Creationism is a mental illness (Page 205)

kittybobo34: I am inclined to think that the actual universe is infinite, and that there are big bangs that happen, but far far apart, in fact they only happen when enough matter comes together from the meeting of wave fronts from other ancient bangs, enough matter that creates a huge black hole that has enough matter in it to create a new big bang.
A couple of things that lead me to think this,, one is that the expansion is accelerating, this would be true if there is a huge gravity attractor out there, and the other is that our local group of galaxies is on a separate trajectory and accelerating toward something.

BelgianStrider: ghost: That is just the problem and a question that will probably never been answered (may be by theoretical mathematics and then you will have the problem to interprete it correctly).

What was before that "singularity"? ...
Till now; no answers, only hypotheses
Idem ditto with the "origins of life"...
Many valable hypotheses, there might be one that can be (artificially) duplicated.
It will give evidences of a-biogenesis for sure, but if it was "that" way how it occurred on Earth?

not necessarily

(Edited by BelgianStrider)

kittybobo34: With the last mission to the deep ocean volcanic vents they found bacteria that has no DNA, operating as a chemical processor to convert sulfer into energy, They found 2 bacteriums in a symbiotic relationship that duplicates a complex cell These things are all part of the steps needed to get to life as we know it today.

BelgianStrider: The perception is that the expansion is accelarating but it is not.
It is not because the distance of something 3 times further seems to go 3 times faster is in fact going faster and is accelarating.
It just proves that the expansion is the same in every direction and in every place with the Hubble Constant (That I could easily understand when Krauss explained that )

kittybobo34: IF that is true, then there could be a big crunch at some point, once the expansion slows down

BelgianStrider: For sure the beginning was very simple and even much more simple than RNA that is believed to be there before DNA.
Many are agreeing that there has been an "RNA world" and before that an even simpler organic selfreplicating "life"...

The guys pretending that scientist assume DNA came "like that" out of "nothing" are clearly doing strawman falacies and even did not took the effort to consult any of the valable hypotheses...

There is some kind of viruses that just have RNA - no DNA at all.

kittybobo34: Interesting, I had not heard that at all, about RNA based viruses

BelgianStrider: That is problematic too. the expansion seems not to slow down either. Just constanly expanding in every direction... If I can make a very bad comparision, it would be the same as the expansion of an airbuble going to the surface at constant speed (what is impossible due to Mr Archimedes)

BelgianStrider: Bwa those extreme weird "organic organisms", hardly responding to the classical definitions of "living organisms", might tell us quite much about the "origins of life".

What is quite certain is the fact that the option of "parasiting" or "living in synergy" on more "complex lifeforms" to duplicate "their genes" was an easier and thus an "energy saving option". (the consequence of natural selection).

Again every "multicellular organism" starts with a "unique cell" that starts to "multiply" to that organism following a certain "4 digit program" - that of the human might be the most complicated "program"-.
Though actually all the "programming" are all done with the same "4 digit code" and the same "basic functions".
And it has been clearly been determined that those "4 digit programs" never had required any ID, as every "more complicated program" contains those of the "simpler ones" and initiates the same "basic functions". Though it is "the way how" they are "used" that makes the differences.

(Edited by BelgianStrider)

kittybobo34: True, binary code that we use in computers, can't hold near as much data as the living Quad code.. Its been recently found that Neurons use part of their DNA as memory. this may be why Neurons do not reproduce like other cells.

BelgianStrider: Well as you mentioned the computerscience can also be taken as example of "evolution"
At the beginning of microprocessors they were only 8 bits and you had to work with "machine language", after that it was a little bit enhanced with assembler, though it was microprocessor bounded and extremely close to machine language. A floppy of 64 kb was hughe amount of data to be stored
The earliest programming language (like FORTRAN), were more mathematical oriented and the notion of "algorithms" was very poorly "introduced" in colleges, universities.
I speak about experience in the years end 70's begin 80's.
Now microprocessors are at least 64 bits, the progamming languages are in no way comparable with that extreme limited FORTRAN. A floppy of 64k is completely ridiculous compared to the actual terabites you can store.
A.I. has made huge leaps. The Turing test might not be that far away.
A computer beated a "Master" in chess and "idem dito" concerning the extreme simple ruled, but extreme complex to play, GO game.

All that due to the increase of microtransistors in microchips that allowed microprocessors from 8 to 16 to 32 and now generaly 64 (some are even 128) with a quite enhanced "architecture".

Neurons are nerves cells, and a doctor (one of the first specialising in hyperbaric oxigen therapy) told me that damaged nerves cells do not regenerate they just search to do reconnections and thus hyperbaric oxigen therapy is useless in those cases.
So without stamcells: surely no regeneration of nerve cells.

As computerscience increase in knowledge and capabilities dramatically in some decades. I am not suprised it is the same case with our knowledge of DNA and there are no reasons at all why it should be limited to "reproduction" of its genes.

Also note, DNA with its "Quad code - 4 digit code" is even not limited to 64 "(quad) bits" opposed to the 64 (binary) bits, that on itself represents a huge amount of possible "data".

BTW the fact of "binary code" did not required any "intelligence" at all, it was there at the beginning of the universe. "0" and "1" was already there, and the combinations of it was already there too. What just was needed was putting a "mathematical-logical definition" of certain codes and starting to "work" with it to "design".
Natural selection did the same for creating "designoids" (a term used by young R. Dawkins), again no "intelligent design" needed to do "designoids".

The steps are:
Simple - slowly increasingly a litlle more complicated - to become "designoids" - to end with "design" done by sentient "designoided" designers.

Also note that "designs" can be completely reviewed and changed from "scratch".
"Designoids " can not at all, they have to be enhanced by any other "means" with that "obtained base" ("no scratch and we restart the design" - what a sentient ID would have surely done -)
On a pure (human) technically point: the human eye is a very poorly - even complete illogical- "designed " optical instrument (even as it might be so complicated, creationists may be claiming)

(Edited by BelgianStrider)

zeffur: ghostgeek: Is God the only rational explanation for life on earth? I say no because it has been suggested, quite rationally, that we exist within a computer simulation.

Uh huh... :LFMAO:

While that may be an interesting idea to consider--there is NO credible evidence to take it seriously...comparing that to The Bible & the religions that are Bible-based is completely ridiculous...unless... Do you worship your computer?

zeffur: re: "BSr: What I am quite certain is the following: This universe allowed us to "exist" and it is not because we exists that this universe has been created..."

That ^^ is silly. The universe didn't create humanity--that's like saying a burping volcano created a duck--ti's completely absurd & without any sound basis at all.

TheloniousSphereMonk: No, it's not like saying a burping volcano created a duck. Not all all.

You are such a simpleton , zeff.

BelgianStrider: Monk: Not only is he completely uneducated and unscolarized, but he just gave evidences of being a complete cultural ignoramus too.
He has no clue of the movies that were making Keanu Reeves "famous".

zeffur: No one can prove how the universe came into existence. People just study what they can learn from observing the universe & then they invent an idea, fit math to their idea as best they can, & then call it a theory--it doesn't mean the theory is valid/true.

I could quite easily invent an idea about the universe. I'll call it the "The Big Burp"
My 'serious' theory fits perfectly with the observable facts as follows:

1. The universe is infinite (after all, we have no reason to believe there is any end to space)
2. The expansion of observable objects in the universe from a central region of the universe is caused by an inter-dimensional pressure & wave which has a period of 59.2 billion years as measured by our CBBG (Cosmic Big Burb Gizmo) that we have constructed to measure such a phenomena.
3. The acceleration of the expansion is due to the current sharper & greater wave front of the latest burp & it will last another 4.7 billion years until the next great (relative) deceleration curve...

Now fight amongst yourselves to accept, reject, or promote your own 'serious' theories that no one can prove are true in any way...

Burp...

(Edited by zeffur)

BelgianStrider: Monk: again forgive that simpleton, he is unable to understand the most simple basic concept.

He is unable to make differences between "allowing to exist" and "creating" (oh of course "allowing to exist" can't be in his vocabulary, he is a creationist even a YEC)