Poll
What came first...
Bigg Boss 19: Daily Discussion Thread - 2nd Oct 2025
HEY JINDAGI 2.10
DADI AS BOOTH 1.10
Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai Oct 2, 2025 Episode Discussion Thread
What are the professional achievements of gabhira
Mannat Har Khushi Paane Ki: Episode Discussion Thread - 29
Gen 5 News article Mila
Deepika & Farah Khan; Some Serious Tension Or Is There? 👀
Sonam Kapoor is in her family way ? (2nd baby)
SRK Enters Billionaire Club
Bingo Blitz - The Ultimate Showdown (Sign-up)
🏏India vs West Indies, 1st Test: N M Stadium, Ahmedabad🏏
Sunny Sanskari Ki Tulsi Kumari opens well!!
🎉 New Fun Quizzes Are Live on India Forums! 🎉
Abhishek Seeks Legal Action On Salman Ash AI Generated Videos
The Manuscript Marauders Bingo Challenge Thread
What do you folks think about this???
Literary Looters 💰🤑 Book Bingo Discussions | October 2025 BTRC
The Literary Looters 💰 | Book Talk Reading Challenge October 2025
To everyone disliking Amaal, Baseer, et al…
Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.
If I have two buckets, one filled with null hypotheses and another with alternative hypotheses, I could always make sure that the bucket filled with null hypotheses has at least one more than the bucket filled with alternative hypothesis by introducing just one extra condition that is not considered in the null hypothesis that has just been refuted.
So, if for instance you create life in laboratory, using all the inorganic compounds that are the constituents of life, and refute one null hypothesis, I would introduce a condition that says that life couldn't have been created when early earth only had a reducing atmosphere with no free oxygen.
The technical details are not terribly important to this topic. Only point is that you will always be chasing to disprove one miracle after another and unless you want to bet that time is infinite, and human race will be there till the end of time, there will always be at least one null hypothesis left that is not refuted.
The argument is always debatable with the evolution theory that the Ho actually favors the origin of life over purely evolutionary forces, thus the scientist can not prove it. Basically if the life originated from random biological chemical reactions, then that should be verifiable and reproducible, because science cannot exactly recreate the environmental conditions of the earth as it was billions of years ago, then reproducibility is impossible, and therefore the evolutionary theory of the origin of life cannot be proven. In short the Ho cannot be disproved.
Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.
Is there a way to type subscripts in the editor provided by IF or did you copy/paste the Ho?
Ho: IF do not allow you to type subscripts.
H1: IF will not allow you to type subscripts.
The logic is sound; however, reproducing early earth conditions in a laboratory might not be as hard as you think. When they are close to reproducing early universe conditions using Large Hadron Collider, reproducing a little "prebiotic/primordial soup" and/or hydrothermal vents shouldn't be such a hard nut to crack.
Question is, even if you "fine-tune" your experiments to create life (assuming life could be created in a laboratory), how do you deny "fine-tuning" from another intelligent entity when explaining everything in front of us?
Agree, but then this leads to another topic of discussion, which I am not sure it's suitable for this thread. Human/Animal Cloning! If the DNA and manipulation of
individual genes can create clones, then the question remains is that does it create a revolution or evolution?
A recommend reading...if your interested; The Evolution of Aging by Theodore Goldsmith
Renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has recently stated that God is not necessary for our Universe to exist and that Heaven is a "fairy story." As an Orthodox Christian physicist, I must disagree. Science seeks, via physical observation, to discern the mechanisms governing the Natural world. Science cannot experiment outside of our Universe which constitutes the realm of metaphysics and religion. By understanding these physical laws (e.g. quantum mechanics), we can better predict our Universe's evolution in time and, so the reasoning goes, predict "simpler" events such as stock market crashes, global warming, and other nonlinear phenomena.
The Universe, in Hawking's view, created itself out of nothing because Natural laws existed before the Big Bang and the Universe is merely obeying immutable laws that have somehow existed before, during, and after time. This is similar to a clock ticking without an outside operator (as long as its spring is wound i.e. has energy, who winds the clock is irrelevant in this vein of thinking).
In Hawking's view, despite the infinitely possible values of electron charge, the speed of light, Planck's constant, proton mass, etc. (which all couple with the four fundamental forces and which were "just right" to enable life to evolve), the Universe arrived in its' present form as an accident of nothingness because of gravity and the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces) that existed before the universe.
Human beings, are merely assemblies of quantum particles - robotic computers - capable of rational, linear, and scientific thought - and somehow also capable of irrational, nonlinear, and "emotional" thoughts (even love) which drive many to irrationally believe in a supernatural God as an antidote to the "scary" "darkness" and to seek purpose to our "accidental" and thereby ultimately meaningless existence.
Though Prof. Hawking's views that God is not necessary for the creation and operation of the Universe are certainly feasible, science alone cannot prove or disprove them. Science is unable to determine what happened before the dawn of time when just before the Big Bang, all of the energy in the Universe was widely believed to be a singularity in space and time.
How the Universe has been able to expand into nothing (just as a balloon expands into the atmosphere) and what existed before the Big Bang are unanswerable questions for scientists because we cannot perform experiments outside of the boundary conditions of spacetime.
Hawking is correct that we can't prove God's existence but neither can we prove God's nonexistence. God, the Creator of our universe, is likely outside of our Universe just as Michelangelo existed outside of his famous paintings (and perhaps He may even exist inside it as well as a four dimensional projection of infinity).
As such, we cannot "prove" God's existence within the framework of Natural physical laws that govern our current Universe. However, as one can study a well constructed sports car and, not knowing its' designer, discern intelligence and beauty associated with the machine, so is it with our Universe. The more I learn about the amazing ways that the physical world works, the more inspired I am that there must be a higher intelligence subtly behind it. To me, science and religion are complementary - not contradictory endeavors of the human intellect and it is unfortunate that so much effort is squandered in conflict between religious extremists and atheists. God's existence cannot be proven within the framework of natural laws - we can only have faith that God exists. There can be no rational debate about God because it really boils down to matters of faith.
Some of the world's greatest physicists such as Nikola Tesla, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein believed in a God. Deeply religious Newton was labeled a "heretic" in part because he advocated the notion of an "invisible" gravitational field that governed the celestial motion of planets around the sun and beyond.
In fact, physicists' belief that physical laws pervade and govern the entire Universe is a matter of faith as we have never even visited our star's nearest neighbor (Alfa Centauri) to prove this let alone visited the other 100 billion stars in our galaxy that is one out of an estimated 100 billion galaxies in our mostly empty and astonishingly vast Universe.
Sadly for humanity, we find that there are powerful and ubiquitous efforts to discredit religion to create a "new" world order in the spirit of "worship of the Golden Calf" and thus rescind any moral foundation of society and thus bring us to the natural laws of the jungle (i.e. chaos/might makes right).
There are also efforts from some "religious" extremists to convert everyone to their religion or slaughter those who do not subscribe to the tenets of their faith such as the efforts of the Croatian Catholic Church and the Vatican to convert over 200,000 Serbian Orthodox Christians to Catholicism and slaughter roughly one million Serbs, Jews and Gypsies during WWII. These extremists use religion as a political tool and are no more religious than atheists.
We should devote our energies toward seeking truth/performing experiments - delving into the infinite natural and spiritual mysteries of this material world. We should also respect the right to disagree on matters of faith rather than battling one another on issues that cannot be resolved within our short and physically-constrained but infinitely mysterious existence.
Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.
Is there a way to type subscripts in the editor provided by IF or did you copy/paste the Ho?
The logic is sound; however, reproducing early earth conditions in a laboratory might not be as hard as you think. When they are close to reproducing early universe conditions using Large Hadron Collider, reproducing a little "prebiotic/primordial soup" and/or hydrothermal vents shouldn't be such a hard nut to crack.
Question is, even if you "fine-tune" your experiments to create life (assuming life could be created in a laboratory), how do you deny "fine-tuning" from another intelligent entity when explaining everything in front of us?
Mister. K, actually recreating the conditions of pre-historic earth are much more difficult than physics experiment attempting to recreate the big bang and other space phenomenon. At this point biological origins of life appear to be a harder nut to crack than the most complex quantum physics. Scientists have tried but have been unable to recreate the organic ecosystem that spawned the first cyanobacteria and catapulted generations of ecosystem.
The thing is that even if we recreate a sort of sterile ecosystem that spontaneously spawns life, we have no guarantee that it would be the same unicellular organisms that first spawned on earth and eventually led to the world we're in. We could be spawning a whole different strand of evolution. Evolution itself is a complex and strange procedure. A large part of evolution is chance and probability, the right components at, the right place at the right time. If we rewind time for the human genome back to the Neanderthal era and hit play again, we could evolve into a different hominid species in itself or maybe even go extinct.
We observe evolution perpetually, species are adapting to change, human genes are mutating, we see links across species, we see evolution through time – but at the same time there are many gaps we don't know and questions we cannot answer. That is why creationists and proponents of intelligent design can sometimes feel they have a strong case against evolution. Only a divine designer or God could create our world, scientists can't and won't understand our world. Ironically for me it's things like evolution that make me doubt doctrinal Gods, such mindboggling complexity of science and probability – there is much more truth out there to know and learn. We only kid ourselves to think we are made in the image of something so much more profound.
Originally posted by: return_to_hades
The thing is that even if we recreate a sort of sterile ecosystem that spontaneously spawns life, we have no guarantee that it would be the same unicellular organisms that first spawned on earth and eventually led to the world we're in. We could be spawning a whole different strand of evolution.
Yes, I read something similar along those lines.
The question I was trying to raise in my last post on this thread was constructed around this background: The synthetic DNA that Craig Venter and his team created last year a) is that of the simplest possible bacterium cell b) involved use of super computers c) still had to be inserted into another living cell to see if it can self-replicate.
The question then becomes - if you had to rely on intelligence (human and computer) to produce the simplest possible structure, how can you deny with a straight face that no intelligence is behind this mammoth, unbelievably complex universe?
That question needs to be answered by the non-believers of a driving force behind existence.
Originally posted by: return_to_hades
A large part of evolution is chance and probability, the right components at, the right place at the right time. If we rewind time for the human genome back to the Neanderthal era and hit play again, we could evolve into a different hominid species in itself or maybe even go extinct.
Which brings me to another question - if we successfully time travel, what are the odds that we meet the people from OUR history, considering things could evolve in any direction if time runs for a second time?
Font Size 
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Current Affairs
