Illogic

According to modern scientists, our universe began with a gigantic explosion, forcing a “traumatic growth spurt before it was a billionth of a billionth of a second old.” ((“Best ever map of the early universe revealed”:http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8862&feedId=online-news_rss20)) Somewhere in there, a whole lot of matter and debris was scattered, forming our young universe, which is still, even now, rapidly expanding in an outward direction.

So, was there some kind of great big ball of dirt that contained all the elements within itself that now make up the whole of our universe, including those elements that support life on Earth? Were there already tiny microbes there that would one day evolve into the human race, microbes that were in some sort of stasis until some catalyst (the Big Bang) pushed things into a much more manageable, and therefore much less restricted, space to form planets in just the right place around newly formed stars, allowing them to be put into action to start growing and evolving? (Or did some primordial oozish chemicals combine to somehow become the first single-celled organisms?) I guess I wonder a little bit how scientists can form theories like these, when the statistical odds against such an event ever happening are enormous (to the point of being impossible). The other problem with this theory is that it still doesn’t explain where everything comes from (the origins question) because in order for matter to have somehow formed out of an explosion, it had to have already existed in the first place. ((I’ve been told that the Big Bang and evolutionary theories are completely separate entities, that conclusions made in one do not necessarily affect conclusions made in the other. The only problem with a statement like this, however, is that the very same scientists who tout evolutionary theory tout the Big Bang as the thing that got the collective evolutionary ball rolling. It seems to me that this necessarily links the two theories inseparably together.)) Exploding gases sure don’t produce matter out of thin air (no pun intended).

Or maybe the goal isn’t to solve the problem of the origins of all matter in the universe. Maybe the goal is simply to solve the question of where Man, and his environment, came from. If that’s the case, then this is a whole different horse-and-pony show because then the questions, and the subsequent sought-after answers, are very different. Still, I can’t see a genuinely curious scientist not being curious about the question of where _everything_ came from. ((I know that “probes have been sent out”:http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8848&feedId=online-news_rss20 with hopes of answering some of these questions, with not much success so far.)) Maybe Mr. Scientist doesn’t really have a hope of answering those questions because he knows science isn’t likely to produce solutions to problems that are billions of years old. Maybe he is simply trying to find out as much as he can before he dies. Maybe he is simply trying to find meaning for his life by figuring out what his infinite reference point is. ((The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once said that no finite point has any meaning without an infinite reference point.))

Meh, don’t mind me. Just a bit of philosophical rambling that was screaming for attention. (As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.)

One thought on “Illogic”

  1. So, was there some kind of great big ball of dirt that contained all the elements within itself that now make up the whole of our universe, including those elements that support life on Earth?
    Nope. All elements, including hydrogen, were formed as the universe cooled. The singularity contained no particles and no forces. That’s why it’s a singularity.

    Were there already tiny microbes there
    Obviously not

    (the Big Bang) pushed things into a much more manageable, and therefore much less restricted, space to form planets in just the right place around newly formed stars,
    That’s silly. Planets form in many solar systems, including our own, which are not capable of habitation. Yet another question of, “why, God?” for you to ask.

    (Or did some primordial oozish chemicals combine to somehow become the first single-celled organisms?)
    Basically, yes.

    I guess I wonder a little bit how scientists can form theories like these, when the statistical odds against such an event ever happening are enormous (to the point of being impossible)
    Statistical arguments are only posed by the completely ignorant, and I don’t say that to be mean. Go take two decks of cards, and shuffle them well. Deal yourself out eight cards from this deck. The probability that you will receive the hand you just received = one in ( 104 * 103 * 102 * 101 * 100 * 99 * 98 ). How did you just do that??? A MIRACLE!!! No.

    Simply put, until we understand the chemistry of abiogenesis much better, (although a lot is already known, see here and here) we cannot even BEGIN to estimate probabilities. For the “two card deck” miracle, we already knew the number of possibilities. Here, we do not know the number of possible ways that life MAY have arisen, nor on how many planets this experiment had the chance to take place (trillions of planets, no doubt).

    The other problem with this theory is that it still doesn’t explain where everything comes from (the origins question) because in order for matter to have somehow formed out of an explosion, it had to have already existed in the first place.
    And that’s a common misconception. Matter and energy are taken as uncreated and not able to be created or destroyed.

    Exploding gases sure don’t produce matter out of thin air (no pun intended).
    There was no explosion. There was an expansion of all the matter and energy from a single point (the singularity) outward.

    Maybe the goal is simply to solve the question of where Man, and his environment, came from.
    Science hopes to answer this question, yes.

    If that’s the case, then this is a whole different horse-and-pony show because then the questions, and the subsequent sought-after answers, are very different.
    ? What do you mean? If we use science to answer questions, we make naturalistic assumptions to try to piece things together. If we don’t use science, and invoke miracles instead, then there is no way to even START to piece things together. We just may as well throw our hands in the air and say, “goddidit!”

    Still, I can’t see a genuinely curious scientist not being curious about the question of where everything came from.
    I can’t see anyone not asking that question.

    Maybe Mr. Scientist doesn’t really have a hope of answering those questions because he knows science isn’t likely to produce solutions to problems that are billions of years old.
    If we didn’t have that hope, we wouldn’t be trying. Scientists are trying to make sense of the evidence, while religionists claim it is already all solved.

    Maybe he is simply trying to find out as much as he can before he dies. Maybe he is simply trying to find meaning for his life by figuring out what his infinite reference point is.
    ? Maybe…

    Meh, don’t mind me. Just a bit of philosophical rambling that was screaming for attention. (As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.)
    Feedback was given :)

Have anything to add to the conversation?