Completely irrelevant! Whatever form it existed of, energy or matter, and wherever it came from, it had to be created at some point.
If the matter was in the form of energy, the energy had to be created. If it was in a parallel dimension or something along those lines, it had to be created there too.
Sorry added an "en" (though panentheism is a type of theism too).
Pantheism - For the pantheist there is no Creator beyonf the univderse; rather, Creator and creation are two different ways of viewing one reality. God is the universe (or the All) and the universe is God; there is, ultimately, only one reality. Pantheism is represented by certain forms of Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, Christian Science, and most New Age religions.
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Also, evolutionary theorists run in to MAJOR problems when they try to explain how something like a cell evolved.A human cell for example, as many of you probably know, is made up of (among other things) mitochondria, the nucleus, ribosomes, lysosomes, edoplasmic reticulum, the golgi apparatus, and so forth. If so much as ONE of these components does not function, or were not present, the entire cell would not function, would die, or have otherwise adverse effects. In fact, the cell would likely fall apart and would not be cohesive.
Assume human beings evolved from amino acids, to simple cells, to complex cells, and so on and so on, to apes, and finally to huamans. All throughout this evolution, it would be required that each and every part of the cell would have to evolve 100% perfectly so as to function on its own and also so as to function as a part of the overall celullar system. The cell must start out from random amino acids, and progress PERFECTLY all along the way. Each time one component changes, all the rest much change so as to work with the first changed one, but also they must keep working not only on their own but also with all of the other componenets that are now also required to change.
I wish I could more aptly express what I am trying to. In any case, evolutionary scientists stear clear of this topic because they don't want anything to do with it.
Those who believe abiogenesis to be improbable:
[list=1][*]Are calculating the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events.
[*]Assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
[*]Are calculating the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
[*]Misunderstand what is meant by a "probability calculation."
[*]Seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[/list]
Furthermore, irreducible complexity does not consider evolutionary mechanisms such as functional change and co-evolution, nor does specified complexity explain sub-optimal characteristics in organisms.
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Completely irrelevant! Whatever form it existed of, energy or matter, and wherever it came from, it had to be created at some point.If the matter was in the form of energy, the energy had to be created. If it was in a parallel dimension or something along those lines, it had to be created there too.
According to whom? There is no evidence that matter is subject to efficient causation. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics supports the principle that matter has always existed.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEProton decay eliminates the possibility that it has. It's the reason astrophysicists dropped the popular theory of the oscillating universe.
According to whom? There is no evidence that matter is subject to efficient causation. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics supports the principle that matter has always existed.
Co-evolution insofar as it would relate to a cell's development is simply impossible. It's equivalent to saying that an infinite number of monkeys writing on an infinite number of typewriters for infinity would eventually lead to one monkey writing the complete works of Shakespere. The difference is that the universe has not existed infinitely.
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Proton decay eliminates the possibility that it has. It's the reason astrophysicists dropped the popular theory of the oscillating universe.
According to the model of quantum physics, protons are not stable at all.
Originally posted by Lazerlike42
Co-evolution insofar as it would relate to a cell's development is simply impossible. It's equivalent to saying that an infinite number of monkeys writing on an infinite number of typewriters for infinity would eventually lead to one monkey writing the complete works of Shakespere. The difference is that the universe has not existed infinitely.
That is interesting because it occurs frequently in the development of RNA ribozyme-protein enzymes.