The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.

Obtenebrator said:
If one is going by Genesis then God couldn't have created the other eyes, just the first one because Genesis is quite clear that creation happened once not multiple times over millions of years.

BUT, that being said, just "generally" suggesting "God created it" is unnecessary to explain it. So why hypothesize it? You have no evidence for it other than your fascination with the "complexity" but as noted earlier complexity can and does arise spontaneously in a system like this without the need of some intervention.

So why hypothesize "God" if that hypothesis is not needed to explain the data?
Click to expand...
You should probably read Genesis again, particularly about the part where God creates all the animals and every type of creature.
 
Cypress said:
No one has really explained how you get rational organization and mathmatical precision out of randomness and nothingness. That's the 64 thousand dollar question
Click to expand...
What 'rational organization'? What 'mathematical precision'?
I doubt you HAVE sixty-four thousand dollars, Sybil.
 
Obtenebrator said:
That's because you know how a watch is put together.

Take a look at the development of the eye as an example.

pjimage+%286%29.jpg


complexEyes.jpg


This happened over hundreds of millions if not nearly a billion years and it makes very good sense. It is how something complex like a human eye can arise from simple structures over time.
Click to expand...
Why would a 'pigment cell' even develop? Remember, even THAT requires a complex structure!

Your pretty pictures are NOT a proof of development, Sybil.
 
Into the Night said:
RQAA.
Click to expand...
Nope. Saying it's unknown isn't the same as answering the question I asked.

I don't KNOW how the universe came into existence, but if you asked which seems more probable - the Big Bang or being zapped into existence by the Sky Wizard, I would lean toward the Big Bang.
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. Saying it's unknown isn't the same as answering the question I asked.

I don't KNOW how the universe came into existence, but if you asked which seems more probable - the Big Bang or being zapped into existence by the Sky Wizard, I would lean toward the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Wizards are dumb as an explanation, but the Big Bang wasn't actually the beginning of the universe. It was just the point at which expansion happened. It was preceded by an inflationary state, and nobody knows what the initial state of the universe was, or how it came to be, because we do not have the physics to tell us what was happening at the initial state.
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. Saying it's unknown isn't the same as answering the question I asked.

I don't KNOW how the universe came into existence, but if you asked which seems more probable - the Big Bang or being zapped into existence by the Sky Wizard, I would lean toward the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Leaning in either direction is simply giving in to a blind guess about the REALITY.

Anyone not satisfied with "I do not know" has an agenda. Those who "lean" toward "the Big Bang" are as much in thrall to blind guessing as are those who "lean" toward a creator god.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Leaning in either direction is simply giving in to a blind guess about the REALITY.

Anyone not satisfied with "I do not know" has an agenda. Those who "lean" toward "the Big Bang" are as much in thrall to blind guessing as are those who "lean" toward a creator god.
Click to expand...
Everything is a blind guess.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Leaning in either direction is simply giving in to a blind guess about the REALITY.

Anyone not satisfied with "I do not know" has an agenda. Those who "lean" toward "the Big Bang" are as much in thrall to blind guessing as are those who "lean" toward a creator god.
Click to expand...
The hot Big Bang only tells us how the universe evolved, it doesn't explain why or how it was created. It's a mistake in logic to point to the Big Bang and assert it answers all questions about cosmic origin.

If we don't even know the right questions to ask, we don't have a chance of getting the right answer.
 
Cypress said:
The hot Big Bang only tells us how the universe evolved, it doesn't explain why or how it was created. It's a mistake in logic to point to the Big Bang and assert it answers all questions about cosmic origin.

If we don't even know the right questions to ask, we don't have a chance of getting the right answer.
Click to expand...
Ross thinks science is just guessing. Cannot take such an idea seriously.
 
Cypress said:
The hot Big Bang only tells us how the universe evolved, it doesn't explain why or how it was created. It's a mistake in logic to point to the Big Bang and assert it answers all questions about cosmic origin.

If we don't even know the right questions to ask, we don't have a chance of getting the right answer.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct.

But we humans tend to think of ourselves as "advanced beings." We may be considered by truly "advanced civilizations" as akin to ants, gnats...or badgers.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Leaning in either direction is simply giving in to a blind guess about the REALITY.

Anyone not satisfied with "I do not know" has an agenda. Those who "lean" toward "the Big Bang" are as much in thrall to blind guessing as are those who "lean" toward a creator god.
Click to expand...
It's really not. There is significant reason to believe the earth is not close to being only 6,000 years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top