A Brief Timeline of Everything

This incredible video has been compiled by King Crocoduck on YouTube, and it demonstrates the complete timeline of the universe.

Now isn’t that more satisfying than ‘God did it’?

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “A Brief Timeline of Everything

  1. “Comet impacts create oceans in which the organic chemicals develop the ability to self-replicate…”
    “The first cells are born…”
    SCIENCE!

    Like

    • Obviously the video is a simplified version of the theories and hypothesis used in science, otherwise it would take a heck of a long time to explain exactly how we think this stuff happened.
      Granted, abiogenesis is still largely unknown, but it’s the best we’ve got so far.

      Like

    • John,
      We have evidence for the events in the video. Do you have evidence for the claims you propose as an alternative? I’m still waiting for the evidence you claimed is out there when you commenting on my blog.

      Like

        • I wonder why you would hope that since panels from a comic book started a lovely discussion that shows that John Branyan is quite a liar and someone who can’t or won’t answer questions put to him.

          Evidence for abiogenesis? Yep, humans are piecing it together. We have how amino acids form, how they join, how cells may have started etc. Evidence:
          something which shows that something else exists or is true 2 : a visible sign of something 3 : material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something – merriam-webster.com

          Have we proven it? Nope, and we may never, but we have evidence that supports the hypothesis.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

          Now, here’s where you provide evidence that your god exists and that it is the creator of the universe and nothing else, no gods, no laws of physics, is. This is also where you can show that the work in abiogenesis research is wrong by presenting evidence.

          Like

          • For the record, I believe abiogenesis occurred. Obviously. I wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t.

            Amino acids, proteins and enzymes are evidence for abiogenesis the same way eggs, milk and flour are evidence for pancakes.

            It’s reasonable to say that every pancake has a baker.

            Doesn’t the evidence suggest that life, which is infinitely more complicated than flapjacks, also has a maker?

            Like

            • Define abiogenesis for me, John.

              Yep, eggs milk and flour are indeed evidence for pancakes. I’m glad you see how that works.

              please do explain why the laws of physics can’t be the “baker”. You’ve been asked similar questions before and have refused to answer.

              Like

              • Abiogenesis: the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

                The laws of physics could be the baker. Absolutely! Though, to my limited knowledge, by themselves the laws of physics have never baked a single pancake. Every single instance of pancakes has been the result of an intelligent agent acting intentionally, in tandem with the laws of physics. In my limited understanding, the laws of physics do not possess intelligence.

                So it’s not that the laws of physics can’t be the explanation for abiogenesis, it’s that the laws of physics are not the best explanation for abiogenesis. (Unless you have a pancake that baked itself in your kitchen, then I’ll have to retract this entire statement.)

                Like

                • Abiogensis is not evolution, not as the theory of evolution postulates and this is a very common mistake made by creationists, they want to conflate the two ideas. Abiogenisis is the method of how life arises from inorganic compounds, this has to happen before we get evolution as in the theory. I think this is a good definition of evolution in regards to evolutionary theory: “Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations”.

                  It appears you accept the theory of evolution. Do you?

                  you say “Though, to my limited knowledge, by themselves the laws of physics have never baked a single pancake” Funny how there is not one single instance of your god doing anything, much less “baking a pancake”. There is no intelligence that can be shown to make a uranium atom either. Unless you can, correct?

                  You do no more than postulate the idea of the teleological argument which depends on the cosmological argument. Both require the a priori assumption that there is a intelligent being needed. Please do show that this is an accurate premise.

                  Like

                  • You don’t understand how this argument thing works…

                    I postulated that the simplest ordered systems (like pancakes) require intelligence to exist. I can point to any ordered system on Earth as evidence.

                    I reason that life, being far more difficult to make than pancakes, must also have intelligence making it.

                    Your job is to explain why you believe (sorry, trust) that pancakes and life don’t need intelligence to bring them about.

                    Like

                    • I understand it quite fine. I posted evidence for what I find to be accurate. Now you do the same.

                      You have reasoned nothing. You have made an unsupported claim based on an a priori assumption you cannot show to be true.

                      sigh, I have explained why I find that the evidence supports that there is no god, not even yours, John. I have also explained why there is no god needed. The laws of physics can cause things to happen, no intelligent magical entity to make them happen.

                      Evidence your god exists please. We know that the laws of physics exist. That’s what makes ordered systems ordered, crystals, plants, humans, combustion, decay etc. All from the laws of physics, most of the above in reference to the laws of thermodynamics. Show where intelligence is required. And indeed, show how intelligence would decide to put the esophagus right beside the trachea and cause the death of many many people. Show how intelligence would make an energy source that everything depends on that also causes cancer.

                      Like

                    • Let me guess, that’s supposed to be a joke. It’s rather hard to tell.

                      Again, John, you do a lovely job of showing that you, a creationist, cannot support your claims and that being a Christian doesn’t make you anything special.

                      Like

                    • I thought your point is that intelligence isn’t necessary for order!

                      You’re criticizing me for agreeing with you?

                      Like

                    • Still waiting for this…

                      Evidence your god exists please. We know that the laws of physics exist. That’s what makes ordered systems ordered, crystals, plants, humans, combustion, decay etc. All from the laws of physics, most of the above in reference to the laws of thermodynamics. Show where intelligence is required. And indeed, show how intelligence would decide to put the esophagus right beside the trachea and cause the death of many many people. Show how intelligence would make an energy source that everything depends on that also causes cancer.

                      Like

                    • As a professional comedian, I’m confident that my humor succeeds whether you appreciate the joke or not.

                      We know that the laws of physics exist. This is not in dispute.

                      We are discussing whether or not the laws of physics alone create ordered systems. For this (your position, by the way) there is ZERO evidence. In fact, the laws of thermodynamics describes how systems constantly move toward disorder. Ordered systems have to overcome thermodynamics! Physics are not “what makes ordered systems ordered”. This is your statement of faith. It is wrong. Repeating it in different ways won’t make it right.

                      My faith statement is that intelligence is necessary to create order. Evidence abounds for this theory! I’m especially fond of pancakes so I’ll resubmit them as evidence. No pancake exists without an intelligent agent (usually human) collecting the ingredients, mixing them in the correct ratio and cooking them at a precise temperature for a certain period of time.

                      When YOU provide evidence that pancakes (even just ONE pancake) came to exist via the laws of physics without the intentional activity of an intelligent agent, you have made your case. And you should immediately publish a paper!

                      I’m not asking you to provide such evidence because I know it doesn’t exist. You know it too. It makes you a weak disciple of your religion. You insist there is no intelligence necessary to create human beings, then get annoyed when I agree with you.

                      I don’t think you care about truth. You only care about your agenda. That’s the only explanation I have for continuing to assert a theory that you KNOW doesn’t work. Discussion is tedious with you. I want to stop.

                      So I’ll give you the last word. It’ll probably be something about how amusing it is that I refuse to answer questions…

                      Like

                    • “As a professional comedian, I’m confident that my humor succeeds whether you appreciate the joke or not.”

                      oh my. well, that is a way to convince yourself that your attempts at humor work. Lots of people tell themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong without evidence.

                      Like

                    • John, I’m still waiting for you to show that your god exists at all, and has done what you have claimed. As you acknowledged, the laws of physics do indeed exist. We have seen no abrogation of them, no supposed miracles where they stop as your myths and other myths claim . We depend on them every day for everything. There is no dispute that they exist. Your god, well, consider this: Christians cannot show that their god exists, Christians cannot agree on what this god wants or has commanded and there are billions of other theists who make the same claims about their gods as Christians do and they cannot show that their gods are any more real than you can.

                      We also have that all evidence and research has shown that the laws of physics can account for the existence of the universe; we have no evidence that it requires an intelligent entity of any kind and we certainly don’t have any evidence that it requires John’s version of the Christian god. Do we have the complete answer? Nope, not yet, and we may never but nothing supports your claims or the claims of all of those billions of other theists who are sure that their god and their god alone created the universe.

                      The evidence that shows that the laws of physics can account for the universe is that we know that particles “pop” into existence: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ that the laws of physics account for the Big Bang: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html and that the laws of physic account for the laws of chemistry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science#Laws_of_chemistry Your personal ignorance does not mean that the evidence is not there. You also demonstrate the usual partial understanding of the laws of thermodynamics of a creationist, a willful ignorance that you depend on to keep your myths intact. The laws of thermodynamics do indeed describe that systems will move toward disorder *if* there is no energy added to the system. The laws of physics are indeed what make systems ordered and that is not a statement of faith, it is how reality works and you depend on it everyday. Again, you present a lovely example of how so many Christians depend on their ignorance to create a strawman to attack.

                      Yep, your “faith statement” is that intelligence is necessary to create order. You claim that “evidence abounds for this theory” and surprise, you have nothing more than your failed claim of pancakes. Again, in your claims about pancakes, there is energy added to the system by human movement and heat from an energy source and we get an organized system out of the same ol’ laws of physics that have evidence supporting them as the source of why the universe exists. What the ultimate source of energy is, we don’t know yet. Still no evidence for John’s god making pancakes, or anyone’s god making pancakes and evidence for the laws of physics doing so.

                      I have provided evidence that the laws of physics cause particles to appear, cause the order in crystals, molecules and atoms, in weather systems, etc. Each depends on the same laws of physics that we both depend on. Gravity doesn’t stop, the sun doesn’t halt in the sky, substances don’t magically change form without the application of the laws of physics, etc. I hate to tell you but people have already published scientific papers on how the laws of physics work and not one person has published a paper showing that there has to be John’s version of God behind everything. Not even the folks at the Discovery Institute who have promised that they’d have a peer reviewed scientific paper proving their creationism “real soon now” since their beginning decades ago.

                      I know you aren’t asking me to provide evidence because you know it doesn’t exist. It does exist and I have provided it to you, so your claim that I somehow *know* that the evidence for my points doesn’t exist is wrong. You do want to pretend it doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t work, even for children who try really hard. Now we get the classic attempt by a Christian to claim that I have a “religion”, when that is rather ridiculous considering the definition of the term in this context.

                      Hmmm, where have you agreed with me that “there is no intelligence necessary to create human beings”? I mean, I’m all for you saying that there is no god needed. But where did you agree with me that this is the case, that there is no need for a god nor any evidence for a god? That is going to hurt your creationist cred.

                      I do care about the truth. This is why I ask you to show evidence that your claims are true. You try to insist that only you have the truth like all theists, and when it comes to supporting this claim, you have as much evidence as those other theists: none. Please do show how you have come to the conclusion that you somehow know that I “know” that the laws of physics cannot account for the existence of the universe. Is it that you are magically psychic? Or are you just making things up again, John? It seems you need external validation very badly, to the point of insisting that everyone really does agree with you, despite all evidence to the contrary.

                      No one is forcing you to discuss anything with me. I’ll always point out your failures when I get the chance. You may respond as you choose.

                      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s