I have never been able to completely buy into the nothing from nothing origins of life theories. Intent and design seem to be unfathomable mysteries of an extremely enigmatic nature with the seeming exactness with which nature exists. Christopher Knight is an interesting researcher and author that I have been familiar with in a peripheral way for some time. Recent research with more than qualified fellow history buff Alan Butler however, has led to some rather remarkable formulaic theories. What do you think? Could this be proof for intelligent design and externally guided evolution? It's intriguing to state the least. http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/KnightButler1.php
Evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang are three entirely different areas of science. Proving one of them right or wrong doesn't affect either of the other two. Evolution is about how life, which started somehow, then varied through the process of natural selection. Evolution, which is change of time, is a fact. The thing which is constantly worked on and referred is the theory by which this change of time is described, ie the theory of natural selection. And besides, even if we don't have the answers now jumping to "God did it" is just stupid because you don't have any justification and it tells you nothing. If we jumped to 'God did it' every time we couldn't answer something immediately no one would learn anything. There is not 'research' in creationism. No one doing creationism is published in peer reviewed reputable scientific journals because IT ISNT SCIENCE. The processes involved in evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang are all testable and are refined as more experiments and observations are done. There's a great many more 'formulaic theories' in currenct science. And his formula are nonsense. He tries to justify that the solar system is designed for human life. So why is 99.99999999999999% of the solar system lethal to us? 8 (or 9 if you include Pluto) and we can only live on one of them. In fact we can only live on 30% of the surface of one (ie dry land on Earth). In fact we can only live on about 15% of the Earth as some areas are too hot or too cold. Wow, 15% of one planet in 10. Obviously designed for us! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Its only 'intriguing' if you know nothing of science. Otherwise its laughable and ignorant.
Reading the first part, you forgot to include the wrist. 5 fingers, and a wrist is six sides. That's a big difference! Look at leaves, and snowflakes for the correct fractal. Don't forget to include the stem of the leaves.
Don't you mean 'something from nothing'? In which case, how have you managed to buy into the idea that 'in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'.
If this is your premise then the whole thread is shot. I am assuming of course you mean "something from nothing". There are no scientific theories that postulate *something* from *nothing*. In fact is no evidence that this entity called *nothing* is real. Can you point out to an instance of *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything/anything)? Of course you can't. Nobody can.
No, I'm afraid not. I don't know if you are a creationist or not. Are you? There are differing explanations for the existence of the universe and I agree with you wholeheartedly about the "something from nothing" explanation being difficult to buy. But if we eliminate that choice it still leaves creationism and perpetualism (coined word). Creationism would be the "God did it" scenario and "perpetualism" would be the view that the universe has always existed. There is some possible common ground between creation and perpetual explanations and that is that an eternal universe and an eternal God that created the universe could sort down to the concept that God and the universe are one in the same. From that common ground the concept of intentional design has to be replaced by the concept of eternal intention in nature, i.e. it is the invariant nature of the universe to provide hospitable environments, it is the invariant nature of hospitable environments to be able to generate life, and it is the invariant nature of life to evolve and adapt given the hospitable environment. They would not have to be the active work of the hand of God if the universe has always existed but they could be the invariant aspects of nature, nature being the physical laws of the universe. If the universe has always existed then things being the way they are simply has to accommodate life, not be intentionally designed for life.
You mean life from nothing presumably? not nothing from nothing. That's the ID creationists standpoint scientists dont think life came from nothing
Then scientists think life came from something. Which means that "something" in turn could never come from nothing.
Bollocks. It would be nice if people really made an effort to debunk evolution by natural selection. These kinds of arguments make a mockery of the scientific pursuit.
The simplest answer for this is we are all in a giant Emulation and Evolution is a program written to create selfadaptive systems by design. (It's kind of the middle ground between the Intelligent Design and Evolution argument. The Intelligent Design lot get to say "oh the universe was designed", however the Evolution lot get to say "Yeah, we designed it to evolve")
Ah, nonsense (Bollocks), I had to look it up. I apologize for my sarcasm. I was really not attempting to debunk evolution by natural selection. I haven’t the level of education to even try anyway. I was only trying to get at the statement, “life came from something”. I would really like to know what the “something” is. More than even life, scientist say the big bang came from something but can’t really say what it is. They can explain the Big Bang, but they can’t postulate on anything a second or two before the Big Bang. In earth science, something that has always been in existence on the planet, the laws of electricity are really a mystery. In a perfect resistive circuit, by using Ohms Law, if you multiply the ohms by the amps you get the voltage, if you divide the voltage by the amps you get the ohms, if you divide the voltage by the ohms you get amps. If you multiple the amps by the volts you’ll get watts. That was not invented by man it was recognized in nature to be accurate and true. The workings of electrons have always been here. Their actions and reactions in a circuit have never changed since they were discovered and described by Georg Ohm in 1827. I hope they never do, mankind would be in deep, deep trouble! Were the laws governing electricity created in the Big Bang? Is that were the three laws of Thermodynamic came into being? They came from something, but what? That is beyond a scientific explanation.
