[White Raven]

All right, so I've always wanted to do this, and this seems to be a perfect outlet!
I've never really had the ability to actually encounter all of the different theories of how we came to exist. Now, obviously I have drawn my conclusions, but I always kind of wanted to get a bunch of reasonable, thoughtful and (thank God) not-extremely-emotive people together and just discuss and explore the different theories. Not a debate, per se - just to have a different people each explain and give pros and cons for and against any theory of how we came to be.
Have at it!

[Monte314]

I'm a young-earth creationist, for two reasons:

1.) I believe the Bible, which asserts the existence of a creator, and I can harmonize the facts I know with the biblical account to my satisfaction

2.) I don't think the proposed naturalistic theories are good science

I could be convinced (probably without too much difficulty) that I am wrong about everything except the "creator" part. I could be convinced that the creator employed a natural process, and took a long, long time to do it. But the popularizations of purely naturalistic cosmologies and evolutionary theories (e.g., Sagan, Hawking, Dawkins, Gould, et. al) don't pass muster with me. Their philosophising seems to run beyond what the science supports. Argumentum ad verecundium!

[blueback]

He he, "young-earth creationist". It's like a punchline.

I'm not convinced that anything was ever created. My understanding is that we have no evidence of any matter or energy ever having been created or destroyed, so why would we make the leap to assume it had been?

The stuff in the universe can be rearranged, I have no problem with that, but I think the simplest explanation is that it has always existed. . .at least as far as "always" has any meaning.

Monte; if the Earth is "young" then what about the light from distant stars that should have taken billions of years to reach us? Did God fake the age of the universe?

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by White Raven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've never really had the ability to actually encounter all of the different theories of how we came to exist.

How we came to exist:

Roughly 14 billion years ago, the stuff that is our universe arrived with a Bang. The cause for this sudden commotion is not known, but can be explored with Quantum and String Theory. The primordial shrapnel was flung out in all directions, eventually coalescing into atoms, stars and galaxies in vast clusters that continue to hurtle away from each other to this day. By a process that is little understood, many billions of gas discs gradually clumped into planetary systems.

Near the center of a galaxy cluster we call the Local Group, in an unremarkable arm of an average-sized barred spiral galaxy known as the Milky Way, a main-sequence star formed. It was surrounded by an impressive Oort cloud and a much smaller Kuiper Belt of small objects in orbit, but the most interesting action was occurring near the center of the system, where larger planets formed. The solar wind cleared most of the gases out of the sun's near vicinity, only allowing the smallest of atmospheres for the four closest planets, which were dwarfed by the gas giants further out. The largest of the giants, relatively close to being a star itself, acted as an effective guardian, deflecting many objects heading on collision courses for the center of the system. In this warm and protected area called the Goldilocks Zone for its manageable radiation level, the third rocky planet from the sun was distinguishing itself.

Within a billion years of its formation, this planet was host to a very rare phenomenon: molecules were replicating themselves. How exactly they formed in the first place is unknown, but they appeared as soon as conditions allowed them to flourish, leaving their traces behind in the rock layers from the time. This replication showed an exciting trait: it brought change. Primitive organisms mutated and evolved, becoming more complex and more successful. Soon the planet was teeming with microscopic life.
Was this all?
Finally, about 570 million years ago, there came the Cambrian Explosion. Bacteria no longer were the height of sophistication. Organisms consisting of many cells coordinated as single creatures abounded. Evolution now progressed rapidly. A few times there were setbacks. Mass extinctions undid much of the work, but life trudged on, not to be completely put out. Innovation was rampant, with natural selection forming increasingly creative methods of staying alive.

Then, 65 million years ago, a large a meteor impacted the earth, causing yet another mass extinction. The age of the dinosaurs ended. A recently established branch of the evolutionary tree benefited from this sudden absence. It was the mammals' turn.
Over the generations that followed, the small rodent-like creatures developed into many varieties, improving and specializing their abilities. A particularly promising line including a creature that would be the common ancestor of all Primates. A newfangled innovation proved successful: bipedal movement. The Hominidae became taller and smarter. At one point two of the chromosomes fused, distinguishing a species: Homo sapiens. The new species was nearing unprecedented heights of reason and self-awareness. God finally had the right candidate, and breathed into man the breath of life: His greatest creation, the soul. And it was good.

The rest is history.

[muguly]

I'll never tell what I am because it's not important;however,there was an article in the Discover Magazine about a paleontologist who found a t-rex bone fragment with soft tissue still on it. The story never reached the media and I have heard seen anybody talk about it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[Tocsin]

The very notion of "creation" is irrational. It implies an original event for which there is no antecedent, no cause. It makes as much sense to say creation began with a big "SHAZAM!" and poof, suddenly there is something from nothing.

You can make arbitrary distinctions and talk about concepts like what the earliest manifestations of matter, energy, or consciousness were, and speculate on what caused them, but if cause and effect holds true then the implication is that there is an infinite chain of causes and effects to account for, and that the best you can hope for is to reach back in time either to an event prior to which a cause appears inconceivable, or a duration of time which seems to be immeasurable.

Of course, I know for a fact that all existence began with sub-sub-sub-atomic particles known as fispnofles and all consciousness is manifestations of Wangtuvious, and also that since no one can prove it isn't true, it must therefore be real.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Latte]

Maybe the question is the wrong one.

Perhaps instead of asking how we came to exist, we should be asking how we exist. When we understand the latter, the former would most likely follow.

It doesn't matter how much one searches for and ponders about a why as long as one doesn't know how. If one found that "why", and didn't understand the how, then one wouldn't know when one had found it as it would be nothing more than an empty piece of information that one couldn't see whether really made sense or not, and thus never really be validly certain whether it was the real why.

Adding: Explanation: When one involves becoming, one involves time, which makes it a cause-thing... which is essentially the same as a why-question.

I also just realized that this might have been purely a question of the origins of humanity, if so, I'm sorry I went off-topic.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course, I know for a fact that all existence began with sub-sub-sub-atomic particles known as fispnofles and all consciousness is manifestations of Wangtuvious, and also that since no one can prove it isn't true, it must therefore be real. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Particle-based consciousness isn't such a bad idea, really. It could a fifth state of matter, or something from a different dimension. How about consciousness superstrings?

[Grizzly]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The very notion of "creation" is irrational. It implies an original event for which there is no antecedent, no cause. It makes as much sense to say creation began with a big "SHAZAM!" and poof, suddenly there is something from nothing.

While I agree that there was no "Shazaam" as something from nothing is impossible.
I follow on the Chaotic Inflation theory or "Soap Bubble" theory.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"It is possible to conceive of disconnected space-times, each existing but unable to interact with one another. An easily visualized metaphor is a group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other soap bubbles, even in principle. According to one common terminology, each "soap bubble" of space-time is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular space-time is denoted as the Universe, just as we call our moon the Moon. The entire collection of these separate space-times is denoted as the multiverse.[10] In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of space-time, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although it is impossible to know for sure. These multiverses could also exist within other universes, in the same way that the interior of a black hole is discontinuous with our world; once something goes in it will never come out."

So the Big Bang was not a spontaneous creation of mass/energy but the transfer of mass/energy from a collapsing universe to create another.

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	but if cause and effect holds true then the implication is that there is an infinite chain of causes and effects to account for, and that the best you can hope for is to reach back in time either to an event prior to which a cause appears inconceivable, or a duration of time which seems to be immeasurable.

Is that a problem?
As modern science has advanced it appears as if there are few constants in the universe and that "the answer" can only be reached when extremely limited criteria are applied.

"where is the exact location of this electron in this carbon atom?"
as quantum physics has developed we've learnt that it is impossible to determine "exactly" where it is.
we can only show the most probable orbits, and where it would be in that orbit within a certain time period.

So if we get to the point that we have an understanding of the previous universe to ours, but cannot learn about the previous universe to it, have we failed to comepletely answer the question "where did our universe come from?"


Unless we develop a way to travel to other dimensions then its likely we will never know what was there before the "big Bang", we can only hope to figure out in detail what was there in the first few moments of our universe and then extrapolate from there.

But even then the idea that ours is just another among an infinite grouping of constantly growing and dying universes with no overall purpose is not an abhorrent concept.
Just difficult as it implies that there is no purpose to existence.
That because our existence ocurred before our essense was defined we must do it.

[PHS Philip]

Well, the furthest back the universe's creation can be explained back in a manner that can be tested is the big bang (a singularity by definition has wiped out all information one could garner from before the singularity). There are hypotheses (IE the universe is one giant quantum fluctuation), but they have their issues. The best we can do is try to establish other things with certainty, and extrapolate from those.

As for life: again, lots of theories. Abiogenesis is pretty nearly certain, but exactly how, well...There's RNA first, protein first, Cairn-Smith, etc. Again, essentially, we don't know. We have a general idea, but the specifics will take a long, long time to figure out.

So all I can really say is "big bang and abiogenesis." If you figured out the specifics you'd win the Nobel prize about 5 times over.





PHSphilip added to this post, 5 minutes and 29 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Particle-based consciousness isn't such a bad idea, really. It could a fifth state of matter, or something from a different dimension. How about consciousness superstrings?

Eh, the problem is that consciousness arises from matter. The matter in your brain is in known states only, as far as anyone can tell. As for superstrings...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
String theory, from what I know of it, is one place where I have to agree with Monte that physics has been very, very sloppy.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by PHSphilip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Eh, the problem is that consciousness arises from matter. The matter in your brain is in known states only, as far as anyone can tell.

Not necessarily. Numerous times people have experienced OBE's while clinically dead (no detectable brain activity), so it would seem that consciousness exists outside of matter, or at least gray matter. It could be argued that other parts of the body somehow generate a "consciousness field" that thereby survives for at least a few minutes after brain activity ceases.
I predict most of this will be figured out as neuroscience develops, but we might be puzzling over the second consciousness for a long time. Whatever it is, I call it a soul.

	As for superstrings... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. String theory, from what I know of it, is one place where I have to agree with Monte that physics has been very, very sloppy.

Indeed, sloppy. It's not as if we can do any better, however. It is a rocky terrain for physics nowadays, and I think a Theory of Everything (a coherent unity of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity) might eventually rise from the bubbling stew of sloppy theoretical physics. This confusion is probably the natural pattern occurring before a big break of clarity arrives. Along the way we can wallow in fantastically weird theories and exercise our Ni. Why not?

[PHS Philip]

Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not necessarily. Numerous times people have experienced OBE's while clinically dead (no detectable brain activity), so it would seem that consciousness exists outside of matter, or at least gray matter. It could be argued that other parts of the body somehow generate a "consciousness field" that thereby survives for at least a few minutes after brain activity ceases. I predict most of this will be figured out as neuroscience develops, but we might be puzzling over the second consciousness for a long time. Whatever it is, I call it a soul.

Well, my first reaction here is "proof?" After all, the first reaction when someone's dying isn't to hook them up to an MRI to see if they have brain activity.

Secondly, an OBE or NDE (Near Death Experience), from what I remember, doesn't necessarily require the parts of the brain that normally operate to be operating. I'll try to dig up a few sources on it, since I'm just going by memory, but I think that these are triggered by simulation to a specific part of the brain (meaning the rest isn't required).

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by PHSphilip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, my first reaction here is "proof?" After all, the first reaction when someone's dying isn't to hook them up to an MRI to see if they have brain activity.

These were cases in which the people were in comas, so the doctors were already keeping track of brain activity. (You don't need a full MRI to declare a person clinically dead.)
I have to go at the moment, but remind me later if I don't post some links for examples. There was a particular site with a large database of incidents that I once had and have forgotten.

	Secondly, an OBE or NDE (Near Death Experience), from what I remember, doesn't necessarily require the parts of the brain that normally operate to be operating. I'll try to dig up a few sources on it, since I'm just going by memory, but I think that these are triggered by simulation to a specific part of the brain (meaning the rest isn't required).

Sensations reported as similar to OBE's have been simulated in the lab using animation goggles, but of course the people were alive and well during the experiments. I'll look forward to the links.

[PHS Philip]

A few articles (they're the best I could find quickly)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(not really relevant to this type, but still interesting)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.






PHSphilip added to this post, 4 minutes and 49 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	These were cases in which the people were in comas, so the doctors were already keeping track of brain activity. (You don't need a full MRI to declare a person clinically dead.) I have to go at the moment, but remind me later if I don't post some links for examples. There was a particular site with a large database of incidents that I once had and have forgotten.

I didn't mean that you need an MRI to declare them dead. I was thinking more that you need an MRI to determine that there's nothing going off as the brain dies. I think I remember reading something about the brain sometimes doing weird things just as it shuts down.

EDIT:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(A video Michael Shermer did)

[tp6626]

Is this thread about the creation of the universe, or the creation of human beings?

Also Monte, do you really believe that the earth is only 6000(ish) years old? There's most probably trees still living that are older than that.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And natural selection is near enough generally accepted now. The evidence is so staggering that its pretty much beyond scientific debate.

[TheLastMohican]

Originally Posted by PHSphilip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A few articles (they're the best I could find quickly) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (not really relevant to this type, but still interesting) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks for the links. I find the first article especially intriguing, as it shows that the brain is at least capable of the specific sensations.

	I didn't mean that you need an MRI to declare them dead. I was thinking more that you need an MRI to determine that there's nothing going off as the brain dies. I think I remember reading something about the brain sometimes doing weird things just as it shuts down.

It would stand to reason that the brain's patterns would briefly randomize before being shut off, resulting in very strange sensations. NDE's tend to follow certain patterns, however, and those who experience them do not normally describe wild, random visions. Here is an article I found (I still want to find the original sources for the individual cases):

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


It does describe a particular case that could be the one I had in mind earlier, though there are probably a number of quite similar ones.

In one famous example explained by cardiologist Michael Sabom, patient Pam Reynolds underwent complex surgery during which she had no heart beat, no breathing and no activity in the brain or brain stem. Despite this, and to everyone's astonishment, she was able to accurately relate details of the operation when she woke from her NDE, describing the obscure tools and equipment used, which she observed while out of her body.

It would seem that the brain, even if it was active, could not conjure up the accurate descriptions when her eyes were not taking them in.

[PHS Philip]

Hm, interesting.

* When Reynolds heard someone say her veins were too small, medical personnel were apparently still connecting her to the heart-lung machine. At this point she was merely under general anesthesia (which can quite often fail to render a patient completely unconscious as well as causing dysphoric effects including confusion about ones position in their body).[1] This appears to show that her supposed Near "Death" Experience began hours before she even "died," and indeed if the second part of the operation had been called off for some reason, many of the supposed "death" experiences would have happened even though all she was subjected to were anesthetic drugs.[2] * EEG monitoring is not 100% reliable. Sometimes the brain has activity that is not registered by the equipment. * Ear plugs do not block all external sounds. People with ear plugs may still be able to hear sounds in their environment.[3] * She may have had the claimed experiences before or after the standstill, when she was merely under general anesthesia and the brain was still active.[4] * Proponents have generally misrepresented the amount of time which Reynolds was flatlined[5]: the actual surgical timeline suggests that her brain stem activity was fully flatlined for a period of only five to six minutes at most[6], and there is no evidence that she retained memories or experiences during this particular period, as opposed to the rest of the several-hours long surgery. Her experiences before and after the standstill could have felt coherent regardless: loss of consciousness would not necessarily have interrupted the hallucinations. Most people do not experience or remember "gaps" between being awake, dreams, and awaking again.[7]

This is just from wiki, though, so I'll have to go through the sources cited to check it out.

EDIT: well, unfortunately some of them are from journals that you have to pay for access to. I'll look through the others.

EDIT2: Here's the one not in a journal:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


EDIT3: Wow, we're so far off topic. Thread split time?