stretch your mind: Questions of origins

[YeshuaHaMelech]

Let us bump each other on origins. Mods please dont move this, it is intended to be here. Here are few rules to this post:
1. Don't just put a link or copy n paste. If you c n p, then you must explain it
2. All books presented here, whether a Bible, or Koran or Origin of species will be scrutinized from scientific view
3. If you think you cannot handle it, reserve your comments than posting rubbish!

Now, here are my puzzling questions:
how on earth there is life? Why is there life at all? Also what was there before time? And finally we have seen many small bang in Iraq and many other places. They tend to make chaos and not order. I mean if I blow a bomb in my house it wil not order my cups in a cupbord. Now, if those small bangs causes chaos, how did BIG bang cause such order and design we see in the universe?

You can add your opinions or questions as much as you understand. Here we go!

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

just to add question on Big bang, what exploded? And where did energy and matter come from?

 

[Avatar Myg]

just to add question on Big bang, what exploded? And where did energy and matter come from?

Different dust from the space... As u know dust can be formulated anywhere!..

 

[Nanren]

Different dust from the space... As u know dust can be formulated anywhere!..

And where did the dust come from?
What where the composition of those dusts?

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

good question nanren. Let us stretch our minds a little bit!

 

[Mtazamaji]

Let me extend your question further Not only how on earth there is life but how on earth there is life and death. ?

why action of BIRTH----------> DEATH is irreversible ?

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

Scientists please let us confront these questions:laugh:

 

[kotinkarwak]

Current explanations of why life exists and corresponding rebuttal from the two main camps, church v science already tries to address an innate need to know why there is life and the church angle here throws up the crucial question. Is there an actual purpose for it.
The need and search for purpose has resulted in the church dictating be it through scripture that there is a purpose for a being is responsible for the life to start with, however, science doesn't aspire to endorse an actual purpose and here is the real difference on why we are all eager from different perspective to see if actually there is a purpose.
Science can quantify existence of the universe in terms of billions of years, I believe we looking at around 35K Billion or there about and that notion itself doesn't sit well with the religious explanations whose timeline only stands in a couple of thousand years. If a purpose is to be gleaned from religion, one needs to ask, for the creations that precede man, do they also count in the life after death scenario?
As for the origin, if you have access to BBC iPlayer, then you need to keep your eyes peeled for a new program around March that will from a scientific point of view try to explain it all. Will confirm program title when It gets published.

As for the big bang theory, understand this, the expectations of the bang is to create a certain condition, and given a dose of a few billions years create a conducive settings for a given action to happen that also requires another billion years to change into something else. It might be that there was no bang at all and just best explained that, conditions were/became right over billions of years for life to start and reach this juncture. Did you know that there were several types of man that existed around same time and homo sapiens became top dog. Imagine another species similar but not really same to us existing around same time? Now how would religion explain that…

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

Current explanations of why life exists and corresponding rebuttal from the two main camps, church v science

I'm not sure Iam aware of the two camps. All I know there are two camps in science, Creationists and Evolutionists. Do I miss something here?

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

Science can quantify existence of the universe in terms of billions of years, I believe we looking at around 35K Billion or there about and that notion itself doesn't sit well with the religious explanations whose timeline only stands in a couple of thousand years. If a purpose is to be gleaned from religion, one needs to ask, for the creations that precede man, do they also count in the life after death scenario?

Again I think this is Creationism vs Evolutionism!
But how do they know the age of the universe, whether it be thousand or billions. Let us look at that angle too!

 

[Mtazamaji]

Again I think this is Creationism vs Evolutionism!
But how do they know the age of the universe, whether it be thousand or billions. Let us look at that angle too!

Maswali haya ni real challenge. even if we all agree to assume life started in those billions yrs ago. here come other interestinng questions

In all living being eg human how did first male and female came into being at first? ? or wich one btn male and female was first to come to life and wich one reproduced the other.

I think inabidi tukubaliane kulikuwa na "Mwanzo" Kwa wakristu nadhani wanaelewa namaanisha nini. nikisema mwanzo namaanisha nini .
Ni baada ya huu mwazo hata sayansi inaweza kuelezea nakufafanua. yaliyofuata. Sayansi ikijaribu kutafuta before mwanzo kulikuwa na nini hapo ndipo mtihani usio na majibu

 

[kotinkarwak]

Creationism will stands for religious angle, while evolutionism would be the scientific view of the same. I will also add, there is a political camp that for reasons best known to them steers away from being involved in this discussion, or at least taking sides in it.

About the age, I believe they have carbon dating to within a few thousand years tell how old a carbon based body is. A more scientific mind will educate us on how that is done.

Religion simplifies it for us in terms of a start date, where over say several days the Supreme Being created all the creatures we see, the land and all. Hence a starting point that requires a creative but critical mind to understand why this simplistic view while archaeology has revealed creatures that do not feature in our known religious language, or was it the imagery that was used that confused us?, when they said bird, they drew a bird that we are familiar with, and maybe should have been a pre-historic, dinosaur of a bird should have been more appropriate.

I read a quote a while back, (sorry can't attrib it to original author) on what came first, the chicken or the egg. And the answer should have been categorically the egg. Now, here don't imagine there is a need for a chicken, since the egg predates the chicken.

It is a quandary deciding where one ought to base their understanding of the purpose, and as a result I will like billions of others play it safe, hedge my bet that religion has a point and follow one, just in case this mambo jumbo about evolutionism is wrong or vice versa, know that there are actually things we can't explain and not rely on yet some mumbo jumbo to lie to me about it.

 

[kotinkarwak]

I think inabidi tukubaliane kulikuwa na "Mwanzo" Kwa wakristu nadhani wanaelewa namaanisha nini. nikisema mwanzo namaanisha nini .
Ni baada ya huu mwazo hata sayansi inaweza kuelezea nakufafanua. yaliyofuata. Sayansi ikijaribu kutafuta before mwanzo kulikuwa na nini hapo ndipo mtihani usio na majibu

Hapo ni tatizo, Mwanzo in terms of dini kweli inapotosha kidogo. Mwanzo wa Genesis is too recent a starting point to effectively explain what this question requires. If religion can be rewritten to encompass a timelime that includes dinosaurs
hapo basi tutakuwa at least na better starting point... au dinosaurs tuwaache nje?

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

Creationism will stands for religious angle, while evolutionism would be the scientific view of the same. I will also add, there is a political camp that for reasons best known to them steers away from being involved in this discussion, or at least taking sides in it.

Why do you think evolutionism is scientific and Creationism is religious?
AFAIK they are both religious by standard of religion. But before that I would like to understand how you categorize them!

About the age, I believe they have carbon dating to within a few thousand years tell how old a carbon based body is. A more scientific mind will educate us on how that is done.

I happen to know how the dating takes place, there are many assumptions involved that even science cannot determine.
The links below explains the methods. The AiG is creationism camp with a lot of PhDs
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis
Doesn

I would like anybody with link from evolution camp that explains the same issue

Religion simplifies it for us in terms of a start date, where over say several days the Supreme Being created all the creatures we see, the land and all. Hence a starting point that requires a creative but critical mind to understand why this simplistic view while archaeology has revealed creatures that do not feature in our known religious language, or was it the imagery that was used that confused us?, when they said bird, they drew a bird that we are familiar with, and maybe should have been a pre-historic, dinosaur of a bird should have been more appropriate.

I think once starting point is resolved, it will steer the whole direction. I mean if we came from rock-rain soup billions of years ago then it will follow that we have evolved and we are still evolving somehow. If there is super intelligent Creator God, then nothing is evolving and all things are designed to be the way they are. So the issue I think is the beginning. The question of how there is something rather than nothing!

I read a quote a while back, (sorry can't attrib it to original author) on what came first, the chicken or the egg. And the answer should have been categorically the egg. Now, here don't imagine there is a need for a chicken, since the egg predates the chicken.

No that doesn't resolve the issue. I would ask who/what laid that egg...and chicken-and-egg problem starts!

It is a quandary deciding where one ought to base their understanding of the purpose, and as a result I will like billions of others play it safe, hedge my bet that religion has a point and follow one, just in case this mambo jumbo about evolutionism is wrong or vice versa, know that there are actually things we can't explain and not rely on yet some mumbo jumbo to lie to me about it.

I think the wise answer to this will be, what view makes sense of evidence, for we cannot comprehend everything. The problem is not the knowledge but rather our ability to comprehend it all.

Good thinking, let us keep discussing and present challenges :thinking:

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

Hapo ni tatizo, Mwanzo in terms of dini kweli inapotosha kidogo. Mwanzo wa Genesis is too recent a starting point to effectively explain what this question requires. If religion can be rewritten to encompass a timelime that includes dinosaurs
hapo basi tutakuwa at least na better starting point... au dinosaurs tuwaache nje?

I think Dinos are being a good talk in both camps. In EC, they said Dinos lived long before humans. In CC they say they lived with people. Since EC is well publicized, I guess everybody knows that position (I might be wrong). So I give a link from CC.
Dinosaurs vs. Birds: The Fossils Don't Lie
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis
The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue

 

[kotinkarwak]

I understand that we do have PhD holders of scientific title who still believe in creationism. hence not simple line on the ground that scientists are evolutionists and the rest falls under creation belief. Muddying the water, politics comes into play making all discussions a fierce argument. But we can conclude that there are two distinct views about the earth, about man and where he came from.

I don't think the entrenched starting point of religious view is changeable. God made the planets, put in all the deco:- plants, sea, hills etc, and man was created, shortly after, woman came to being. If that starting point is shifted, be it a smudge, then we would request religion to be rewritten, and the query will be, were we wrong all along up to this point of change. In that' I believe, we can't feasibly change that from the religious point of view because, everything does rely on that orderly belief to work.
Evolutionism however is happy to assimilate new information and keeps the open "mind" about the initial point, meaning it is very meaningful to chat about origins in this context because, as of when new information comes forth, it will be slotted into place, without much fuss.

Carbon dating has been captured by different camps to denote different things and its accuracy or range of error used to denounce other camps stand-point. If we are told that the error range is in terms of say 1Million years (not carbon dating btw), we say that methodology is wrong, why? Because we can't fathom that expanse of time, remember we have only been around for a few thousand years.
Personally when I look at such data, I devolve myself from the camp I may be in and see what that data tells me on the question.

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

I don't think the entrenched starting point of religious view is changeable. God made the planets, put in all the deco:- plants, sea, hills etc, and man was created, shortly after, woman came to being. If that starting point is shifted, be it a smudge, then we would request religion to be rewritten, and the query will be, were we wrong all along up to this point of change. In that' I believe, we can't feasibly change that from the religious point of view because, everything does rely on that orderly belief to work.

You are right, since this "belief" starts with assumption of existence of omniscient God, then according to this worldview, mistake is impossible! There is dark side of evolution camp, just read my comment below :coffee:

Evolutionism however is happy to assimilate new information and keeps the open "mind" about the initial point, meaning it is very meaningful to chat about origins in this context because, as of when new information comes forth, it will be slotted into place, without much fuss.

Evolutionism is open to all "enhancement" except one, that evolution might be wrong! I have seen professors that are die hard evolutionists flame up when the issue of evolution being wrong is touched. The emotion is the same as one of saying God was wrong to ardent Creationist. This further confirms the fact that evolution is religion.

One thing makes me think it is a religion indeed is how ardent the followers follow and defend even when it is wrong. Consider "evolution" of unicellular organism to multicellular complex one. From genetics we know that single cell organism have fewer info than multicellular one. So for it to evolve it needs to get addition genetic info. But evolution relies on gene mutation and natural selection. The two don't add information they just transfer as is or distort or eliminate the gene error. That is devolution and never evolution. You see my point?

Carbon dating has been captured by different camps to denote different things and its accuracy or range of error used to denounce other camps stand-point. If we are told that the error range is in terms of say 1Million years (not carbon dating btw), we say that methodology is wrong, why? Because we can't fathom that expanse of time, remember we have only been around for a few thousand years.
Personally when I look at such data, I devolve myself from the camp I may be in and see what that data tells me on the question.

Whatever camp one chooses, dating methods just cannot give us time unless we put some assumptions. It is not the radiometric or even carbons that divides the camps. They use same lab equipments and get same data. The problem is how they interpret the data basing on their assumption, for evolution being random-time-chance blind processes acting under natural selection while Creation camp assume God played the role of Origins.

As you can see, it is more a war of views/assumptions/presusppositions/philosophy than science.
I view the debate as two religions at war :coffee:

 

[kotinkarwak]

There are extremists within each camp so we will excuse their stubbornness for now.

I think evolution and mutations can cause different understanding to the subject. I personally think evolution is not time limited, and that different organisms evolve at their own rate. my assumption of a recent flu epidemic and the moving goal post in finding a cure/vaccine tells me that, the organism has evolved/mutated to such a level that it can jump species. It can change over very short period causing medical headache in its control. Now that does only happen within a short winter spell, but other evolutions/mutations will take more time to pass. Assuming that a single celled organism was/is to remain as such is not right. Again returning to the condition, being made right, the "dust" as in the popular explanation of the big bang theory that gives it opportunity to become multi-cellular and on and on.

About the view of "dust" can also be shown about the separate evolution of creatures as found in Madagascar's rain forest. Almost similar animals ending up being physiologically different as a result of the "dust" resulting from time and the separation of that land from the main Africa continent.

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

I will read tomorrow and comment, for now I have to rest!
Thanks for comments and challenges on this tough topic. Have god night!

 

[Mtazamaji]

I think evolution and mutations can cause different understanding to the subject. I personally think evolution is not time limited, and that different organisms evolve at their own rate. my assumption of a recent flu epidemic and the moving goal post in finding a cure/vaccine tells me that, the organism has evolved/mutated to such a level that it can jump species. It can change over very short period causing medical headache in its control. Now that does only happen within a short winter spell, but other evolutions/mutations will take more time to pass. Assuming that a single celled organism was/is to remain as such is not right. Again returning to the condition, being made right, the "dust" as in the popular explanation of the big bang theory that gives it opportunity to become multi-cellular and on and on.

Ndio maana sometime najiuliza basing on this evolotuion and mutation therories . Is there a possibility or a view that

• a man evolved from a woman or a vice versa.?
• Once upon a time very very long time ago homo sapiens and all species found on earth mutated andevoled from amoeba like creature wich can self reproduce.
• This self repoducing creature like amoeba once reprdouced un-identical twin (female and male organism) the later these un identical twins mated to reproduce dynasours the two dynaosurs mated to accidentally reproduce fish , etc

Najaribu kufikiria kisayansi na ki evolution kiumbe hai cha kwanza kilikuwaje before hata hao dynasours. kilikuwa na jinsia gani