Jump to content
S.M.H.A.

Think out of the Box: Universe/Human/Sequoia

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I like to solicit your constructive comments on the following Idea.

Science has penetrated our lives and how important it has become. To the extent that some are using as a the only tool to understand the Higher realities and shunning philosophy/religion.

Are we been misled here, by the glamour and newnes of something that we have just started to discover. Are we worshiping Science as new God. When man discovered fire, it was a new discovery, probably started worshiping it.

Creation of the Universe(as we know of it), is been described as something out of nothing, our out of a singularity, or a single dot that contained all that we see today, and the process is described as a random process which took place over billions of years and different processed Evolved and formed new elements and stars and galaxies and basically, environment based evolution. Random, with no DNA/Map that it followed.

How is it different from these processes> Potential or every thing/building blocks on everything/ existed in the following processes.

Process: A fertilized human egg to full grown Human.

Process: A seed to full grown giant Sequoia tree

Process: Singularity to Current Universe

What Science describes with much fanfare and dramatization (if you watch any Bigbang Video)

Imagine a video describing the the initial stages of a fertilized human egg and all stages/periods with the development it goes(all subsystems and processes)  through till it reach adulthood(full complete body).

Or a growth of a Sequoia Tree seed, all steps till its a Giant Tree.

We know that all the different stages of development, have a guide and its the DNA, same is true for a Sequoia Tree, it follows a map.

Similarly, if you substitute the scientific terminology and fanfare with simple periods of stages and describe each stages from Singularity to what we know of the universe. Its has followed a map, its systems are growing according to a pre defined system(at a Macro level).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short:

Basically challenging the notion of environment based evolution. Each and everything has a DNA, Map, that guides it. Nothing happens just because all the elements existed and the condition were right for it to exist or develop out of thin air - just random product of the environment.

For the naked eye it may seem this way but it's not.

Potential for everything exists in the original like the first matter(dot) , seed, human egg everything develops based on a preplanned system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mashallah, very well written. I've been thinking the same thing. It just doesn't make sence for the universe to pop out of thin air. But unfortunately as you said both philosophy and religion is being looked down in modern society because everyone thinks they're "superiorly intelligent" because of science.

If someone is thinking outside the box everyone thinks he's some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jizzaiah Shahzad said:

Mashallah, very well written. I've been thinking the same thing. It just doesn't make sence for the universe to pop out of thin air. But unfortunately as you said both philosophy and religion is being looked down in modern society because everyone thinks they're "superiorly intelligent" because of science.

If someone is thinking outside the box everyone thinks he's some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist...

It does not make sense for things to happen in a random manner and without any purpose. Everything has a purpose. I would not worry about what others think.  

Reason people with Purely Scientific knowledge are winning. It is our sense of inferiority/insecurity developed out of lack of knowledge about religion that we are not able to articulate our position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Singularity to Universe" is a mathematical construction to form an explanation.

Seed and Embryo are the start points for replication sequences (growth).

It is the evilgelicals that started the hype "science as another god". Short explanation: the difference between a science and a philosophy is that a science is self-correcting. Religion is a rite separate from philosophy[don't forget the change of Qibla]. Faith in lslam is belief in Allah-s.w.t., al-Haqq-s.w.t. and His-s.w.t. Last Day. That writ: postulate, only a blasphemer can correct a god.

Like l wrote, it is hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

"Singularity to Universe" is a mathematical construction to form an explanation.

Seed and Embryo are the start points for replication sequences (growth).

It is the evilgelicals that started the hype "science as another god". Short explanation: the difference between a science and a philosophy is that a science is self-correcting. Religion is a rite separate from philosophy[don't forget the change of Qibla]. Faith in lslam is belief in Allah-s.w.t., al-Haqq-s.w.t. and His-s.w.t. Last Day. That writ: postulate, only a blasphemer can correct a god.

Like l wrote, it is hype.

Assume I am a uneducated Villager. Instead of using concentrated/compact words or Scientific terminology . use very simple words that uneducated Villager can understand.

You have a lot packed in this response. Let, take baby steps.

I am not looking for the mechanics- the cause at this point.

1)What is replication.

2)What causes something to replicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Assume I am a uneducated Villager. Instead of using concentrated/compact words or Scientific terminology . use very simple words that uneducated Villager can understand.

You have a lot packed in this response. Let, take baby steps.

I am not looking for the mechanics- the cause at this point.

1)What is replication.

2)What causes something to replicate.

1] DNA w/RNA determined

2] Energy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2017 at 2:54 PM, hasanhh said:

1] DNA w/RNA determined

2] Energy

Let’s demystify this DNA acronym. 

Quote

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA).

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.

An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

Periodic Table- If you look form the lightest to the heaviest elements - it follows a structure, template, process, it has a pattern

Numbers  1+1=2   2+1=3  3+1=4 4+1=5   ,,, after 9 we add One Zero to make 10, it repeats, copy 10+1= 11 ……..

We do the same for 1-9 till be reach 100. (Two Zero’s ) , repeat or copy the pattern, sequence (whatever Name we assign to this process) it continues with 000, 0000, ---infinity.

As you see nothing is random, it's all sequences, Structure, patterns, copying, Replicating  etc….

Energy is an element that facilitates the function, not the cause..

Cause if it's the right word - is a template, Map that Guides the process/growth of Universe/Human/Sequoia Tree from point A till end.  Point A being a stage of having All the potential, Basic Stuff which will develop in to Universe/Human/Sequoia Tree. 

The Template or the Map, Guide, is a common denominator in the development of The Universe, Human and Sequoia Tree …..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2017 at 11:12 PM, S.M.H.A. said:

In short:

Basically challenging the notion of environment based evolution. Each and everything has a DNA, Map, that guides it. Nothing happens just because all the elements existed and the condition were right for it to exist or develop out of thin air - just random product of the environment.

For the naked eye it may seem this way but it's not.

Potential for everything exists in the original like the first matter(dot) , seed, human egg everything develops based on a preplanned system.

Saw your post on my other topic.  Well, there are of course, theistic evolutionists, muslims and christians who believe in God, while believing biological descent with modification is a way in which God has created us.  As you said, for the naked eye, scientific finds may be viewed in naturalistic ways.  But, they also can be viewed in theistic supernatural ways as well.

I think that theists are hesitant to embrace new discoveries, but in that, materialists might "claim ownership" over discoveries and attribute natural processes to a sort of Godless worldview.  However, I see no reason God couldnt operate through natural means, and so we ought to stake claim and give praise to the Lord.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s look at this from a different angle.

 

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory. Is not even followed in its True sense.

 

If we move away from the mechanics of things. And look at it conceptually.

This mean, as a Human, I need to survive and not only survive but be the Fittest.

What does this really imply, in term sof the following concepts?

 

Physical Health

Mental Health

Substance Abuse

Alternative life styles

Safe Driving etc…

Staying out of Prison

Other Vices that could shorted or cut my life or chances to procreate and/or secure my generation's survival.

 

Staying Healthy till we reach the age. Selection of a Partner to procreate.(not only physical, but mentally/spiritually, morally, ethically fit)

After procreation ensuring that my next and future generation can not only survive but be the fittest. Mean providing the best possible environment for the kids to grow. This will involve a Very Happy/Moral/ethical  and Secure Marriage Life for the benefits of the next generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few Posts that will address the Basics: before we can use and connect the Dots.

From https://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

The Standard Model.

The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.

Matter particles

All matter around us is made of elementary particles, the building blocks of matter. These particles occur in two basic types called quarks and leptons. Each group consists of six particles, which are related in pairs, or “generations”. The lightest and most stable particles make up the first generation, whereas the heavier and less stable particles belong to the second and third generations. All stable matter in the universe is made from particles that belong to the first generation; any heavier particles quickly decay to the next most stable level. The six quarks are paired in the three generations – the “up quark” and the “down quark” form the first generation, followed by the “charm quark” and “strange quark”, then the “top quark” and “bottom (or beauty) quark”. Quarks also come in three different “colours” and only mix in such ways as to form colourless objects. The six leptons are similarly arranged in three generations – the “electron” and the “electron neutrino”, the “muon” and the “muon neutrino”, and the “tau” and the “tau neutrino”. The electron, the muon and the tau all have an electric charge and a sizeable mass, whereas the neutrinos are electrically neutral and have very little mass.

Forces and carrier particles

There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range. The electromagnetic force also has infinite range but it is many times stronger than gravity. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles. Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three. The strong force, as the name suggests, is the strongest of all four fundamental interactions.

Three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called “bosons”. Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson – the strong force is carried by the “gluon”, the electromagnetic force is carried by the “photon”, and the “W and Z bosons” are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the “graviton” should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity.

The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains well how these forces act on all of the matter particles.

However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are difficult to fit into a single framework. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model. But luckily for particle physics, when it comes to the minuscule scale of particles, the effect of gravity is so weak as to be negligible. Only when matter is in bulk, at the scale of the human body or of the planets for example, does the effect of gravity dominate. So the Standard Model still works well despite its reluctant exclusion of one of the fundamental forces.

So far so good, but...

...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity. There are also important questions that it does not answer, such as “What is dark matter?”, or “What happened to the antimatter after the big bang?”, “Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons with such a different mass scale?” and more. Last but not least is a particle called the Higgs boson, an essential component of the Standard Model.

On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson but it will take further work to determine whether or not it is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model.

On 8 October 2013 the Nobel prize in physics was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider."

So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete. Perhaps it is only a part of a bigger picture that includes new physics hidden deep in the subatomic world or in the dark recesses of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang

In 1929 the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far-away galaxies were proportional to their redshifts. Redshift occurs when a light source moves away from its observer: the light's apparent wavelength is stretched via the Doppler effect towards the red part of the spectrum. Hubble’s observation implied that distant galaxies were moving away from us, as the furthest galaxies had the fastest apparent velocities. If galaxies are moving away from us, reasoned Hubble, then at some time in the past, they must have been clustered close together.

Hubble’s discovery was the first observational support for Georges Lemaître’s Big Bang theory of the universe, proposed in 1927. Lemaître proposed that the universe expanded explosively from an extremely dense and hot state, and continues to expand today. Subsequent calculations have dated this Big Bang to approximately 13.7 billion years ago. In 1998 two teams of astronomers working independently at Berkeley, California observed that supernovae – exploding stars – were moving away from Earth at an accelerating rate. This earned them the Nobel prize in physics in 2011(link is external). Physicists had assumed that matter in the universe would slow its rate of expansion; gravity would eventually cause the universe to fall back on its centre. Though the Big Bang theory cannot describe what the conditions were at the very beginning of the universe, it can help physicists describe the earliest moments after the start of the expansion.

Origins

In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas. Heavier atoms such as carbon, oxygen and iron, have since been continuously produced in the hearts of stars and catapulted throughout the universe in spectacular stellar explosions called supernovae.

But stars and galaxies do not tell the whole story. Astronomical and physical calculations suggest that the visible universe is only a tiny amount (4%) of what the universe is actually made of. A very large fraction of the universe, in fact 26%, is made of an unknown type of matter called "dark matter". Unlike stars and galaxies, dark matter does not emit any light or electromagnetic radiation of any kind, so that we can detect it only through its gravitational effects. 

An even more mysterious form of energy called “dark energy” accounts for about 70% of the mass-energy content of the universe. Even less is known about it than dark matter. This idea stems from the observation that all galaxies seems to be receding from each other at an accelerating pace, implying that some invisible extra energy is at work.

https://home.cern/about/physics/early-universe

Anti Matter

https://home.cern/topics/antimatter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (Λ), as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html

{"When you encounter the question of "how much," you probably think of the force of gravity being determined by a universal gravitational constantG, and of the "energy of a particle" being determined by its rest mass, such as the mass of an electron, me. You think of the speed of light, c, and for quantum mechanics, Planck's constant, ħ. But physicists don't like to use these constants when we describe the Universe, because these constants have arbitrary dimensions and units to them."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/08/22/it-takes-26-fundamental-constants-to-give-us-our-universe-but-they-still-dont-give-everything/#2dc17ee64b86

 

Quote

1. Natural Selection and Evolutionary Theory

They theory of evolution by natural selection forms a central part of modern evolutionary theory. There is some controversy among biologists as to just how important natural selection is compared to other processes producing evolutionary change, but there is no controversy over the proposition that natural selection is important. Some good might come of the efforts to produce a general selection theory that would include the natural selection that occurs as a part of the evolutionary process as a special case (e.g. Hull 2001), but here the focus will be solely on the evolutionary process.

Biology starts when reproduction begins. Stars may be said to evolve, but they do not reproduce and so biological theory does not apply to them. Biological evolution requires reproducing entities that form lineages. It is these lineages that evolve. Thus it is only within such lineages that we will properly apply the term natural selection.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-selection/#NatSelEvoThe

BNS ( Biological Natural Selection) .

Universal Constants

Fundamental Particles/Forces 

Use of Infinity. (concept )

Kindly, consider All the Above when confronted with BNS / Evolution angle, which is only one part of the equation. Look at DNA- Singularity- etc...

Ask the question of what are the fundamental particles/elements/building blocks/ forces before any kind of Evolution talk. Because you are been directed to the secondary processes and their case will cease to exist in its entirety if we ask basic questions.

 

Did these fundamental force Evolve? 

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


BNS: Biological Natural Selection.

Evolution:  Biological /Cosmic Evolution ( Cosmic Natural Selection)


 

(0)Zero and (1) Ones: All basic Computer algorithms

Yes and No

Good and Evil

 

Science is a study of us and our immediate and far environment. It gives us insight or we may call it when we study - our bodies and what's around us -reveals its structure/mysteries to us. It's a method/process and it involves many assumption /constants to fix our understanding. It is a Fluid system,  with no certainty, it's not reliable and has its limitation so the Unlimited or Infinity can’t be grasped with its. Its gives us clues and the process itself uses derivative and deduction methods to formulate fluid theories.

Before 1930 Universe model was Static. It is, from infinity( what infinitely, no one has seen it or defined it ). Time and Space existed since infinity.

Even with the Big Bang model- Singularity- is assumed- Intensely Hot, intensely dense particle. Define intensely/eternally they will say Infinitely hot, infinitely small and infinitely dense. When do we lab test this Infinity number or concept. We deduced it /logical conclusion.

Cosmic evolution has a patterns and its structured. What about the before Planck time/length. Our laws do not apply. What about a similar concept that our reasoning only goes to a certain point and beyond that it's fails.  This knowledge is provided to us by the process of study or thinking about things.

If the Universe is not static. Singularity comes into play, as it is expanding we can go back in time and apply the equations at a time it was small till we reach - Infinity small- We will reach a state with a particle which is infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense and it explored with Infinite force and its expanding towards infinity.

An infinity Force can only accomplish this infinite task - Once this Singularity explored/expanded/grew there were Basic elements and basic and fundamental forces at work? We are directed towards the aftermath- and its subsequent cosmic evolution.

To a layman like me, it's not different - Universe out of Singularity, Human out of a Singularity, or Sequoia Tree out of a Singularity-. Singularity been a state with all the basic fundamental elements and forces and Guidance present for expansion/growth/change of state/increase/next level/next grade/next step in the process/evolution and formation of complex substances(elements/structures/origins/bark/;leaves etc…)

Layman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

evolution (n.) 

1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve). 

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=evolution

Quote

Physicists tell us that following the big bang the only element in existence was hydrogen, the simplest in the periodic table. It was from these humble beginnings that the remaining ninety odd increasingly complex elements and their vastly more numerous and complex combinations were gradually synthesised as eons passed. This points to the existence of a natural law which is embedded in the nature of atomic physics and provides the potential of “evolution” of more complex elements from simpler ones. One could argue that it is this law of striving complexity that drove matter towards the emergence of increasingly complex molecules out of the basic elements followed by the emergence of the building blocks necessary for the appearance of a first selfreplicating entity.

Quote

The second difficulty I have is related to the spontaneous appearance of information carrying replicating systems and ultimately of what one may call mentality. At the pre-biotic stage of evolution, Darwinian competition cannot, by definition, assist the evolution process. Natural selection requires that primitive life is already there for the process to begin. The assumption is therefore made that “mindless and blind” unguided processes have spontaneously resulted in a self-replicating entity that encodes information, the precursor of the information carrying DNA. This process has been described by some as “evolution of the gaps” to rhyme with “God of the gaps.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187878/#R1

Quote

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

*****

I assume this is  intelligent design site so keep that in mind 

"The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution"

 http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

*****

Big question that we Lyman need to understand is that the process and mechanics of things are very dazzling and we should not get caught up in that. The Core issue is the Overall Force, Basic elements, which are required before any type of change/progress/evolution can take place is usually shipped over by design or due to the inability to answer these fundamental questions which will reduce the impact of these theories down to just some thing that describes the mechanics of things nothing more than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kazuhira
On 4/19/2017 at 0:45 PM, S.M.H.A. said:

I like to solicit your constructive comments on the following Idea.

Science has penetrated our lives and how important it has become. To the extent that some are using as a the only tool to understand the Higher realities and shunning philosophy/religion.

Are we been misled here, by the glamour and newnes of something that we have just started to discover. Are we worshiping Science as new god. When man discovered fire, it was a new discovery, probably started worshiping it.

Creation of the Universe(as we know of it), is been described as something out of nothing, our out of a singularity, or a single dot that contained all that we see today, and the process is described as a random process which took place over billions of years and different processed Evolved and formed new elements and stars and galaxies and basically, environment based evolution. Random, with no DNA/Map that it followed.

How is it different from these processes> Potential or every thing/building blocks on everything/ existed in the following processes.

Process: A fertilized human egg to full grown Human.

Process: A seed to full grown giant Sequoia tree

Process: Singularity to Current Universe

What Science describes with much fanfare and dramatization (if you watch any Bigbang Video)

Imagine a video describing the the initial stages of a fertilized human egg and all stages/periods with the development it goes(all subsystems and processes)  through till it reach adulthood(full complete body).

Or a growth of a Sequoia Tree seed, all steps till its a Giant Tree.

We know that all the different stages of development, have a guide and its the DNA, same is true for a Sequoia Tree, it follows a map.

Similarly, if you substitute the scientific terminology and fanfare with simple periods of stages and describe each stages from Singularity to what we know of the universe. Its has followed a map, its systems are growing according to a pre defined system(at a Macro level).

Empirical science can not explore any area beyond physical reality, its tools are not compatible with the nature of higher realities. So if empirical scientists accept only what they can experiment on then they are followers of empiricism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...