History of the Universe and Earth

[BAndrew]

@Your Computer

Your post is a lot clearer now. Firstly, to avoid any misunderstandings the "rascist" was a cheap joke and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Secondly:

"Space" and "time" in themselves do not exist

This is not true. They exist although we don't know what exactly they are yet.

---

[I like how you easily accept that an entity such God doesn't need a creator, but the Universe does. If I misunderstood and you don't, then there is no need for a creator.](*)



But let's say the Big Bang is the Birth of the Universe (the only case argument (*) fails). Here comes your argument nothing--/-->something. Therefore there is a need for a creator.


[But God or any such entity couldn't exist before the creation of the Universe, because time was created with the Big Bang.] (1)
Because of (1) the only way God could exist is if he lived outside spacetime.
Argument (1) still holds, but God can at least exist.

But (1) implies that the God didn't existed forever (because there was no forever), so he needed a creator. This can lead to a never ending hierarchy I was talking about.

---

But if one is looking to avoid infinite regressions, it would make great sense to include a "who" or a "what" in the "when, where, why, how" sequence of questions.

This would be true if the questions themselves made sense. These questions aren't logical because there wasn't time nor space nor anything "before" the Big Bang. It's like asking where is the corner of the Earth. The Earth has no corners because it's a sphere, so the question just doesn't make any sense. The universe can't have a cause.

This is because:

(1)Causes must precede their effects in time
(2)There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
(3)Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause

NOTE: I am not saying there is no creator. I just imply that there is no need for one.

However, I doubt his existance because he couldn't exist before the creation of the universe which is self contradictory with the idea of God and there wasn't any time for him to create the Universe in the first place.

---

@JAP

OK fine. Didn't show your post as I was busy posting.

The Big Bang contradicts physical laws for both mathematical and physical reasons.

Mathematically when you approach 0 bad things happen! Especially if this 0 is on the denominator, which is, because it represents time. As time approaches zero (t-->0) there is a limitation to the things you can know.

Physically, The Big Bang theory tells us what happened after of the Big Bang, but not a clue about what happened AT the Big Bang.

As to what's going on I don't know. Quantum physics is too weird to be innocent on this, but I don't know. Perhaps we are not ready to learn yet. Something is missing from the puzzle.

[Bridge]

How is assuming the existence of a creator to explain how the universe came into being logical, when that in fact is creating something out of nothing? There is no evidence supporting the existence of a creator and therefore, if Occam's Razor is adhered to, it is illogical to make any conclusions which are based on that concept. I mean honestly, it's like solving an equation like x=y by assigning an arbitrary value to x!

[BAndrew]

@Bridge

How is assuming the existence of a creator to explain how the universe came into being logical, when that in fact is creating something out of nothing?

I think YourComputer's argument was that the creator was not created, but existed forever. But this is impossible because there is no forever. Time had a beginning (Assuming Big Bang theory is true. If the Big Bang is not true then there is no need for a creator as the Universe could exist forever).


However, I agree with your statement. More or less God is a creation out of nothing (Nothing made God).

There is no evidence supporting the existence of a creator and therefore, if Occam's Razor is adhered to, it is illogical to make any conclusions which are based on that concept. I mean honestly, it's like solving an equation like x=y by assigning an arbitrary value to x!

Again you are absolutely right on this. But I want to point out that we are not trying to prove or disprove the existance of a creator rather than the need for one. And (at least as I view it) there is no need.

[Bridge]

@Bridge

How is assuming the existence of a creator to explain how the universe came into being logical, when that in fact is creating something out of nothing?

I think YourComputer's argument was that the creator was not created, but existed forever. But this is impossible because there is no forever. Time had a beginning (Assuming Big Bang theory is true. If the Big Bang is not true then there is no need for a creator as the Universe could exist forever).


However, I agree with your statement. More or less God is a creation out of nothing (Nothing made God).

There is no evidence supporting the existence of a creator and therefore, if Occam's Razor is adhered to, it is illogical to make any conclusions which are based on that concept. I mean honestly, it's like solving an equation like x=y by assigning an arbitrary value to x!

Again you are absolutely right on this. But I want to point out that we are not trying to prove or disprove the existance of a creator rather than the need for one. And (at least as I view it) there is no need.

1) It appears I was not clear enough in my words. By "create something out of nothing" I was not referring to the creator being created, but us creating the idea of a creator (out of nothing, no evidence).

2) Which is not my goal either. I oppose only the logic in making such an assumption. After all, it is possible for something to be true even if it's illogical*, despite what YC says (if there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion anything you conclude (excepting the opposite or most logically neutral conclusion (makes the fewest assumptions)) must necessarily be illogical, even if it happens to be true once there is evidence to support it). Do you understand what I was/am going for?

* However this only holds true at the time when the illogical conclusion was made. Naturally what he said about the correlation between truth and logic is sound, but not all-inclusive. In other words, once all the pertinent information has been gathered the truest conclusion is of course most the logical one.

[BAndrew]

Yes. Now it's clear.

[Your Computer]

Again, to be clear, i never once proposed that the external, conscious and omnipotent entity is necessarily a creator. Those are more of your words and not mine. I merely made use of the word "creator" because you mentioned it first. My argument was restrictive only to the cause and reason of unnatural events. True, i have no issues accepting a Creator God, but that was not my argument. And, indeed, misunderstandings in logic and reason (i.e. human error) is not evidence of "illogical truths." My argument was deductive in its nature, not inductive or indirect. So, no, i did not make a claim from nothing, as Bridge suggests.

I have yet to see an explanation or argument that doesn't entail space and time as being mere concepts. Unfortunately, i am not really interested in reconciling the absurdities that come from claiming that these concepts physically exist. Making the claim, therefore, that something couldn't have existed before the "beginning of time" is redundant. Not to mention that claiming that a Creator is restricted to creation, or something that didn't pre-exist the Creator, is self-contradictory. Indeed, if time is not eternal but a "creator" is, then time, therefore, does not apply to this "creator." It should be obvious, therefore, that any "creator" existing only after the "beginning of time" is as much of a "creator" as a human being, and so is incapable of unnatural events (although its capability for natural events is itself questionable).

It is not difficult to defile my original argument. After all, if it could be shown that events deemed as unnatural (i've already defined unnatural in my original argument, at least insofar as my argument is concerned, so i need not explain it here) are in fact natural, then i have no argument, even if the resulting conclusion is an infinite regression. I shouldn't have to make this simple fact excessively clear to anyone. Then again, neither are you required to fill in a gap that the scientific community has difficulty filling with logical explanations (although their failure may come from adhering too strictly to concepts and theories).

[Bridge]

And, indeed, misunderstandings in logic and reason (i.e. human error) is not evidence of "illogical truths."

I never said it was, but merely pointed out that it is possible for something to be true even if can not be logically inferred from the evidence, thereby allowing the possibility of a deity and simultaneously saying it is completely erroneous to conclude that a cheap hack that solves every conundrum we have is based in any way in logic. How can it at all be logical when it makes so many unfounded assumptions?

My argument was deductive in its nature, not inductive or indirect. So, no, i did not make a claim from nothing, as Bridge suggests.

Regardless of whether you want to hide behind your words or not, you put to the argument on the table. Saying: "I did not claim anything" or "I used erroneous evidence given to me by others" is no excuse whatsoever. The point is that even if there is a creator there is absolutely no way to conclude logically that there is, therefore that conclusion, and any "deduction" that derives from it is by extension illogical, even if it is logically sound when isolated. For a legal parallel look up "fruit of the poisonous tree".

[PutraenusAlivius]

Time for to temporarily change the topic to the History of the Earth.

Spoiler below!

HISTORY OF THE EARTH
TOPIC: CHROMOSOMES

MISSING CHROMOSOME PAIR
Do you guys know the Primate Genome project?

If you don't, it's about sequencing the primate genome to something.

Anyways, when the results came back, they compared the Human genome, yes our genome, to the results.

The study shows that all primates have 48 pairs of Chromosomes, while Humans have 46.

Where did this chromosome pair go? Did it went lost? If so, then it's fatal as even if one chromosome is lost, the whole stuff goes broken.

Researchers is founding the lost chromosomes. Guess what? They merged into a single chromosome.

Guess what chromosome it is? Aaand it's Chromosome number 2.



This is the chromatid for Chromosome 2.

You guys probably won't see this, probably because it's just a concept, but there's more evidence supporting this.

A chromosome usually have 2 telomeres at the end and a single Centromere right?

Well there's a vestigial Telomere at the middle, supporting an end-to-end fusion.
There is also a vestigial Centromere too.
So, Chromosome 2 is unique to humans because it came from two fused primate chromosomes.

DEGENERATION OF THE Y CHROMOSOME

There is two sex chromosomes which are the X and Y chromosome with the Y choosing the gender. XX means 2 X chromosomes which means a female. But XY means one X and one Y chromosome, which leads to a male.



The X has more than 153 million base pairs and represents 2000 out of 20000 - 25000 genes.

But the Y has 50 million base pairs, but Y controls the gender.

A study shows that along the course of Human evolution, the Y chromosome lost 1.393 of it's original 1.438 genes.

This is because:
- The Y chromosome is unable to recombine with other chromosomes during Meiosis
- It has a genetic drift meaning that the Y chromosome only has a 1/4 chance of being passed down
- It has a high mutation risk and therefore parasites can latch on

So, during the last stages of the Y chromosome's degeneration, other genes take over some things that was associated with the Y chromosome and a new sex determining system arises.

Tokudaia spp. is an example of this. This species has entirely lost the Y chromosome and SRY. But, some genes that was ancestrally present on the Y chromosome is now on the X chromosome.

And that's all I got.

[PutraenusAlivius]

Bump. Anyone willing to discuss some more history?