How do Athiests feel the universe started?

elone: That’s beside the point. Yes, reproduction costs a lot of energy, but that energy is _not _dependent on how many chromosomes the creature has or how long the genome is. Thus, there’s no selection pressure to make the genome as short as possible.

Natural Selection would also select for a replication system that appears “built to be manipulated”. The easier it is for modifications to happen, the faster species can adapt to changing conditions.

As you point out, some humans have different number of chromosomes. This usually leads to infertility, but not always. Obviously, then, it is possible for a species to evolve over time into one with a different number of chromosomes.

What leads you to believe birds descended from fish? Both had a common ancestor, yes, but said ancestor is unlikely to have had either fins or wings. There’s no need for one to develop into the other.

Evolution is very well supported by science - through observation of the fossil record, and in more recent times, changes in species such as dogs and studies on short-lived creatures such as bacteria and fruit flies. It makes testable predictions that have been shown to be true time and again. What leads you to believe that somehow the same scientific principle which served us so well building up our current level of advancement is somehow totally absent in the area of evolution? Evolution is the accepted theory because it is scientifically sound.

I never said that it was impossible for life to have been designed to be manipulated; I said that there is no evidence for it that is not equally supportive of evolution. Anything that makes it easier for us to manipulate also makes it easier for mutations to change, natural selection to select on.

I don’t assume that anyone who doesn’t embrace evolution is religious, but I have yet to see anyone who assigns themselves the label “ID” without having religious foundation. You claimed to be approaching this from a secular angle, then start quoting Genesis to back up your position. Just because a book is old (or because it is older than Darwin) does not make it accurate. If that was our criteria for accuracy, we would never accept any new idea.

As for this being a “scientific argument”: If we can’t apply basic reasoning and standards for debate (for example, by being able to back up your argument with something solid and provable), we have no foundation to have a reasoned discussion on. If you’re not prepared to accept that as a foundation, I see no reason to continue the discussion.

What scientific theory requires the universe to expand at “4 billion light year ftimes faster than the speed of light”? Please, quote your sources. And do you seriously think the entire of the astrophysics community would embrace a theory with such an obvious flaw, when any one of them could make their career by showing the flaws in such an argument? Can you explain why this should be so without resorting to an absurd conspiracy encompassing the entirety of the scientific community?

For further reference, I’d suggest you read the denialism blog, which has an excellent set of articles debunking the more common ID misconceptions: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/evolution_denialism/

mj79: I am the poster to whom you are referring. I understand the Big Bang quite well. If you have fault with any of my answers, please set me straight, being specific.

My understanding of quantum physics: Classical physics said atoms should emit electromagnetic radiation continuously while orbiting around the nucleus. This created a major problem because if this was so, the continuous loss of energy should cause the electrons to be pulled into the nucleus; therefore atoms shouldn’t exist. In 1918 Max Planck won the Nobel Prize for coming up with a solution for this problem. He theorized that energy at a sub-atomic level moved in little packets of energy that he called ‘quanta’. In essence his theory said that electrons jumped orbits using ‘packets of set amounts of energy’. This theory allowed for the limitation of the amount of energy transferred to the photons by the electrons and eliminated this problem; and after being accepted by the physics community, this process of ‘quantum leaps’ by the electron was called ‘Planck’s Constant’. That is the big mystery of quantum physics.

The Hubble shows movement, not movement outward. The red shift theory of light is taken out of context and used assumingly. The thought process behind it is that the light being emitted or reflected off of an object moving toward the observer should be ‘slightly’ bluer than the light from a stable object because it is moving toward the observer a little faster because of the movement of the object. Light being emitted or reflected off of an object moving away from the observer should be ‘slightly’ redder than from a stable object because it is moving a little slower because of the movement of the object.
Electrons move in a circular motion around the nucleus, the planets move in a circular motion around the sun, our galaxy is moving in a circular motion and our Universe is in motion, probably circular also. If the objects being observed are in a different orbital arc than earth’s orbital arc and their orbital speed is faster than earth’s orbital speed of approximately 29.8 kilometers per second, and the direction of their orbits are away from the earth, this would give an red shift light pattern. It is a big ‘assumption’ that everything is moving outward; they could be and probably are just in motion.

I’m sure you have heard of inertia. Please explain to me, in believable verifiable terms, how ALL of the planets and ALL of the solar systems and ALL of the galaxies that we can observe managed to overcome Newton’s First Law of Physics and change their straight line direction from an outward faster than light speed (super-luminal), from the Big Bang, to a much slower circular (orbiting) speed? Earth’s orbit around the sun is about 18.5 miles per hour. The Big Bang assumes this happened, providing no evidence or even an explanation how they all changed direction and speed when Newton’s Law says it is impossible.

I await your answer since I don’t understand the Big Bang as well as you do.

elone: That was an exceptionally incoherent description of quantum physics. To address your points in order:

• The “process of ‘quantum leaps’ by the electron” is not called Planck’s Constant. Planck’s constant is simply the minimum quanta a particle can have.
• It’s not a “big mystery of quantum physics”, it’s part of Quantum Mechanics, just like the rest of the theory.
• Red and blue shift is well established as fact by scientific evidence, and makes useful predictions. Many systems, such as the GPS system and radar guns, have to take into account red and blue shift to operate properly. There is no reason to doubt their accuracy.
• Electrons do not move in a circular motion around the nucleus, they occupy a probability cloud around the nucleus, with a given probability of being found in a given location at any time.
• The orbital speed of planets around a star is far, far lower than the speed at which individual parts of the universe are moving apart.
• When we observe the red- or blue-shift of distant objects over time, they remain constant. If the shift were due to the objects orbiting something (what? Why can’t we see that, sitting there stationery?), the shift would vary over time. We would also expect to see as many blue-shifted objects as red-shifted ones. Instead, red-shift is correlated directly with distance.
• Nothing had to overcome newtonian physics. Everything is still moving apart from each other as it was in the big bang. However, localised clusters of matter formed into stars and eventually other planets, which all have their own relative motions, in addition to the constant expansion.
• The expansion of space due to the big-bang isn’t expansion in the sense of a conventional explosion; space itself is expanding, akin to objects fixed to a rubber sheet getting further apart as the sheet is stretched.
• Earth orbits the sun at about 29.7 kilometers per second, not the stately speed of 18.5 miles per hour!

The one question I really really would like answered, however, is this: You seem to assume that with your basic lay-knowledge of various areas of physics, you have nevertheless found a number of telling holes in theories that are accepted by the entire scientific community. How do you explain the entire scientific community somehow failing to notice these simple ‘flaws’? Either:

1. You’re smarter than the rest of the scientific community combined, even without detailed knowledge of the theories concerned.
2. There’s some enormous conspiracy involving the entire scientific community to keep you and everyone else in the dark (one that can simultaneously operate smoothly amongst thousands of scientists and yet also propose theories to the general public that are, according to you, full of holes).
3. Your objections are incorrect, and founded on a faulty understanding of the theories involved.

Occams razor indicates #3 is by far the most likely.

Both plants and animals expend a large amount of energy copying genetic material. Plants spend a significant part of their life in this process and mammals develop placentas, milk and ebryos, this is not free. It takes a great deal of energy and commitment.

My assertion is that genetic material and chromosomes seem to have been built to be manipulated. A fish gene added to a tomato makes its shelf life longer. An evolution from non life to life to man implies a process of simplicity to complexity. If one species developed into another, the same number of chromosomes should be present in both, the replication process is a splitting and pairing process. In humans when you have unsupported pairs Mongoloidism or abortion occurs.

You are talking about divesication from a fully functioning dna molecule producing an almost identical offspring. The question is how did it get to be that way in the first place. The diversification I am talking about is how a functioning fin and scales on a fish can diversify and become jointed wings and feathers. That is the biggest problem I have with evolution; the supposition that in the name of science it is okay to assume the foundation on which everything esle is built upon doesnt need to be proven, just accepted on ‘faith’. If I did that you would play the “goddidit” card. But it seems to be okay for you to break the same rules you expect everyone else to go by. The mechanism by which a fin and scales diversify and bedome a jointed wing and feathers is “NOT” well studied.

What fact unsubstantiates the idea that genetic code could have been designed to be manipulated? I really want to hear about this. Man IS manipulating it a lot faster and more efficiently than evolution ever could, if it was even possible.

Im not being dishonest in my position. My stance is I follow the evidence I uncover and it seems to point to ID. Your assumption is that anyone who doesnt embrace evolution is religious . ID offers answers that ‘seem’ to fit right into observable science. How is that religious? I offer you insight into the ID point of view, information from a document written thousands of years before Darwin was even thought of; and you immediately shut down intellectually and go into a “goddidit” rant. Again your assumption that this is a scientific ‘argument’’. I thought it was an intellectual conversation, a sharing of ideas. Science is a discipline of observation and duplication, nothing more, yet you base your whole ‘argument’ on unprovable ideas that are impossible because they defy the laws of physics. One example, for clarity, is the concept that the Universe expanded 4 billion light year ftimes faster than the speed of light. Nothing is suppose to be able to exceed the speed of light. Talk about dishonesty. Every part of evolution starts with an unprovable basis that goes against the very tenets it taks for facts. Because ToE was disproven you embrace ID and call it Punctuated Equillibrium. The Genesis story is P.E. an erruption of new species in a relatively short time. Science cannot be used to prove any scientific argument; it is a discipline of observation and duplication. At best it can test the validity of evidence, nothing more. For decades science proved Darwin was right; how good is that proof now?

Elone: The number of chromosomes bears little to no relation to the amount of genetic material, and the amount of genetic material (as long as it is at least sufficient) bears little relation to the complexity of the organism. Since copying genetic material is nearly free, it has no impact on the survival of an organism, so there is no evolutionary drive to reduce it to the minimum possible for a given organism.

If your assertion that more complex animals require more chromosomes was correct, we would see this regardless of whether or not evolution is accurate. Since we don’t, it’s pretty easy to conclude that apparrent complexity and number of chromosomes are unrelated.

Regarding diversification: How it happens is well studied - an embryo starts off as a single cell, and diversifies to all the cell types in the human body. Regardless of what the internal mechanism is, it does happen. As for “Why would the organism double its chance for extinction by creating multiple untried organs” - an individual organism does not choose to diversify. Mutations lead to changes such as diversification, and those that prove to be beneficial remain. At some point in evolutionary development, it was an advantage to have a more complex, multicellular organism, and there was a path there from current organisms, so one evolved.

Your argument claiming that genetics is as complex as it is because it’s some sort of “access control” is completely unsubstantiated by fact. What does this have to do with chromosome count, and how can you show that it is substantially more complex (in a manner that costs an organism in fitness, since that’s all that would count in an evolutionary setting) than it has to be?

Next, you’re arguing the Anthropomorphic Principle. Simply put, if conditions weren’t suited to our survival, we wouldn’t be here arguing the point. It doesn’t require any particular divine intervention to put us here, because if we weren’t we wouldn’t be observing the coincidence. By definition, the only situation in which we can come to be will appear to be an anomalous one from our point of view.

Next, you reveal the intellectual dishonesty of claiming to be a proponent of “Intelligent Design” in a non-religious stance by quoting Genesis. In what sense is the bible relevant as a primary source to prove a scientific argument?

“The mysterious demise of the dinosaurs just in time for the unexplainable appearance of mammals becoming the dominant life form on Earth.” - this assumes that mammals would have evolved regardless. Mammals evolved into the life forms we see today because of the extinction of the dinosaurs. No coincidence required.

I am an I.D.’er. Meaning that the ‘God entity’ is just as posssible and probable to be ‘other intelligent beings’ similar to ourselves as it possible and probable it is a Divine God. I study both lines of thought looking for evidence for either one. The chance that life just happened from a string of fortunate events does not appear probable to me. The Chromosome, with allof its genetic code is just too complex. Too many things had to happen by chance at the same time in order for ti to happen. There needed to be the code, a code reader and a means to effect the directions of the code. Each one of these are incomprehensibly complex. And no one of them could exist by itself; the whole package had to come about at once, highly improbable. On top of that you needed at least two different (male and female) entities for sexual reproduction to occur within the lifetime of each individual. There is no ascending or descending order in the number of chromosomes. Man has 46, some cats have 35, others 38, some canids (dogs, wolves coyotes, etc,) have 50, some 54, others 73. There is a protozoa called Aulacantha that have 1600. The deer mouse has 48. There is no order. If everything came from an inorganic begining there should be a gradual measurable increase or decrease, but there isnt. I see this as evidence, “not Proof” of ID. We are starting to gene splice now, creating new species and we are only in the “fertilized egg” stage of this science. In effect we are being Intelligent Designers of those species, so this increases the probability.

I see major flaws in the natural phenomenom of the Big Bang. It breaks the very rules that science and physics embrace, . First it is a ‘singulairty’ meaning it is a one time event., unrepeatable. And all of the matter in the known Universe came about esentially from nothing. One law of physics is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, the amount of energy is constant, cannot be increased, unless from an outside source. Where did the energy come from to initiate the ‘implosion’. Another law says that in all energy changes (the big bang) in a closed system (the Universe) there will always be a loss of energy, not the creation of new energy. If there was nothing to start with, where did the energy come from that created the millions and millions of galaxies in our Universe. Instantly the Universe expanded to almost its present size, 4 billion light years faster than the speed of light. Einstein showed that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.. I could go on and on; the probability is not there.

I am an atheist and I do not know how exactly how everything began. I’m very comfortable with that fact. I trust that science will, in time, provide us with the answers to these questions. For the record:

1. I do not think everything came about by “chance.” Just as evolution depends upon natural selection (“Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.” - Dawkins), perhaps the universe came about from some similar process.

2. Just because I don’t believe in a divine creator doesn’t mean I see no purpose or value in life. Life is precious simply because it exists. As for ultimate meaning, my life’s purpose is to enjoy the love of my family and friends and, hopefully, leave the world a better place.

However the universe started and life began, it’s all a beautiful thing that is well worth trying to understand.

So far we can empirically ascertain (due to the red-shifted background radiation of space) that the universe at one time expanded exponentially at the speed of light to a very large (and to us, infinite) degree. A.K.A. the Big Bang occurred and OUR universe was formed (as there may be others on the other side of a possibly saddle-shaped space time.) After billions of years our solar system and planet formed, and in such a way that carbon-based life forms were able to thrive off of Earth’s innate resources. Eventually, entities evolved (human beings; you and me, brotha) who had large enough brains to develop tools and inventions to better our existences, and moreover, were eventually able to ponder ideas outside our immediate functions and surroundings. In other words, the only reason we can consider ideas such as “where did we come from?” or “who created us?” is because the universe, and subsequently our planet, developed in such a way allowing humans to evolve and ask these questions. E.g. early Egyptians created a system of deities to explain phenomena of the natural world, such as rainfall and flooding of the Nile, because they didn’t yet have a complete understanding of the function of the world around them. Today, we understand these occurrences are caused by climate and not a god. So why should we assume that the universe was started by a supreme deity and not just chalk it up to a lack of understanding? I think that instead of worshipping ignorance we should be thankful for what we have and be willing to learn more. We could have been born into any situation in existence, but if there’s anything to be thankful for in our lives, we should pray to and worship that.

I feel like God is just an occasional and desirable outcome of entropy.

elone:

I don’t really feel the need to add much to what arachnid already posted, which should make things clear to you. Suffice to say that Hubble’s observations that galaxies are moving apart based on the redshift of light over distance is a scientific law, one that is expressed in mathematical terms: the more distant a galaxy, the faster its recessional velocity (something Hubble plotted).

I don’t have a clue where you get the idea that all the galaxies themselves are moving in an orbital path around anything; there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that notion. The Big Bang theory is supported by Hubble’s Law, by the existence of CMB radiation, by the ratios and abundances of light elements (no other theory can explain this), and by the distribution of galaxies as well as their relative age and composition.

I’m a ateist an I dont care howw the world started because we are never going to find out so deal with it

I’m not an atheist, I’m an agnostic. However, there is now a lot of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory so I tend to lean in that direction.

People who try to discredit the Big Bang theory usually don’t understand it very well. For example, the poster who said that it makes no sense that all the matter in the universe could come from nothing, obviously doesn’t know much about quantum physics. Energy fluctuations at the quantum level can indeed make it appear that particles come out of nowhere…besides, we know that there is no such thing as “nothingness”. Even a total void, an empty vacuum, still has a quantum structure to it.

Besides, there’s a lot of evidence supporting the Big Bang. Observations through the Hubble telescope have proven that galaxies are moving outward, and that the universe is expanding everywhere. There is a lot of other evidence showing the age of the universe and lending credibility to the Big Bang…to much to post here, but easily researchable. I suggest you read the book “Big Bang: The most important scientific discovery of all time and why you need to know about it.” by Simon Singh. It was written a couple years ago so it includes a lot of up to date discoveries that support the idea of the Big Bang.

Arachnid: You take the typical ‘evolutionary stand ‘ you avoid the question and do your best to complicate it. And already you took another evolutionist stance of trying to belittle or ridicule in lieu of evidence. You just finished saying replication is free and now you say it isn’t free. You are the one saying there is a link between chromosome numbers and energy spent. For some reason you think it is appropriate for proving your point, I cant figure out what it is. I said because the chromosomes split, pair up and replicate, there should be some sort of increasing order as species advanced, but there isn’t.

In my 9:58 am response in the first paragraph I gave a logical scenario to support the idea that if evolution did take place there should be a gradual increase in genetic material to provide for needed adaptations.

Give me a logical scenario supporting your claim that the current random appointment of chromosome numbers is a valid outcome of evolutionary design.

elone: You are arguing “irreducible complexity”, which has been debunked over and over. The complexity you see in organisms today is not the minimum complexity required for life. To take the easiest example from your first paragraph: Sexual reproduction is certainly not required, the simplest organisms all reproduce asexually.

You also assert that there should be a consistent change in chromosome count depending on the complexity of the organism: Why? You don’t provide any reason, you only say it is so.

As far as the Big Bang goes: Sure, we don’t have a concrete theory. However, saying “God did it” (I’m sorry, I mean “an intelligent designer did it”) is no answer either, as it leaves the origin of that “intelligent designer” equally unexplained.

Incidentally, quantum physics does provide for the possibility of matter being created from nothing - see Hawking Radiation, for example.

well,

you and I are the same. I'm curious and confused. if everything started form Big Bang. What was there before Big Bang? 
 If God created everything, who created God?
sorry, I know this is not an answer. I just want you to know that you are not alone who is curious about that.

Either:

1. It came from something.
2. It has always been there.

It really depends on your definition of “god” here. God as in a natural force or God as in a fatherly deity who cares about all of His children?

im not an Athesit, im a Theist, and I belive that god crated the big bang, made our solar system and left for the bahamas.LOL atheists belive it happened all by chance

• Define ‘the typical evolutionary stand’. I’m arguing from evidence, instead of vaguely held supposition, whilst you haven’t quoted a single source or backed anything up with verifiable facts.
• I did not say replication is free - read my posts more carefully, and you’ll see that I said copying of genetic material is nearly free for an organism. Eg, it doesn’t cost an organism substantially more to replicate if it has 80 chromosomes than it does if it has 40. Therefore, there’s no reason for either evolution or a designer to reduce chromosomal number to the minimum possible, as you were asserting. Therefore, it’s not evidence against natural selection.
• How does “because the chromosomes split, pair up and replicate” imply “there should be some sort of increasing order as species advanced” other than because you say it should?

The argument between the theists and the atheists is a dead end. The atheist can only go back to the big bang but the theist has to go back before the big bang. When you ask the atheist where the substance, I.e. (the matter or energy) came from they can only say, “it always was”. When you ask the theist where God came from he will say, “He always was”. A Dead End!

I also have no idea how the universe started. Nor do theists: “God did it” is no more an explanation, since that presupposes God’s existence.

Unlike eleni, however, I’m not confident science will ever supply an explanation that’s in any way provable: Science’s purview is restricted to what we can observe (directly or otherwise), and anything before the universe isn’t part of that, alas.

Time started with the Big Bang. Physical laws and HUGE amounts of time brought about everything since. Quarks, atoms, massive hydrogen stars, super-novas, generation of denser elements, more stars, more super-novas. Eventually along the way, chemical compounds, and finally life.

From the simple to the more complex in tiny baby steps. And billions and billions and billions of years.