Your argument is sometimes referred to a "God of the gaps".
What we can't explain or understand, we attribute to a god. Man has done that throughout history, with weather, sickness, astronomical events, etc.
Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most outspoken proponent of evolution today, puts forth a pretty good theory about how nothing became something. I mean, it makes sense.
Still, not that many scientists are willing to go as far as he does in removing any requirement for a higher power.
By the way, many, MANY animals have a more complicated genome than humans do.
(The number of chromosomes is NOT an indication of how advanced species is, as counterintuitive as that might be...)
2007-03-27 17:47:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jim S 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Who or what created this something that caused nothingness (not so nothingness since there was something) to become materialized?
Let's not try to understand what is not comprehensible. This is beyond us, even if we prove or disprove it with some scientific (or spiritual) theories there will be some kind of unanswered questions that will remain.
Let's see a "plausible" explanation:
Instant 0: absolute emptiness
instant 0 + n: emptiness separate in 2. Negative and positive energy so effectively nothing changed before and after since the total energy in the universe is still 0 (empty), it's just divided, if the positive energy encounter the negative energy it simply annihilates.
And now, let's say, the chaos theory proves that (the separation) can happen without the intervention of some God.
How do we explain this emptiness? Why does it exist? Why can it separate like that? And so on.
2007-03-27 19:07:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Gorilla 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Life did not start with bacteria. Bacteria are quite a few steps along the path from primordial soup to modern-day plants and animals.
It has been conclusively proven that primordial soup does give rise to amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. It has further been shown that these amino acids combine into self-replicating molecules with the capacity to mutate. That's still a far cry from single-celled organisms (like bacteria), but it's a darn good start.
As for the argument that "something can't come from nothing"... that's no argument for a creator. After all, where did the creator come from?
Saying that "the creator was always there" is fundamentally no different from saying that "the universe was always there". By tossing in a creator, you're just adding one more step of complication, without solving the problem of either 1). something having always existed or 2). something coming into existence out of nothing.
2007-03-27 17:44:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bramblyspam 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
It can be an argument, but not science. If that's what you're getting at. If you hypothesize there is a creator who is probably super intelligent and super duper being... then anything goes. Nothing about that hypothesis can be falsefied. If it is that open ended its what people refer to as pseudo science.
But do think about the fact science assumes nature can be understood using math and reasoning. Once you state our nature is caused by 'creator' you're now defering explanation and assuming somethings cannot be known by man unless you can ask that creator. Because only that creator will know why the creator created nature. If it isn't driven by natural laws.
But you can certainly make arguments for existence of some type of creator.
2007-03-27 21:22:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Evolution explains it... its becauseour minds cant stretch to that enormous a time-scale that we arent willing to believe it..
read "cosmos" by Carl Sagan... he explains in detail about primodial Soup, how it became more complicated, and then evolved etc etc...
Lightning storms had an important role to play in the creattion of primodial soup, because the high temperature caused many atmospheric gases to combine.
2007-03-27 19:36:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Vishnu Unnikrishnan 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah we are barely out of the jungle man. Give it a few decades. The human mind is capable of figuring out the Universe. It just takes time my friend. Rome wasn't built in a day.
2007-03-27 18:00:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by magicninja 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chaos theory and infinity disprove the need for an intelligent creator.
2007-03-27 17:41:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No just dumb luck. In an infinite universe even the extremely improbable can heppen.
2007-03-27 17:45:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by super_deformed_girl 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't understand....how is this question relevant to Astronomy & Space? Shouldn't you be asking this in the Biology section or the Religion & Spirituality section?
2007-03-28 08:43:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Life is an illusion.
2007-03-31 14:18:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by aceapurva 2
·
0⤊
0⤋