I almost forgot. #5, “Where did the energy to do the organizing come from?” The Big Bang. All the energy to do anything anywhere came from the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? Nobody knows. Maybe God did it. Maybe it just happened. Maybe some kid’s science project went horribly awry. Nobody can know, because it is outside the limits of human observation. I believe I speak for just about everyone when I say that I completely fail to see what you’re getting at with this question.

Modest? You bet I’m modest! I am the queen of modesty!

Eutychus, quit bashing us creationists for knowing the truth! The answer to everyone of your questions is “It’s just true, OK?”

-andros the penitent-

God made everything. Nothing made God.

And if you want hard evidence, just read the Bible. It’s all there.

And come the Final Judgement, I’m going to Heaven and you’re not. Ha ha!

This space for rent.

Also, it is quite possible that the universe has no temporal boundary (sp). That is to say that has always existed.

The difference between this theory and the theory of God is that the no boundary condition can be tested like all scientific theories to see if it is in fact a good theory (i.e. does it match observations and make predictions for future observations that come true amongst other things. As suggested read a science book).

The theory of God however is simply untestable and a matter of faith, blind or otherwise.

What more could you expect from somebody who lets people kick him to the head?

  1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
    Space actually isn’t anything. It’s nothing. It seems pretty simple to me, nothing can come from anywhere you want. Hell, I do a whole lot of nothing all day. I spontaneously create nothing with almost every one of my actions. Thus, the answer to the question is: space, being nothing, is created from the activities of college students.

  2. Where did matter come from?
    The answer to this is even simpler than the previous one: I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that “The First Cause” argument is the single most plausible argument I have yet heard in favor of the existence of a god. Where did everything come from? While it could be that the universe doesn’t actually have a beginning and that matter has always existed and will always exist, human thought seems to lean toward some sort of beginning.
    What I’d like answered is the paradox between the story of creation and a most notable Christian figure saying “As it was in the Beginning, so it is and ever shall be.” If, of course, that’s from the Bible, I could have gotten that totally wrong.

  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (thermodynamics,gravity,inertia,ect.)?
    They just sort of happened, man. I’ll go into a bit more detail in the next question.

  4. How did matter get so PERFECTLY organized?
    You know, if everything wasn’t so perfectly organized, we’d be fu-- Um, screwed. You see, if there was something that didn’t work, some sort of contradiction in the laws of nature, then nature could not exist. It’s simple, to me anyway, that you cannot have a complex system work if everything doesn’t work (you know what I mean?). Simply put, our universe is so perfectly organized because it could not exist any other way. Moot point.

  5. Where did the energy to do the organizing come from?
    I dunno. Why does it have to come from anywhere? That’s the major problem I have. THe theories are sort of like two different kinds of apples. NOT apples and bananas. You either have one story of spontaneous creation, or the other one. One takes faith and 5000 years of history and fable, the other takes a bit of evidence into account.

  6. With what did the first cell capable of reproduction reproduce?
    Umm. It’s called asexual reproduction. You see, cells are really REALLY small. So small, in fact, that you can’t really see them without a thing called a microscope. Obviously you’ve not taken Biology, let alone 7th grade physical science.

So, we have this really tiny cell, actually more of an oil droplet with complex, self-sustaining (with help from the environment) reactions going on within the confines of the cell. The cell gets larger and more complex, it gets unstable, it spontaneously divides. Presto, Darwinian evolution at its purest.

I take it to mean, however, that you mean an actual cell in the modern sense. Well, same story 3 billion years ago as now. There was a lot of raw material to work with. They simply took in some chemicals from outside (and, I must say, many scientists accept that there were an abundance of organic chemicals do to the reactions in the ancient atmosphere caused by lighting), and, using those chemicals, reproduced in much the same way chemoautotrophs of the modern world do.

  1. When, where, why and how did the first single-celled plants become multi-celled
    plants? Where are the 2 and 3 celled intermediates?
    Technically speaking, a 2 celled organism IS multi-celled. I think, though, that you mean , what were the steps from single to billion celled creatures?
    Well, hard to say. Look at Volvox. It’s an interesting cross between single and multi celled creatures. First, chloroplasts evolve (an interesting process which is entirely unknown to me), then Volvox. Volvox reproduces by splitting, and then containing the offspring within its own cell wall. Seems to me that that’s a pretty good step in between the two. (Oh, and to imagine that, draw a big circle and fill it with little circles.)

  2. How did the intermediate forms live?
    Just like you do, ingest, digest, excrete.

  3. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants develope mimicry by chance, by
    their intelligent choice or by design?
    Chance, yes. With 3 billion years and a lot of solar radiation, chance can do quite a bit.

  4. How did photosynthesis evolve?
    I dunno. Let’s say, just for fun, that chance led to a cell utilising a reaction that, when exposed to the sun, was more efficient and gave the cell more energy. Hmm, that cell has an advantage, it reproduces a lot more (let’s put this in geometric terms, square every generation). Then that happens again, making the process more efficient. Now, let’s put this in the perspective of “That can happen to lots of different reactions.” The bad mutations get weeded out, 500 MILLION years later, you have a bryophyte.

  5. How did thought evolve?
    I like that whole complex system idea. I think, but I know a lot of people that don’t. Let’s just say thought is a choice, often stricken from the child by the parents.

  6. How did flowering plants evolve? and from what?
    They evolved from other plants. First you had molds, that reproduced by spores. They slowley evolved more definite leaves, but still reproduced by spores, thus you have ferns. Those slowly developed a more efficient system of rperoduction, namely one by which their genetic material mixed more with other plants and their offspring were more definitely pushed away from them, giving them a better chance to survive. Thus you have conifers, pine trees. Those cones became even more efficient, using the now widespread animal class Insectae to spread their genetic material, and the animal class Avidae to remove their pre-natant offspring. Thus you have Androphytes, or flowering trees.

  7. What about the Coelacanth?
    What about it, it’s a funny-looking primitive thing. Sort of like the alligator and shark, it is well-evolved enough to have survived without changing. What of it?

  8. Do you honestly belive that something came from nothing?
    No, not really. Why do you ask? Oh, the Creation v. Big Bang thing. Since you insist on repeating the question, I’ll repeat my (notice: MY) answer: I don’t think there necessarilly was a beginning. As it was, so it is and ever shall be. Entropy? That’ll be defeated and is probably slow anyway. (notice, I’m grinning).

JFTR, Jedi667 has found us too infantile for his tastes (translation= he was losing) and has decided not to post here anymore until we “grow up.” So don’t expect a response real soon.

Miksch’s Law- It’s better to have a horrible ending than horrors without end.

I think, that if people looked on the existence of life as a by-product of the universe, rather than as some kind of predetermined goal of it, then the ‘chances’ of it happening would be reduced down from ‘near impossible’ to ‘almost inevitable.’

“Vyvyan! Where did you get that Howitzer?” “…I found it.”

The Legend Of PigeonMan - updates every Wed & Sat

answering silly qs and snipping even sillier

  1. Where did the laws of the universe come from (thermodynamics,gravity, inertia,ect.)?
    its called logic

  2. How did matter get so PERFECTLY organized?
    its not perfectly organized, its logically organized.

  3. With what did the first cell capable of reproduction reproduce?

  4. When, where, why and how did the first single-celled plants become multi-celled plants? Where are the 2 and 3 celled intermediates?
    by not breaking away from its reproduced self

  5. How did thought evolve?
    from the immetiate surrounding

  6. How did flowering plants evolve? and from what?
    and the best one

  7. Do you honestly belive that something came from nothing?
    well you see, you have got everything and in there you have got nothing. therefore you have also got something. :slight_smile: easy.

I’d love to hear Bj0rn and Jedi-667 argue. Heck, I don’t think either one of them could pass the Turing test without cheat sheets.

You may have something there, Guadere. But not what you think.

Ever read a science fiction story in which (the phone network/the Internet/some other complex net) has “come to life”? The whatever-it-is is presented as being adult-sapient, for the sake of getting the story moving along well. Now, in real life, what happens when a small child is beginning to learn to communicate?

Watch out if you see a thread entitled “Press Enter****”

Oh, Gaud! "Gaudere"

I’d put the address of Mark I. Vuletic’s web-site where he answers Creationists’ questions, but Jedi probably wouldn’t read it. Too many big words.

Did you read his/her profile? S/he claims to be an Emergency Medical Technician in Michigan. Remind me never to get hurt in Michigan…

Is this a flame? Well, if so, I can’t really apologize. Jedi’s questions seem to me more of a challenge than a genuine quest for knowledge. S/he’s just looking for straw men to knock down. Trouble is, these men are made of brick.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

Actually, Polycarp, In Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress he makes a computer that becomes self-aware, but it doesn’t really realize it at first, and it’s primary form or interaction with tht world around it is to play practical jokes.

And it would only be reasonable for a computer to be a Creationist. It (he? she?) could directly observe its Maker!

Most of the time in the “sentient computer” stories the computer is malicious. I always thought it more likely that the computer would try to be helpful, but would screw up horribly since it didn’t understand humans. I did see one show where the sentient computer listened to too many religious shows and decided the best thing to do would be to send everybody to heaven.

“Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.”

  • Bertrand Russell

Anyone here read Asimov’s I Robot? It’s a lot of short stories about the development of robots in his imaginary universe. They were neat, pretty much sentient and self aware, had their own siliconic brains (not fully understood by anyone, really) and bound by 3 Laws of Robotics.
Anyway, in one of the short stories a particularly advanced robot becomes the first one to wonder about its origin. In the end, it decides that the core of the spaceship it lives in is the Maker, that it created humans first (notice how weak and imperfect they are!), then dumb robots (stronger, but still stupid), then itself (strong and smart). It also determined that the spaceship was the whole of creation, because the concept that the bright points on the black screen it saw out the viewports were anything other than a black sheet with bright points a few feet away. It was also abusrd to this robot that there could be an incredibly large ball of dirt called a planet. The robot was perfectly rational, believing only what it could observe, and making judgements on those observations.

So, what sort of basic flaws do our rational minds lead us to?

Also, I didn’t say Heinlein’s computer was malicious, just juvenile.

Okay, Jedi-667, since you DID claim this thread is supposed to contain questions for EVOLUTIONIST[S], not Cosmologists, I’ll answer your questions appropriately:

(The numbers below refer to the questions posted in the OP. I ain’t gonna copy the text of those questions again in this thread.)

  1. What does the space for the universe have to do with evolution?

  2. What does the origin of matter have to do with evolution?

  3. What does the origin of the laws of the universe have to do with evolution?

  4. Matter isn’t perfectly organized. Not if we’re limiting our discussion to biological matter, which we must be, if we’re discussion evolution.

  5. If by “the energy to do the organizing” you mean the energy to organize matter into self-reproducing organisms, it comes from sunlight and geothermal vents. If that isn’t the kind of “organizing” you mean, this question has nothing to do with evolution.

  6. The first cell capable of reproduction reproduced itself, of course. By definition. I mean, duuuh.

  7. The first multicellular plants arose, oh, somewhere between 1 billion and 600 million years ago. Just like the first multicellular animals. The “intermediary” stages leading from single-celled organisms to multicellular organisms were most likely highly interdependent colonies of single-celled organisms, similar to the amoeba slime molds we still see today. There is no need for a 2- or 3-celled intermediary phase; the colonies simply became more and more interdependent until specialization arose.

  8. The intermediate forms probably lived just like amoeba slime molds do today.

  9. If by “mimicry”, you mean traits of one organism to make it look like another, these developed by the same mechanism that all useful traits develop: by successive generations of beneficial mutations weeded out by natural selection. One member of some plant species happened to look somewhat like another plant that was poisonous, so herbivores avoided it from a long distance away. This gave the plant a survivial advantage (not as likely to be eaten). Subsequent descendants of this selected-for plant might have looked even more like the poisonous plant in question, so herbivores avoided eating it both from afar and up close. This mechanism only half-requires “chance” and requires no “intelligent choice” or “design”.

  10. Photosynthesis evolved by successive beneficial mutations being selected for.

  11. Thought evolved by successive beneficial mutations being selected for.

  12. Flowering plants evolved by successive beneficial mutations being selected for. From other non-flowering plants (probably gymnosperms, I’d hafta look this up. Anyway, flower petals evolved from leaves).

  13. The Coelacanth evolved by successive beneficial mutations being selected for. :wink: Its most recent fossils were about 10,000 years old, prior to discovery of living Coelacanth. Fossil records are spotty at best; a 10,000 year gap is not all that uncommon.

  14. What does something coming from nothing have to do with evolution?

Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

Wally, I hardly think the bible qualifies as “hard evidence.” As far as I know, it’s . . . well, I just won’t go there, seeing as how “it’s just true,” and nothing I can say will get you to accept that your beliefs will never be mine.

White Wolf

“Death is the only inescapable, unavoidable, sure thing. We are sentenced to die the day we’re born.” -Gary Mark Gilmore

P.S. If that’s your attitude towards those of different beliefs, I seriously doubt you have any more chance of getting to “heaven” than I do.

Ladies and Gentleman,

Just an opinion, of course, but it might be a good idea to let this thread go back to being hijacked into a discussion of artificial intelligences in literature.

My reasoning:

  1. jedi667 appears to have left

  2. from the tone of all of his posts, he appears to have been trolling (and not particularly skillfully, at that)

  3. continuing to respond to his OP when he’s not around to read the responses (and in my view, those who have suggested that he cannot be expected to pay any serious attention to those responses, are 100% correct), simply allows him to control our actions in this forum
    3a) I don’t really see a bunch of intelligent people wanting to allow him that power to ANY extent

  4. the “artificial intelligence: boon or bane?” notion was more interesting anyway.

on the off-chance that you are lurking here, and I have mis-identified your gender, please accept both my apologies and my compliments on what was a remarkably faithful impression of a thirteen year old boy.

just tryin’ to muddy the waters, here