Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (155435)	2/23/2009 1:05:13 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

It stands to reason the cause behind the big bang (aka creation of the universe) possessed sufficient creative power to pull if off. It stands to reason? Yes. Even an atheist like you has to admit the beginning of the universe had a cause and that cause had the power to bring the universe into being. You just don't know what it is and you can hypothesize all kinds of things ... a recurring expanding and collapsing universe, "quantum wave fluctuations" iow gobbledgygook - cause if there was no universe, there was no material, thus no quanta. I don't think anyone can logically claim the universe had a cause. Everything that begins to exist does. And that cause clearly had the power to bring the universe into being. You just have a problem with calling that cause God. I forget - did you disclaim being an atheist in a past post? Regardless of whether you did, clearly you are an atheist as you're here mocking the idea of a creative being which caused the universe to come into existence. --------------------- Why would some spiritual power blow itself up???? It didn't. The phrase "big bang" was coined by an atheist scientist, Fred Hoyle, who sought to mock the concept of a universe with a beginning. Though he eventually was forced to accept it. Indeed, he was forced by facts to accept much more: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."[2] Hoyle, an atheist until that time, said that this suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Consequently, he began to believe in a god and panspermia.[3] ..... In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution used to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering the very remote probability of evolution he concluded: “ If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...[7] ” Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed: The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.[8] ..... Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence. In 1978, Hoyle described Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as wrong and claimed that the belief that the first living cell was created in the "sea of life" was just as erroneous. In his book "Evolution from Space" (1982), he distanced himself completely from Darwinism. He stated that "natural selection" could not explain evolution. In his book "The Intelligent Universe" (1983): "Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?" According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40 000 power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50 000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." ("Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105) .... en.wikipedia.org -------------------- The bible says nothing about a big explosion and in fact teaches the creation occurring in 7 days..... It says there was a beginning and the heavens and earth were created. Check. Yes, its wrong if you hold to a literal understanding of 7 days. Doesn't bother me though if "day" is understood metaphorically.