Originally posted by dj2becker
Can anything come into being without being 'created' ?

Whether or not things can come into being without being created, the theory of evolution is not relevant to discussions of the origin of matter and forces. It describes how life (and even RNA molecules) changes and differentiates over time.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Whether or not things can come into being without being created, the theory of evolution is not relevant to discussions of the origin of matter and forces. It describes how life (and even RNA molecules) changes and differentiates over time.

So you mean to say that the TOE cannot explain the origin of matter and forces? Are they not important? Are they not the very basis of our existance? If so then do you not think it is important where they came from?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you mean to say that the TOE cannot explain the origin of matter and forces? Are they not important? Are they not the very basis of our existance? If so then do you not think it is important where they came from?

The theory of evolution doesn't set out to do this.
There are lots of things the TOE doesn't explain - its not a universal, all-encompassing theory (though you see to think that pointing out defects in this particular theory undermines all of science and ergo proves your religious point of view).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Whether or not things can come into being without being created, the theory of evolution is not relevant to discussions of the origin of matter and forces. It describes how life (and even RNA molecules) changes and differentiates over time.

So you agree that the TOE deals with the origin of life? You are saying that life must have evolved from matter, i.e. the chemical soup. In other words the origin of life is attributed to matter and the forces that worked on this matter. Yet you are also saying that the theory of evolution is not relevant to discussions of the origin of matter and forces from which life supposedly evolved? You are not being logical at all... You are sounding like the TOE, completely self-contradictory. 🙄

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you mean to say that the TOE cannot explain the origin of matter and forces? Are they not important? Are they not the very basis of our existance? If so then do you not think it is important where they came from?

That is correct; yes, they are important; and yes, it's important where they come from.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you agree that the TOE deals with the origin of life? You are saying that life must have evolved from matter, i.e. the chemical soup. In other words the origin of life is attributed to matter and the forces that worked on this matter. ...[text shortened]... . You are sounding like the TOE, completely self-contradictory. 🙄

I think that the standard TOE is generally defined as a theory which claims that the current diversity of life on Earth is a result of a process of evolution acting on the original form of life. It would make sense to even include the "RNA world" hypothesis, as this hypothesis includes an evolutionary process.

So, maybe the TOE deals with the origin of life, maybe it doesn't. I guess it's how you define the theory. I don't know what the "official" definition is if there is one. The TOE is mostly involved with how life changes over time as opposed to the origin of life.

Yet you are also saying that [b] the theory of evolution is not relevant to discussions of the origin of matter and forces from which life supposedly evolved?[/b]

This is correct. The TOE is concerned with events that happened after matter and forces already existed. An analogy might be how carpentry uses planks of wood; it doesn't matter to carpentry whether the planks of wood were cut out of trees by lumberjacks and sawmill operators, or conjured out of thin air and placed in the store by the lumber fairy. Carpentry deals with what happens to the lumber after it's purchased and removed from the store. Carpentry in no way is involved with how the lumber got there.

The very earliest that the TOE would apply would be when RNA molecules began to self-replicate. Anything before that is beyond the scope of the TOE.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think that the standard TOE is generally defined as a theory which claims that the current diversity of life on Earth is a result of a process of evolution acting on the original form of life. It would make sense to even include t ...[text shortened]... replicate. Anything before that is beyond the scope of the TOE.

I think that the standard TOE is generally defined as a theory which claims that the current diversity of life on Earth is a result of a process of evolution acting on the original form of life.

So you agree that the TOE cannot explain where the original form of life came from? In other words the TOE cannot explain the origin of life!

So, maybe the TOE deals with the origin of life...

Why would it maybe deal with the origin of life if it cannot explain where the 'original' form of life came from?

This is correct. The TOE is concerned with events that happened after matter and forces already existed.

Do you agree that the TOE is based on the presupposition that matter has always existed and do you also agree that there is no evidence to verify this? Do you agree that there is evidence that the universe has a beginning? If so, does this not prove that matter has not always existed. Would you regard this as scientifically acceptable to base an entire theory on unprovable presuppositions?

The very earliest that the TOE would apply would be when RNA molecules began to self-replicate. Anything before that is beyond the scope of the TOE.

I would like to remind you that there is no scientific experiment that proves the formation of RNA molecules by random chance.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I think that the standard TOE is generally defined as a theory which claims that the current diversity of life on Earth is a result of a process of evolution acting on the original form of life.

So you agree that the TOE cannot ...[text shortened]... proves the formation of RNA molecules by random chance. [/b]
[/b]

Look, what you are tryng to do is shoehorn something into TOE that just doesn't belong there. It doesn't seek to explain the origin of matter, it seeks to explain how that matter became life.

Everything started with the creation of matter, but it would take an extremely long time to explain anything if you had to go back that far:

"How does a car engine work?"
"Well, first there was the Big Bang..."

Originally posted by dj2becker
Can anything come into being without being 'created' ?

Yes - the universe! 😵

Originally posted by jimmyb270
Look, what you are tryng to do is shoehorn something into TOE that just doesn't belong there. It doesn't seek to explain the origin of matter, it seeks to explain how that matter became life.

[b]Everything started with the creation of matter, but it would take an extremely long time to explain anything if you had to go back that far:

"How does a car engine work?"
"Well, first there was the Big Bang..."[/b]

Agreed - also, scientists are content with saying they do not know where matter came from (or what happened before the big bang).

The simplest reason for this, is that the laws of physics we can percieve did NOT exist until just after the big bang.

No amount of prodding at this point will cause any of the atheists to stand up and go "Oh, now I see, thanks for saving me".

The bottom line is, if something had to have created the universe, because it could not come from nowhere, then something had to have created god, because he could not come from nowhere.

Originally posted by jimmyb270

Look, what you are tryng to do is shoehorn something into TOE that just doesn't belong there. It doesn't seek to explain the origin of matter, it seeks to explain how that matter became life.

Many people accept that the TOE as being a scientific theory that explains the origin of life. What I am trying to show is that this is clearly not the case. What I am also trying to point out to you is that the TOE is not scientific. Would you agree with me that 'science' is the field of study that follows the 'scientific method'? We need to be aware that unless investigations adhere to these precepts they are not scientific. In particular, speculations which propose no genuine means of experimental confirmation are not scientific. Untestable speculation cannot be considered "science". Furthermore, extrapolation beyond the range of actual experiment, especially into the distant past or the distant future is unscientific. Thus the TOE (to some people that are not really aware of the facts) is simply a blind religion that is disguised as "A scientific theory, that explains the origin of mankind."

Everything started with the creation of matter...

Correct. But as you have said the TOE does not explain this. So what does?


...but it would take an extremely long time to explain anything if you had to go back that far:

"How does a car engine work?"
"Well, first there was the Big Bang..."

Is the Big Bang scientific? No. Has it ever been proved scientifically to have happened? No. Agree? So why do you believe it? Only because it would be unthinkable to believe that God created everything?

Originally posted by Maustrauser
Yes - the universe! 😵

How do you know this?

Originally posted by Maustrauser
Yes - the universe! 😵

The universe can manifest from no initial cause? How is that possible?

Originally posted by Alcra
Agreed - also, scientists are content with saying they do not know where matter came from (or what happened before the big bang).

The simplest reason for this, is that the laws of physics we can percieve did NOT exist until just after the big bang.

No amount of prodding at this point will cause any of the atheists to stand up and go "Oh, now I see, tha ...[text shortened]... me from nowhere, then something had to have created god, because he could not come from nowhere.

The simplest reason for this, is that the laws of physics we can percieve did NOT exist until just after the big bang.

You are contradicting what Thousand Young said earlier... By the way, how can anyone know this for sure?

The bottom line is, if something had to have created the universe, because it could not come from nowhere, then something had to have created god, because he could not come from nowhere.

Correct. There is just a slight technical error... The universe can be proved to have had a begining. God by definition is an eternal being. No one can prove that he has a begining or an end. Thus it is illogical to say that something must have created God.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b] The simplest reason for this, is that the laws of physics we can percieve did NOT exist until just after the big bang.

You are contradicting what Thousand Young said earlier... By the way, how can anyone know this for sure?

The bottom line is, if something had to have created the universe, because it could not come from nowhere, then somet ...[text shortened]... he has a begining or an end. Thus it is illogical to say that something must have created God.

DNA exists
DNA consists of chemicals compounds.
a medium such as water , assorted chemical and heat will produce varying chemical reactions , varied by Brownian motion1)
chemical reactions create compounds

now that being said : if you apply probability distribution2) you will clearly see the resultant answer to the systems diffusion equation 3) is life DNA could have ceen created by randon chance.

1)Brownian motion
The most common type of continuous random motion of a particle, one in which the particle's vibrations have more and more energy at short length and time scales. It models the motion of a particle in a fluid

2( probability distribution
The defining description of a random variable; the set of all possible values of a random variable together with the probability of attaining each value or the probability that the value lands in any given range

3( diffusion equation
A partial differential equation that models the statistics or distribution of many particles undergoing Brownian motion, or the diffusion of one fluid in another fluid, or the diffusion of heat.