goozleberry: Prior to pursuing this discussion, I feel I must ask you a question. :) How do you believe our universe got here in the first place?

__________________

I don't know. There is not much information about that time, and I feel that my beliefs should be based on information. So It seems to me the most honest thing is to simply admit my ignorance until information is gathered, which probably means I will not know in my lifetime. I can live with that.

I hope that answer is satisfactory for you to pursue the discussion.

Well, to begin, science has proved that the universe had a beginning. ("Singularity", "Second Law of Thermodynamics", etc.) Science, furthermore, proves that something so immensely complex as the universe could not have possibly come into being by chance. I quote Dr. James Coppedge, an expert on the science of statistical probability....
What's more, the science of statistical probability proves that forming even a protein molecule via random processes is not only improbable; it is indeed impossible. There is, however, one other possibility. :)

__________________

The statistical probability of anything that has occurred is 1 out of 1.

These figures are bogus because they are based on bogus assumptions. The main one being is that the protein molecules that exist are those that must exist.

If different protein molecules had come into being instead, it doesn't mean we would have had no life. It simply means life would have been different than it is.

I don't know where you are getting your "science" Andy, but I'd check my sources if I were you. As Gluadys pointed out, this "reverse statstics" approach that has been used to discredit the natural appearance of life is based on numbers that are simply made up. Neither does it allow for the enormous amount of time for such reactions to occur.

There is simply no evidence that there was any kind of divine intervention in the rise of life on this planet, and none in the evolution of life after that time. Indeed, that lack of evidence is damning to the creationist hypothesis.

I forgot who said it first: "If it happens, it must be possible."

But then again, perhaps everything was so accounted for that it "could happen."

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Perhaps, but it seems unlikely since we have seen neither hide nor hair of the accountant.

I teach statistics; I can assure you that anyone who insists that "it is indeed impossible" is lying.

Could you tell me, Andromeda, how many times (in other solar systems, in other galaxies, in other universes should any exist) life has failed to arise? Without that information (and, in case you don't have the answer on the tip of your tongue, the correct answer is "no, I cannot tell you--no one can"), we cannot evaluate the likelihood of our own existence having arisen by chance. Is it possible to flip 100 heads in a row? If you are only flipping 100 times, it is nearly impossible! But if you are flipping millions of times, 100 heads in a row is not only possible, but very likely (as likely as any other combination of 100 flips, that is). In fact, there is at least one person who has done it! (in a Nazi POW camp, a Dutch mathemetician passed the time--years--by flipping a coin and recording it. He had over 100 series of 100 heads or 100 tails!) Bottom line is...some probabilities are impossible to determine, because if we are looking for (instances of X)/(instances of X or not-X), and we have no possible way to determine not-X (this is exactly the problem with figuring odds on life arising--we have no possible way of measuring the times it did not arise under circumstances similar to ours), we simply cannot determine a meaningful probability.

Sorry.

But, at the very least, would you contend that something cannot come from nothing? What do your statistics have to say about that?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Why not? You do. You just choose to call that something that came from nothing "God".

Although what I do not know about quantum physics could fill a library, my understanding is that quantum fluctuations most certainly do happen, and that for suitable definitions of "something" and "nothing" (another reminder, Iacchus, of why it is so important to define your terms) that "something" can indeed come from "nothing", and that the likelihood of this occurring is best described through probability and statistics... Note, though, that these events happen at a level so far removed from our ordinary experience as to be unrecognisable (something, certainly, which would never have been discovered through introspection!). When we consider how many atoms there are in the smallest objects we can see with the naked eye, it becomes quickly apparent (at least, to those with any knowledge of probability) why we do not witness quantum fluctuations at our macro level of observation. Not that they are "impossible", but simply that the level of improbability is such that we could wait lifetimes, even millennia, for a minor observable event to happen randomly. What we see are the aggregates of trillions upon trillions (probably an understatement) of such fluctuations, and so the probabilities even out and our world looks (and is) relatively predictable. It is only when we are stretching the limits of prediction that this inherent variability prevents us, even in theory, from making some sorts of predictions. (I hinted at this in an explanation of the difference between determinism and predestination.)

Singularities are in fact the most amazing things in both physics and applied mathematics as the early universe was infinitely dense and hot. Unfortunately for people who claim science is a joke, the radiocarbon 14 dating detects the exact date of an object via ex: smelting, melting, dying, since carbon has a half life of 5730 years.

The reason there was a Big Bang is because of the microwave background radiation which is about 3 degrees above absolute zero and these waves are so red-shifted that they must have come billions of years ago. In fact it is a fact that the universe is 15-20 Billion years old and the earth is 4.6.

Thanks for jump-starting this thread, Protos. I hope you hang around. Though I agree with you, in forums like this one, I prefer to replace the word "fact" with "strongly supported by evidence" because of the tendency of science phobics to latch on to such statements as "not proven" and compare them to their own "not proven" (but almost totally unsupported by evidence) statements. It is a precaution learned through long experience.

Now, let us see if any "young universe" adherants will rise to the challenge of the evidence you have presented.

How can the universe be measured in years, when years and time, as we know and understand it, are a function of this solar system only? Time, as we know it, becomes completely convoluted and irrelevant when applied to anything outside of this solar system.

Well, we'll just have to get the "aliens" to adjust their clocks then.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I'm afraid that is completely incorrect. Astrophysicists understand time quite well. All evidence suggests that time behaves the same outside our solar system as it does inside. Where did you get the notion that it didn't?

Surprisingly (with an s), I enjoy contemplating new or different notions when I'm completely bored with the repetition of the same old ones, so that's where . Not to mention, you totally missed the point...which was not how "time behaves". ....Oh well, don't mind me. I'm just blah, blah, blahing. Proceed.

Do you mean you just made it up because you are bored with looking at things that have evidence?
Yes, I guess I did miss the point. It looked suspiciously like you were calling into question the numbers that Protos had given, based on some alternate way of looking at time or perhaps just a misunderstanding of basic relativity.

Okay, I'll bite. What was your point?

No.

Then I ask again. What was your point? :confuse3: