Prymordial Soup - May I talk to the Chef?

[Tsu]

Just a question...

Primordial soup -- Who made it? (or if you prefer - How did it get there?)
EDIT: OK, so I suck at spelling...[:D]

[FZ+]

Well... once upon a time there was this thing called the big bang and...

Basically, evidence is that the primordial soup has always been around - only it took us to recognise it as such. Studies of asteroid belts show such chemicals to be in high concentration, probably due to various reactions driven by solar energy. The processes that formed what we call life basically just used what was available.

[kat]

Primordial soup?
Can I make it in the microwave?![:))]

[Tsu]

Originally posted by FZ+
Well... once upon a time there was this thing called the big bang and...
How did IT get there?

Basically, evidence is that the primordial soup has always been around - only it took us to recognise it as such. Studies of asteroid belts show such chemicals to be in high concentration, probably due to various reactions driven by solar energy. The processes that formed what we call life basically just used what was available.
OK. But I'm told God has always been around, too, - just like primordial soup. So, how did these chemicals come into being?

[Tsu]

Originally posted by kat
Primordial soup?
Can I make it in the microwave?![:))]

Actually, YES! It's called Campbell's Primordial Soup. Just be careful when you open it, as it's very old! [:D]

[BoulderHead]

Prymordial soup -- Who made it?
The chef forgot to leave a forwarding address, but I’d still like mine bubbling hot, please.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
The chef forgot to leave a forwarding address, but I’d still like mine bubbling hot, please.
HEY! That's the ONLY way to serve it!!!

[Iacchus32]

Yes, but does it come with primordial slime? I think I'll have a side order of that too!

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but does it come with primordial slime? I think I'll have a side order of that too!
You can find Cup o' Slime right next to the cans of Campbell's Primordial soup at your local Big Bang Market. Use extreme caution when opening either of these products - as stated before, they are VERY old. I would think that the slime is a bit more volatile than the soup - but, that's just me.

[Tsu]

OK. This is fun - I could go on and on...

But I guess where I'm going with this is...I've read quite a few of these threads now, and I have yet to see anyone try to find common ground between creation vs evolution. Does it always have to get down to the chicken or the egg thing? Why can't God be involved in the evolutionary process? (I believe he IS.) (At least I think I do!)[s(] Why do most creationists just flat refuse to look at that possibility? Are there any out there who will look at this objectively? I find most evolutionists to be much the same. Is there just no way to blend science WITH religion? HELP!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tsunami
OK. This is fun - I could go on and on...

But I guess where I'm going with this is...I've read quite a few of these threads now, and I have yet to see anyone try to find common ground between creation vs evolution. Does it always have to get down to the chicken or the egg thing? Why can't God be involved in the evolutionary process? (I believe he IS.) (At least I think I do!)[s(] Why do most creationists just flat refuse to look at that possibility? Are there any out there who will look at this objectively? I find most evolutionists to be much the same. Is there just no way to blend science WITH religion? HELP! No, there is no way to blend science and religion, in any real sense. Sorry to disappoint you, but stick around, the veal is great!

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Zero
No, there is no way to blend science and religion, in any real sense. Sorry to disappoint you, but stick around, the veal is great!
Veal and Primordial Soup (or Can o' Slime) just don't mix. Just like beef and milk. Shouldn't be done.

Anyone else like to try this one?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Veal and Primordial Soup (or Can o' Slime) just don't mix. Just like beef and milk. Shouldn't be done.

Anyone else like to try this one? Why should they? I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong!!

Seriously, religion and science don't mix. You can throw 'God', 'Zeus', or Peewee Herman in there as a 'guiding force' behind evolution, but frankly, I think it makes any god in charge look rather weak, foolish, and incompetent. Evolution exists, and it is sloppy!

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Zero
Why should they? I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong!!

Seriously, religion and science don't mix. You can throw 'God', 'Zeus', or Peewee Herman in there as a 'guiding force' behind evolution, but frankly, I think it makes any god in charge look rather weak, foolish, and incompetent. Evolution exists, and it is sloppy!

Zero, you're SUCH an @$$hole![:D] (don't be offended - it's a term of endearment for me[:D])

I completely agree. Evolution exists and it is sloppy. Now, I KNOW from reading you in other threads that there is no way in HELL I will ever convince you of this [:D], or anything ELSE for that matter[:D] (see your first two sentences above), much less get you to even consider the possibilities. So, what...? Do we just pop this into the philosophy forum and let it die a (not so natural) death by debate? I do find it to be a fascinating concept and I can't believe that I'm the only one who feels this way. Just wondered if anyone here did, too.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Zero, you're SUCH an @$$hole![:D] (don't be offended - it's a term of endearment for me[:D])

I completely agree. Evolution exists and it is sloppy. Now, I KNOW from reading you in other threads that there is no way in HELL I will ever convince you of this [:D], or anything ELSE for that matter[:D] (see your first two sentences above), much less get you to even consider the possibilities. So, what...? Do we just pop this into the philosophy forum and let it die a (not so natural) death by debate? I do find it to be a fascinating concept and I can't believe that I'm the only one who feels this way. Just wondered if anyone here did, too. No, I mean, we can talk about it, but it is illogical to include any deity in evolution. We can go around about the fact that no design is inherent, we can debunk the idea that evolution is statistically impossible, or whatever else you want to go for. [:D] +

Mostly though, like I said, the whole process is messy but follows what we know of chemistry and biology, no supernatural force necessary. And don't even bother to try to reconcile a specific doctrine to science, like the Christian creation myth, because you'll tie your brain in knots trying to explain away all the contradictions.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Tsunami
(snip) --- I do find it to be a fascinating concept and I can't believe that I'm the only one who feels this way. Just wondered if anyone here did, too. [/B]

Belief in the "god of the gaps" is out of style these days --- it's your life, your belief, and you can do what you want to do --- just don't be too surprised when creationists and evolutionists smack you in the face for being "old-fashioned."

The god in the "god of the gaps" is unnecessary and serves no predictive purpose for the scientific side of the debate, and is deemed inadequate for the creationist side to fall on their knees and worship. Sorry 'bout that.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bystander
Belief in the "god of the gaps" is out of style these days --- it's your life, your belief, and you can do what you want to do --- just don't be too surprised when creationists and evolutionists smack you in the face for being "old-fashioned."

The god in the "god of the gaps" is unnecessary and serves no predictive purpose for the scientific side of the debate, and is deemed inadequate for the creationist side to fall on their knees and worship. Sorry 'bout that. LOL, alot of 'sorry's going around today!

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Bystander
Belief in the "god of the gaps" is out of style these days

I've never even heard of this term before! Thank you. I'll run a search on it. Why is it considered so 'old fashioned'?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tsunami
I've never even heard of this term before! Thank you. I'll run a search on it. Why is it considered so 'old fashioned'? I think it is because it doesn't do any good for anyone, really. If you assume that anything in a 'gap' in our knowledge was done by a deity, and then later it turns out to have a perfectly naturaistic explanation, your deity just got smaller.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is because it doesn't do any good for anyone, really. If you assume that anything in a 'gap' in our knowledge was done by a deity, and then later it turns out to have a perfectly naturaistic explanation, your deity just got smaller.
I wouldn't look at it as my 'diety' getting smaller, it would be that our understanding is getting larger. I believe he gave us curiosity and intelligence for a reason - and I think he wants us to constantly increase our knowledge of his universe until we finally truly find him. Yes, I'm very idealistic (pie-in-the-sky... blah, blah, blah...) but I'm a lot happier than most people I know![:D]

What does science fill the 'gaps' with? Am I gonna have to come up with some gall dang scientific-method-type test for GOD?[:D] Hmm... might be kind of a tough one, huh?[:D]

This is giving me a headache. I'm going to bed.
G'nite![:D]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tsunami
I wouldn't look at it as my 'diety' getting smaller, it would be that our understanding is getting larger. I believe he gave us curiosity and intelligence for a reason - and I think he wants us to constantly increase our knowledge of his universe until we finally truly find him. Yes, I'm very idealistic (pie-in-the-sky... blah, blah, blah...) but I'm a lot happier than most people I know![:D]

What does science fill the 'gaps' with? Am I gonna have to come up with some gall dang scientific-method-type test for GOD?[:D] Hmm... might be kind of a tough one, huh?[:D]

This is giving me a headache. I'm going to bed.
G'nite![:D]
Science fills the gaps with knowledge, and when lacking knowledge leaves the gap open. And no test can ever prove the existance of a deity.

[Tsu]

YIKES!!!! ZERO! WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE??!!
Listen, everybody! I just want y'all to know that I did NOT do that to Zero's face! We were just having a friendly little discussion here! I'm not a violent person!! REALLY!!!!

Originally posted by Zero
Science fills the gaps with knowledge, and when lacking knowledge leaves the gap open. And no test can ever prove the existance of a deity.

Good. I believe knowledge is the road to ALL things. But I also believe that, until the 'gaps' are filled - ANYTHING (and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING) is possible. I believe in the 'psi' of things.
[:D] The possibilities are just ENDLESS!! [:D] So I guess I'll just have to wait until science gets smart enough to FIND God! Yeah? OK, so I'll be waiting quite a while. That's fine. I'm very patient. (ALRIGHT! SO I'M STILL TRYING TO LEARN PATIENCE!! GET OFF MY BACK!!! [:D])

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tsunami
YIKES!!!! ZERO! WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE??!!
Listen, everybody! I just want y'all to know that I did NOT do that to Zero's face! We were just having a friendly little discussion here! I'm not a violent person!! REALLY!!!! Looks bloody awful doesn't it? [;)]

Maybe it's like one of those religious martyrs or something? [:D]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tsunami
YIKES!!!! ZERO! WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE??!!
Listen, everybody! I just want y'all to know that I did NOT do that to Zero's face! We were just having a friendly little discussion here! I'm not a violent person!! REALLY!!!!



Good. I believe knowledge is the road to ALL things. But I also believe that, until the 'gaps' are filled - ANYTHING (and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING) is possible. I believe in the 'psi' of things.
[:D] The possibilities are just ENDLESS!! [:D] So I guess I'll just have to wait until science gets smart enough to FIND God! Yeah? OK, so I'll be waiting quite a while. That's fine. I'm very patient. (ALRIGHT! SO I'M STILL TRYING TO LEARN PATIENCE!! GET OFF MY BACK!!! [:D]) The 'possibilities' may be endless, but the 'probabilities' are rather limited. The universe could have been created by a titmouse, within a ping-pong ball. It is possible, but not bloody likely!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
The 'possibilities' may be endless, but the 'probabilities' are rather limited. The universe could have been created by a titmouse, within a ping-pong ball. It is possible, but not bloody likely! Yes, but have you considered the universe from the standpoint of a titmouse, or a pin-pong ball? Both of which are universes unto themselves! How do you know that the universe wasn't expressly created for their purposes, and that ours is merely subsidiary? [6)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but have you considered the universe from the standpoint of a titmouse, or a pin-pong ball? Both of which are universes unto themselves! How do you know that the universe wasn't expressly created for their purposes, and that ours is merely subsidiary? [6)] Well, it doesn't do us any good to think that way...it isn't practical, you know?

[Phobos]

Tsunami - Your initial line of questions was looking for an initial cause. From science, that ultimate question ("where did the Big Bang come from") is unknown.

The God of the Gaps pertains to people who say "God did it" to anything science says is unknown. Of course, as science progresses, more becomes known to us and the God of the Gaps becomes smaller.

However, science is unable to prove or disprove the existence of God. You can say that God is behind it all and science cannot prove it one way or the other. It becomes a matter of faith or perhaps even leaving that question to the "unknown".

Perhaps those who have heavily engaged in the creation v. evolution debate are like "c'mon! pick a side!", but many people are still content with theistic evolution (God directed evolution) or an agnostic approach as a way to think about science & religion. Officially, science should not take a stance for/against God because there is no scientific evidence one way or the other. If God created life, then evolution certainly seems to be the way He did it. The scientific theory won't invoke God in the process because there's no material evidence that requires it (natural processes explain what we see in full...with some acknowledgement of unknowns/uncertaities).

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Phobos
Tsunami - Your initial line of questions was looking for an initial cause. From science, that ultimate question ("where did the Big Bang come from") is unknown.

The God of the Gaps pertains to people who say "God did it" to anything science says is unknown. Of course, as science progresses, more becomes known to us and the God of the Gaps becomes smaller.

However, science is unable to prove or disprove the existence of God. You can say that God is behind it all and science cannot prove it one way or the other. It becomes a matter of faith or perhaps even leaving that question to the "unknown".

Perhaps those who have heavily engaged in the creation v. evolution debate are like "c'mon! pick a side!", but many people are still content with theistic evolution (God directed evolution) or an agnostic approach as a way to think about science & religion. Officially, science should not take a stance for/against God because there is no scientific evidence one way or the other. If God created life, then evolution certainly seems to be the way He did it. The scientific theory won't invoke God in the process because there's no material evidence that requires it (natural processes explain what we see in full...with some acknowledgement of unknowns/uncertaities).


Well, that covers it very nicely, Phobos. Thank you. You De Man. (You were also able to figure out my question better than I did! That's impressive! I have always had trouble expressing my own confusions - hmm... and that sentence seems to be a pretty good example of what I mean by that!)

I guess that's me, then. Theistic evolutionist. I just really feel creation and evolution SHOULD go hand in hand SOMEHOW. I don't know how, but maybe some day...

I DO understand what Zero was saying about possibilities vs probabilities - but I'm a possibilities kind of person. Probabilities are usually big downers for me. [:D]

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Zero
The 'possibilities' may be endless, but the 'probabilities' are rather limited. The universe could have been created by a titmouse, within a ping-pong ball. It is possible, but not bloody likely!

...Bloody likely-->cute! [;)]
BUT, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE?? Did they do that to you in the religion forum? (Those stinkers!) Or were you trying to mow your gravel driveway again?[8)]

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Well, that covers it very nicely, Phobos. Thank you. You De Man. (You were also able to figure out my question better than I did! That's impressive! I have always had trouble expressing my own confusions - hmm... and that sentence seems to be a pretty good example of what I mean by that!)


Guess I've been doing this too long! [:D]


I guess that's me, then. Theistic evolutionist. I just really feel creation and evolution SHOULD go hand in hand SOMEHOW. I don't know how, but maybe some day...


You may find this page interesting (the creation v evolution spectrum)...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?

This little argument that everything needs a progenitor

is a little flawed.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?
Dang good question. The religious say "God always was". Where's the logic in that? The non-religious say "Man made God".


This little argument that everything needs a progenitor
is a little flawed.
Why? (Please tell me. I want to learn!) How can there just be nothing and then, all of a sudden, SOMETHING? Doesn't there have to be a kicker in there somewhere to get the 'something' going? (BTW, which DID come first? The chicken or the egg?[s(])

It seems to me that there will never be answers to these and like questions. What it gets down to is "You pays yer money and you takes yer choice". I tend to side with Pasqual. He seemed like a pretty smart guy...[:D]

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Why? Because you can always ask what created the progenitor. Asking what created the big bang is no more a valid question than what created god.

Chicken or the egg? It was the egg. Since chickens evolved from other birds.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?

This little argument that everything needs a progenitor

is a little flawed. I would venture to say that the "immaterial" existed before the material, and has "always" existed in this respect. [;)]

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I would venture to say that the "immaterial" existed before the material, and has "always" existed in this respect. [;)]
How did I know you'd say something like that? [;)]

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Why? Because you can always ask what created the progenitor. Asking what created the big bang is no more a valid question than what created god.
That's the point I was heading toward. So why is so dang much fighting on this forum? Nothing can ever be proven and there is no evidence on either side, right? (or have I missed something somewhere and someone came up with some REAL evidence?[:D])Believers in God:how about a response to Chemicalsuperfreak's statement above.

Chicken or the egg? It was the egg. Since chickens evolved from other birds.
I've never heard this answer before!! Sorry to ask,[:D] but, EVIDENCE?[8)]

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Tsunami
I've never heard this answer before!! Sorry to ask,[:D] but, EVIDENCE?[8)]

See the theory of evolution. Chickens evolved from a chicken-like ancestor which layed eggs too. And it would seem that the ancestral birds came from egg-laying dinos which came from egg-laying reptiles, etc. etc. etc. In short, there were eggs in the world long before there were chickens.

Now the question can be returned to confusion if you restate it as "which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?"

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Phobos
See the theory of evolution. Chickens evolved from a chicken-like ancestor which layed eggs too. And it would seem that the ancestral birds came from egg-laying dinos which came from egg-laying reptiles, etc. etc. etc. In short, there were eggs in the world long before there were chickens.

Now the question can be returned to confusion if you restate it as "which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?"
Alrighty, then!! "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?" [:D]

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Alrighty, then!! "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?" [:D]
The primordial soup! [:D]

[drag]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Alrighty, then!! "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?" [:D]
Abviously the chicken-egg - once you decide that
a certain DNA mutation of a certain previous species
is now that of a chicken then abviously this creature
is first born in an egg to its non-chicken parents. [;)]
Once a creature is born it's DNA won't change.

Live long and prosper.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by drag
Abviously the chicken-egg - once you decide that
a certain DNA mutation of a certain previous species
is now that of a chicken then abviously this creature
is first born in an egg to its non-chicken parents. [;)]
Once a creature is born it's DNA won't change.
Hmmmm.... what caused the mutation?

Live long and prosper.
Thank you - and you, as well.[:D]

[drag]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Hmmmm.... what caused the mutation?

Abviously, a chemical and/or electrical energy
imbalance in the sperm or egg (it could even be a
nuclear imbalance if caused by an occasional
cosmic ray) which affected the DNA/RNA. [;)]

[Tsu]

Originally posted by drag
Abviously, a chemical and/or electrical energy
imbalance in the sperm or egg (it could even be a
nuclear imbalance if caused by an occasional
cosmic ray) which affected the DNA/RNA. [;)]
Hmm... Abviously? [:D] Ah. Abviously. [;)] Where'd the cosmic ray come from? (Ah. Wait. I know that one. The cosmos. Abviously.) Where'd the cosmos come from?

[Astrophysics]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?

This little argument that everything needs a progenitor

is a little flawed.


Some would call me a religious man, some would not.
But I see God as hope, as a refuge.
I see God as a mentor who helps us choose the right path, the rest is up to ourselves.

[Marshall]

The Chicken came first, God made the Chicken

Proof: What would lay on the chicken-egg to fertilize it, if Chickens didn't exist yet[:D]

[Phobos]

chicken vs. chicken egg?

Neither. Populations evolve, not individuals. There was no single first chicken or egg...it was a gradual shift of a large number of individuals...the traits of which would fit a bell curve* (statistically speaking) and not a sudden appearance.

* bell curve representating variation within a population...during the transitional period (which has no definite beginning/end anyway), the bell curves for different traits and population subgroups would overlap

It's one big gray area. [;)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
No, there is no way to blend science and religion, in any real sense. This appears to be the one issue where Zero and I actually agree. Dang good question. The religious say "God always was". Where's the logic in that? The non-religious say "Man made God". Not quie, Tsunami. The religious would say "God just IS." If God created the universe, he created time. So "always" doesn't apply.

This also reveals the flaw in the "who created God?" question. If something exists outside of time, there is no "creation." He just IS. Ask any variation of the question you want (ie, "if he wasn't created, how did he 'come to be'?" - same diff) - they are all equally invalid.

This is also the fundamental reason why religion and science are icompatible in the most basic way. There quite simply isn't any reason for God to exist. He just IS. Religion is all about God's motives and actions has nothing to do with his identity and "history". Why? How? When? Those are scientific questions and have no relevance whatsoever to religion.