I thought about this when I ran across the thread in which you guys are debating "god" vs evolution for the umpteenth time. Are any of you familiar with the theories of PANSPERMIA and "directed evolution"? What do you think of them? A theory propagated most famously by scientist Fred Hoyle, panspermia says that life came from space (hitching a ride on comets and such) and seeded the planet, much like plants release seeds to the wind which germinate on isolated islands far and wide... wherever they find it hospitable. The theory also speculates that viruses and bacteria continue to rain down on the planet, bringing new genetic processes and powering the evolution that scientists thus far have explained away with the (unlikely) process of lucky mutations... It offers intriguing answers to such questions as "why are higher creatures (such as us) around when a bacterium is at least as well adapted for long-term survival (if not more so) than higher creatures... so what's the point of evolving to be higher creatures?" and "why do lower creatures, bacteria and such, have genes for organs and metabolic processes of higher creatures even though they don't need those genes?" and "why are some bacteria basically immortal, like the ones you can cultivate from the insides of insects frozen in amber for millions of years?" And "why have bacteria evolved to survive massive doses of radiation and feed basically on rock miles deep in the earth?" Stuff like that. It also takes into account things like lateral gene transfer between bacteria and even between higher creatures, and the purposes of "junk" dna and such. Read more about panspermia at www.panspermia.com... ...And most intriguingly, adjunct theories suggest that there's a purpose behind it all, that there's a point to evolution besides survival benefit (which if survival was the only point, "lower" creatures such as bacteria have it covered...). Some of its theorists offer "directed panspermia" as an alternative between religious theories and strict cold darwinism... ... That's an intriguing idea to me. I mean if you think it's arrogant to believe that we're the only life in the vastness and eternity of the universe, how arrogant is it to believe that, as a conscious being, you're the highest consciousness out here? Thoughts?
I've heard of this. Never read much about it though. Sounds pretty reasonable to me that certain life forms (extremophiles) could survive the trip on a comet from the galactic cradle of life. Now we just need to sequence the genome of a bacterium from another solar system, compare it with those on our planet, and voila, we can demonstrate our panspermic genesis!
i read a book called skeptics answered that my ultra christian teacher gave to me and in it they discussed panspermia. their main problem with it was where did the life that seeded us come from? i personally think panspermia is very possible, but that is a good question.
There is no "compromise" they are different things. Science is the observation of the world around us. God is the belief the world around us was created. Science is based on observations while God is a philosophical argument. There is no one or the other or both they are seperate. Weather or not you believe in God science is still the same
Well, I use the word "god" to mean a higher consciousness, not necessary the god of the bible and such. and if "God is the belief the world around us was created" that's not separate from science at all. Created how? By what processes? Science can hint at higher consciousness and give glimpses of it. Look at the gaia hypothesis: the idea that there's an order to nature that is self-sustaining. Fish spawn in the sea, but why don't salmon? Why do they leave the salty ocean home and swim up-river against waterfalls dodging bears and such, when it would've been more adaptive to forgo that epic struggle and just evolve to spawn in the sea like other fish? Maybe it's because by doing so, they feed the bears and other animals and bring nitrogen to the trees of the forests around the rivers and such, suggesting a higher order and self-sustaining harmony which hints at a higher purpose, higher system and maybe higher consciousness. Now if we discover that panspermia is right, the higher order extends right out into the cosmos. And that's humbling, gives you clues that your piddling consciousness may not be the top consciousness. For example, right now, there are millions of bacteria and other organisms living on and in your body. You're a universe in itself. If one of those bugs were conscious, they would still be too small to know you and the order you sustain. They might say, "there is no fuckin yurigadaisukida" til one clever one invents a telescope or something and discovers the harmony you maintain, and how you feed them when you eat and bring them water when you drink, etc. They still won't know that you're reading this post right now, thinking and hearing these words in your mind, or that you had a mother, and that she had a mother, all the way back to that first bug that came here when a comet crashed onto earth... But it's knowable. Like science. Science can lead to an awareness of higher order, higher consciousness, which can humble you, which can lead you to an idea of "god."
[quote name='"marydyawanna"'] Well, I use the word "god" to mean a higher consciousness, not necessary the god of the bible and such. and if "God is the belief the world around us was created" that's not separate from science at all. Created how? By what processes? Science can hint at higher consciousness and give glimpses of it. Look at the gaia hypothesis: the idea that there's an order to nature that is self-sustaining. Fish spawn in the sea, but why don't salmon? Why do they leave the salty ocean home and swim up-river against waterfalls dodging bears and such, when it would've been more adaptive to forgo that epic struggle and just evolve to spawn in the sea like other fish? Maybe it's because by doing so, they feed the bears and other animals and bring nitrogen to the trees of the forests around the rivers and such, suggesting a higher order and self-sustaining harmony which hints at a higher purpose, higher system and maybe higher consciousness. Now if we discover that panspermia is right, the higher order extends right out into the cosmos. And that's humbling, gives you clues that your piddling consciousness may not be the top consciousness. For example, right now, there are millions of bacteria and other organisms living on and in your body. You're a universe in itself. If one of those bugs were conscious, they would still be too small to know you and the order you sustain. They might say, "there is no fuckin yurigadaisukida" til one clever one invents a telescope or something and discovers the harmony you maintain, and how you feed them when you eat and bring them water when you drink, etc. They still won't know that you're reading this post right now, thinking and hearing these words in your mind, or that you had a mother, and that she had a mother, all the way back to that first bug that came here when a comet crashed onto earth... But it's knowable. Like science. Science can lead to an awareness of higher order, higher consciousness, which can humble you, which can lead you to an idea of "god." [/quote] Ummm no. Like I said they are seperate. Why do people have trouble with this concept? Science is the observable world. "I see things fall so.I call the force gravity" that is science. "I feel a greater concupiscence must be responsible" that is not an observation imor a hypothesis. It is not "science" its is philosophy
A very good post. Why accept god as a possibility when there is no evidence for one? It's not viable to ask people to believe in something as equal to science when it has never ever provided any proof, predictions, or even theories. There are no gaps left, no reason to invoke a god for anything at all. MelT
Ummm yeah. god told me. he also says ye should stop being a know-it-all asshole lest he smite ye. i already said i meant "higher order" "higher purpose" "higher power" as opposed to pointless, directionless darwinism. like when i put "god" in quotemarks in the first place. now that you know what I mean, what do you think of it? do you have any opinions of panspermia or directed panspermia that are worth hearing?
There's no gaps left, no reason to invoke god. -God as being an eternal creative force. So what caused the universe? We have no clue, so why is there no reason to speculate there might be an eternal force that had caused it? I believe in another thread I was just reading how you were saying how multiverse theories are more than speculation, that they're pretty much a given.. despite there being any actual evidence for them to exist..? So why can't people speculate god, but it's perfectly fine to speculate multiverse or DM/DE theories, despite direct evidence for either?
You see you have a wrong idea about what science is, what speculation should entail and when it becomes valid. Science bases speculation on previous scientific discoveries. Everything proposed MUST have an observational basis. God has no basis at all. There is no beginning, no first fact or proof that would lead anyone to make further speculations about his nature. Nothing has ever, ever been found that confirms god. Nothing has been found that hints at god, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars being put into paranormal research, healing, intercessionary prayer. Not a thing. Speculation is fine, but saying that because we don't have an answer for particular questions god must have done it is ludicrous. If we're going to have a supernatural cause for the universe and you're guessing that it's a god, then why are you so certain it's eh christian god and not Allah or Krishna or Vishnu? You say that there's no evidence for other universes, but the search for them is based on valid math, physics, and also observed events that could be accounted for the presence of other universes. Actual physical hints that they may be there. So, tell me, what hints - other than those ID arguments you've used which have already been disproven - are there that there is a god, or that he made the universe? I'd love you to come up with something, seriously, but it's not going to happen as the only such hints are those that have been invented by creationists. I'm still not sure of your purpose here? This is a science forum and you're bound to be met by us all in a less than friendly way. None of us wants that,so why don't you stick to science here and do the god thing on S+P? MelT
Of course there are reasons why people have came to the conclusion of god, otherwise I don't think just about every known human culture have all came to relatively the same conclusions (not all are the same, I know ) First, it's only logical to assume there is something which is eternal since there is obviously something, and something doesn't come from nothing. Thermodynamics and the big bang conclude the universe and the space time continuum itself had a beginning point, hence is finite therefore not eternal. If the big bang's expansion brought about the space-time continuum, logically time wouldn't exist prior to. If time did not exist prior to, this 'singularity' or ball of energy prior to the big bang could not have caused itself, therefore would require an external cause. This external cause would be in some way or another linked to the eternal un-caused cause, the ultimate cause which many today label as god. It's something beyond what our minds can fathom, it would be like an ant trying to understand quantum mechanics. Just because we have a hard time wrapping our heads around this infinite 'thing' doesn't make it's possibility of existing is that much less.. I find it funny when people say "Well how do you know it's not the Muslim or Christian or Jewish god ect..? Many who research realize all these religions are the same god, merely different perspectives on it. All these gods which were created such as Zeus and Thor ect are all actually explained through all the main religions as nephelim or fallen angels- multidimensional beings which came and inhabited the 3rd dimension.
dishin reg;15001346]Of course there are reasons why people have came to the conclusion of god, otherwise I don't think just about every known human culture have all came to relatively the same conclusions (not all are the same, I know ) Then why does nothing in your post not support anything about the idea that god exists at all? All you've done is take a few facts and decided that the answer must be god. How on earth can you make a leap like that with no evidence? Everything you've posted is the same, you don't understand X or Y, so you say that god did it. That's not evidence, just wishful thinking. The Dover Case showed that ID had no facts or research to support its case. If you feel you have something then post it. I find it funny when people say "Well how do you know it's not the Muslim or Christian or Jewish god ect..? Many who research realize all these religions are the same god, merely different perspectives on it. All these gods which were created such as Zeus and Thor ect are all actually explained through all the main religions as nephelim or fallen angels- multidimensional beings which came and inhabited the 3rd dimension.[/quote] I've studied world religions and philosophies for about forty years, so pulling facts out of the air is pointless. What people thought 'them' to be does not make them real anymore than it makes your god real. You seriously mean to tell me that the Egyptian gods, Allah, Hindu gods, the basis of Taoism,the ultimate nature in Buddhism, are all just another version of the christian god? Have you ever looked at anything other than christianity? I must ask again, why are you here when you know that your subject is off-topic and not something that's going to fly here? MelT
The fact that we do not know the cause of something does not give us reason to suspect an eternal force, does it? What was the reasoning that got you to 'eternal'? Surely there are events that have been caused, and thereafter the cause no longer exists. Why do you assume that its cause is eternal? Maybe the universe had no cause and is itself eternal. Perhaps it merely exists in different forms over time? If speculation were a concept subject to gradation, you might say that the 'speculation' of a multi-verse is not to the same extent as the speculation that a god exists. I'm no professional, but I am aware that research exists on multi-verse theories. These theories are falsifiable, they make empirical claims, and they depend on scientific knowledge and mathematics. Whether there really is a multi-verse doesn't matter, it isn't a free-ball idea that was just thrown out there. It is speculation that is restricted by existing empirical knowledge; unlike god. Multi-verse theories are rationally defensible; unlike god. Anyone can speculate. It's what your speculations are contingent upon that make them worth considering.
[quote name='"marydyawanna"'] Ummm yeah. god told me. he also says ye should stop being a know-it-all asshole lest he smite ye. i already said i meant "higher order" "higher purpose" "higher power" as opposed to pointless, directionless darwinism. like when i put "god" in quotemarks in the first place. now that you know what I mean, what do you think of it? do you have any opinions of panspermia or directed panspermia that are worth hearing?[/quote] First of all I'm not a know it all asshole and name calling is not allowed here. I've had my.share of.scolding. now that that's clarified ill once again try to explain. The idea of a higher order or a plan or fate or anything of the sort is a philosophical debate not a scientific one. As I been trying to say science is something that can be proven. Panspermia is the idea that life.or the seeds of life came to earth on a comet or something similar. Evidence (the direct observation of something) shows that amino acids DNA nucleotides and other organic.compounds are created by high energy radiation in space. This is evidence that supports panspermia. Evidence shows that simple life forms can survive space travel. This is evidence that supports panspermia. The idea that panspermia can be intentional as the work of a higher plan is an idea. In order for it to be science you would need evidence. Evidence for intentional seeding.of earth would be something like a relic found on a comet or a structure detected in space. Even if "evidence" was found that earth was seeded intentionally you need to ask if it was just advanced aliens or some ultimate puppetmaster. There will always be the question of who created tthat and who created that and what came before and before that and what's higher then this and that. Its an infinite loop that science cannot touch. Weather or not a higher power is directing our fates is not something that science can or ever will touch on because it is not a testable hypothesis. That's why I keep telling you its a philosophical argument. You can feel in your gut all day that a Creator must be responsible or that life just is. Neither idea is provable. The only thing that is provable is that organics exist in space and then you form a hypothesis called panspermia.
[quote name='"dishin reg"'] Of course there are reasons why people have came to the conclusion of god, otherwise I don't think just about every known human culture have all came to relatively the same conclusions (not all are the same, I know ) First, it's only logical to assume there is something which is eternal since there is obviously something, and something doesn't come from nothing. Thermodynamics and the big bang conclude the universe and the space time continuum itself had a beginning point, hence is finite therefore not eternal. If the big bang's expansion brought about the space-time continuum, logically time wouldn't exist prior to. If time did not exist prior to, this 'singularity' or ball of energy prior to the big bang could not have caused itself, therefore would require an external cause. This external cause would be in some way or another linked to the eternal un-caused cause, the ultimate cause which many today label as god. It's something beyond what our minds can fathom, it would be like an ant trying to understand quantum mechanics. Just because we have a hard time wrapping our heads around this infinite 'thing' doesn't make it's possibility of existing is that much less.. I find it funny when people say "Well how do you know it's not the Muslim or Christian or Jewish god ect..? Many who research realize all these religions are the same god, merely different perspectives on it. All these gods which were created such as Zeus and Thor ect are all actually explained through all the main religions as nephelim or fallen angels- multidimensional beings which came and inhabited the 3rd dimension.[/quote] There you go again with fallacious logic. Your claim. "Something can't come from nothing" Conclusion "God" So tell.me.Mr.scientist where is your evidence that something can't come from nothing? The laws.if thermodynamics? So you assume they are true but other science isn't? Also since when did scientists claim something from nothing? The big bang theory is the OBSERVATION that the entire OVSERVABLE universe is expanding from a center point. I don't remember reading any scientific claim that it came from nothing. There are tons of ideas on what could have caused it most people think it happens in cycles. Why can't the universe be eternal? Who said its finite?
Yes, god as being an eternal uncaused force. Well logically explain how something could come from nothing. If we're talking about complete absolute nothing then it's just not going to happen.. there always had to have been something, and science shows the universe had a beginning. I've seen a ton of people on this forum try to sell others this book, claiming this man shows how the universe came from nothing, except he tries to say that nothing is something.. lol Amazon.com: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing (9781451624458): Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins: Books Thermodynamics and the big bang... the big bang itself created the space-time continuum meaning there wouldn't have been time prior to the expansion meaning no cause and effect within the singularity therefore couldn't have caused itself, which then would require an external cause.
I agree with what you've said about Lawrence Krauss. Indeed he does argue that nothing is in-fact something, and that there really is no such thing as nothing in an absolute sense. Krauss has hypothesised about how the universe could have come from nothing, as opposed to having demonstrated that it did in-fact come from nothing. But why does an eternal force have to be the cause of the universe? And then how do you get to god? Are you a physicist? I'm not attacking you, but if you have no formal training then it's completely likely that you're misinterpreting facts and drawing false conclusions. Any chance you could post a reference to the research you read this from? I'm sure there's research that says something like this, I understand what you're trying to say. However, if you cite a reference we can all go research this specific claim and see if there are reasonable responses to it in the literature. When you say that it couldn't have caused itself, I don't think anyone is claiming that. You're assuming that there was an absolute nothing before the big bang. Speaking from a lay position, there is as much reason to suspect that the universe itself is eternal, as there is to suspect that it had an eternal cause.
[quote name='"dishin reg"'] Yes, god as being an eternal uncaused force. Well logically explain how something could come from nothing. If we're talking about complete absolute nothing then it's just not going to happen.. there always had to have been something, and science shows the universe had a beginning. I've seen a ton of people on this forum try to sell others this book, claiming this man shows how the universe came from nothing, except he tries to say that nothing is something.. lol Amazon.com: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing (9781451624458): Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins: Books Thermodynamics and the big bang... the big bang itself created the space-time continuum meaning there wouldn't have been time prior to the expansion meaning no cause and effect within the singularity therefore couldn't have caused itself, which then would require an external cause.[/quote] Again you don't even know what your arguing. Read a science book sometime
This is in no way a put down as it's not something many try to understand. The big bang, or the big expansion, created our space time continuum, not all of them. What's happened is that there's now some hints that energy may leak from a neighboring universe into ours and that we might be able to detect it. The law of thermodynamics and time aren't the same at a quantum level. If you were to go right down to look at the quantum field you'd see that it's 'foamy' and that there is no particular arrow of time. Here also, particles come and go all the time without breaking any rules. Take a look at this: Is Our Universe Inside a Bubble? First Observational Test of the 'Multiverse' \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t\tScienceDaily (Aug. 3, 2011) — The theory that our universe is contained inside a bubble, and that multiple alternative universes exist inside their own bubbles -- making up the 'multiverse' -- is, for the first time, being tested by physicists. \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\tSee Also: \t\t\t\t\tSpace & Time \t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t Two research papers published in Physical Review Letters and Physical Review D are the first to detail how to search for signatures of other universes. Physicists are now searching for disk-like patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation -- relic heat radiation left over from the Big Bang -- which could provide tell-tale evidence of collisions between other universes and our own. Many modern theories of fundamental physics predict that our universe is contained inside a bubble. In addition to our bubble, this `multiverse' will contain others, each of which can be thought of as containing a universe. In the other 'pocket universes' the fundamental constants, and even the basic laws of nature, might be different. Until now, nobody had been able to find a way to efficiently search for signs of bubble universe collisions -- and therefore proof of the multiverse -- in the CMB radiation, as the disc-like patterns in the radiation could be located anywhere in the sky. Additionally, physicists needed to be able to test whether any patterns they detected were the result of collisions or just random patterns in the noisy data. A team of cosmologists based at University College London (UCL), Imperial College London and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics has now tackled this problem. "It's a very hard statistical and computational problem to search for all possible radii of the collision imprints at any possible place in the sky," says Dr Hiranya Peiris, co-author of the research from the UCL Department of Physics and Astronomy. "But that's what pricked my curiosity." The team ran simulations of what the sky would look like with and without cosmic collisions and developed a ground-breaking algorithm to determine which fit better with the wealth of CMB data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). They put the first observational upper limit on how many bubble collision signatures there could be in the CMB sky. Stephen Feeney, a PhD student at UCL who created the powerful computer algorithm to search for the tell-tale signatures of collisions between "bubble universes," and co-author of the research papers, said: "The work represents an opportunity to test a theory that is truly mind-blowing: that we exist within a vast multiverse, where other universes are constantly popping into existence." One of many dilemmas facing physicists is that humans are very good at cherry-picking patterns in the data that may just be coincidence. However, the team's algorithm is much harder to fool, imposing very strict rules on whether the data fits a pattern or whether the pattern is down to chance. Dr Daniel Mortlock, a co-author from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London, said: "It's all too easy to over-interpret interesting patterns in random data (like the 'face on Mars' that, when viewed more closely, turned out to just a normal mountain), so we took great care to assess how likely it was that the possible bubble collision signatures we found could have arisen by chance." The authors stress that these first results are not conclusive enough either to rule out the multiverse or to definitively detect the imprint of a bubble collision. However, WMAP is not the last word: new data currently coming in from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite should help solve the puzzle.