so if there are 10^78 or 10^79 or 10^80 protons, it's not relevant unless you can show me there were 10^80 3 minutes after the BB and only 10^78 today.

I have already retracted my exactly the same number, not wishing to be pendantic.

Writ large, the number is virtually unchanged, according to every big bang description I have ever read, be it Pagels, Hawking, or Morrison.

That much I still stand by, unless there is a valid reason beyond neutron stars to believe otherwise.

edit to add: I'm basing this on "classic" standard model, dale- pre-dark matter/dark energy. If you want to take the dark matter/energy standard model, then there are about 1/3 the number of atoms today than there were immediately following BBN.