Neo-Darwinian Philosophy

[skyraider]

In National Geographic's world of the macroevolutionary hypothesis, everything is like a geometric theorem - true without proof. Bah. There is no genetic evidence whatsoever that any mutation - point, frameshift etc - can actually create the type of new, specified complexity that allegedly produces completey new, super-complex systems like a whale's sonar system using the neo-Darwinian mechanism. I know I'm setting myself up for a 6-12 page athiestic rant here, but you have to be really, really, really super-igornant as far as biochemistry goes to think that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can actually produce the new, specified information requried by the macroevolutionary hypothesis.

This is only part of the reason that the macroevolutionary hypothesis is really more of a philosophy, based not on fossil evidence but on the lack of it (i.e. "puncuated equilibrium") and based not on genetic evidence but the appearance of genetic "evidence".

See my article (http://dexview.com/2004/12/information-quandary.html) on specified & irreducible complexity (go ahead and bring up the TSS protien if you'd like because I can defend it :)) and why the neo-Darwinian mechanism does not produce it.

And that's why I posted this in the religion forum, because we're talking about Darwinist religion.

[mataj]

Neo-Darwinism is just another creationist straw man they can burn at the stake at their own sweet will. Quote from your link http://dexview.com/2004/12/information-quandary.html
The neo-Darwinian mechanism to generate such complexity is completely random.Completely random assembly of living cells, aeroplanes and such is indeed pretty much impossible. Luckily, it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution theory.


Macro and micro evolution are not clearly defined scientific terms. Yet another creationist invention.

Irreducible complexity is just another name for argumentum ad ignorantiam. Like "it's too complex for us to understand, so it must be created by Aliens or something".

[cpwill]

i would argue that the original creation of life is too complex to really be accidental; not that it isn't a possibility; simply that the possibility is so unlikely as to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Duo_Maxwell]

i would argue that the original creation of life is too complex to really be accidental; not that it isn't a possibility; simply that the possibility is so unlikely as to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, but a being of infinite power just existing with no beginning or end is just as ridiculous as the notion of accidental life now isn't it?

Ocazzm's razor basic destroys both arguments, as accidental life and God are complex issues and have no simplisticity to them in any way, shape or form.

[mataj]

i would argue that the original creation of life is too complex to really be accidental; Sheeesh! :rolleyes: For the 102938th time: It wasn't random!!!

Evolution didn't started with the 1st living cell. Living cell already is a product of evolution.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Besides, even if evolution is wrong, it doesn't make creationism any more correct. Merely attacking your opponent's argument without proving your own does not make your argument correct, which is the fundemental reason creationism cannot be taken seriously, it cannot argue itself without attacking evolution.

For all we know, there are a number of other reasons that have little to do with science or religion.

Believing that only evolution or creation are the correct views is a clear use of the fallacy exclusion of the middle.

[cpwill]

Of course, but a being of infinite power just existing with no beginning or end is just as ridiculous as the notion of accidental life now isn't it?

not really; there's alot more evidence for the first than there is for the second.

mataj; where, precisely; would you place the beginning of life, then; if not with the first living things?

even if evolution is wrong, it doesn't make creationism any more correct

i'm not arguing against evolution :)

[Duo_Maxwell]

not really; there's alot more evidence for the first than there is for the second.

What do you mean by "evidence?"

[bowerbird]

What anti-evolutionists seem to not consider is that these mutations came about over MILLIONS of years - how long has the development of the aircraft taken???

[Churlant]

There is nothing more apparent within this argument than the fact we still know so little about so much.

Despite the best "evidence" provided, there is far more proof of evolutionary theory than any sort of God being the direct source of life.

Either way... it is important to point out that our definitions of "life" and "complexity" as well as a host of other terms may be extremely limited. Even assuming the natural state of living/non-living matter is inherently non-complex, the inability to understand how a being of supposedly high complexity - such as a human - can evolve from more simple life does not support any sort of Intelligent Design. All our lack of knowledge shows us is we are ignorant. The need to fill that hole with a higher power is part of our nature as we have an almost obsessive impulse to have an explanation for all things...

...but sometimes we just need to admit to ignorance. For that, at least, there is a solution.

-JC

[cpwill]

What anti-evolutionists seem to not consider is that these mutations came about over MILLIONS of years - how long has the development of the aircraft taken???

the development of the aircraft was done by intellegence; are you now arguing for intellegent design?

[cpwill]

What do you mean by "evidence?"

:shrug: everything from the lack of other explination to atronomical probabilities to biological probabilities to the necessary perfection of the athiestic argument.

[bowerbird]

the development of the aircraft was done by intellegence; are you now arguing for intellegent design?

Nope using the OP's argument and pointing out that given millions of years a monkey COULD accidently tap out the complete works of Shakespear on a typewriter - given that length of time and the million upon millions of life forms alive on the Earth any given day then ANYTHING can and did happen up to and including an improbable ape.

[cpwill]

Nope using the OP's argument and pointing out that given millions of years a monkey COULD accidently tap out the complete works of Shakespear on a typewriter - given that length of time and the million upon millions of life forms alive on the Earth any given day then ANYTHING can and did happen up to and including an improbable ape.

well, let's take a look at the odds; first off, to see what we're looking at.

firstly; there are a large number of combined factors necessary for life to arise on this planet at all. Jupiter's gravity field pulls in space debris; constantly protecting us from what would otherwise be cataclysmic event after cataclysmic event. we have 21% oxygen in our atmosphere; if it were 25% spontaneous outbursts of fire would be constantly occuring, if it were 15% life would suffocate; if the moons' gravitational interaction with earth were any greater, tidal and tectonic effects would create instabilities that would destroy life, if it were any less; we'd have climactic instablity (you know that storm on mars?) that would produce the same effect. if the original gravitational forces were altered so much as 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun wouldn't exist and neither would we; etc.

astrophysicist Hugh Ross once did a study calculating the probability of these types of factors co-occuring; eventually noting 122 in all. assuming that there are 10 to the 22nd power planets in the universe (one followed by 22 zeros); the odds are one chance in 10 to the 138th power (one followed by 138 zeros) of any one of those planets having all of the necessary factors occuring. to place this in even more perspective, there are 10 to the 70th atoms in the entire universe.
as Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, codiscoverer of the radiation afterglow of the Big Bang put it: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absense of an absurdly-improbably accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

now; speaking as to evolution itself; the theory has gaps; i'm not interested in dealing with them right now; which is why i didn't bring them up and why i'm not arguing them.

however, as discussing the creation of the first life:

firstly, we are not dealing with infinite time; such doesn't exist, which is good, because it is impossible. in a finite universe, infinite can only exist in the theoretical. so we have some definite deadlines to meet. secondly; we have the incredible complexity of the end result. and no, i'm not talking about human beings (although the complexity of the average human mind is amazing), i'm talking about the first life, the first amoeba/cell/whatever you want to call it that was created in the primordial sludge. firstly; it's incredibly complex: according to Richard Dawkins, proffessor of zoology at Oxford University (and a confirmed darwinist), the genetic message found in the most simplist of amoeba's has roughly the same amoung of information as 1,000 complete 30 volume sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

but let's break it down further: protien molecules are ultimately the building blocks even of that amoeba, after all. michael behe, microbiology, has calculated that the probablity of getting so much as one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) correct by chance would be similar to the chances of a blindfolded man finding a specific grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. that would seem to be improbable enough; until we also add on that to get life you have to get about 200 of these protein molecules together, and in the right order.

and so the liklihood of all this happening mathematically, even in the (as i recall) 4.3 billions years old earth has been around is not exacly zero; but is so close as to make no difference, even more so when we recognize (as you so correctly did) the millions and millions of different life forms; along with how long they've been around; it shortens our deadline considerably.

furthermore, natural creation of life itself is against the laws of science, in particular the second law of thermodynamics; that nature tends to bring to disorder, rather than order. once the system is living, mind you, it can become more ordered, but only by losing energy in the process of growth. you're a nurse; you know better than i do that we don't process what goes into our bodies at 100% effeciency. however, the original creation of that order is more and more improbable the more time you give nature the time to do what it does; which is disorder and disorganize.

a quick example; let us say that i put a copy of van gogh's 'starry night' onto a large cloth; and cut that cloth into tiny strips. let us say, however, that i kept those strips in their proper order, next to each other so that the picture is still more than easily distinguishable. let us say that i then drop this picture out of an airplane. what is the chance that the strips will fall such as to reform the picture on my lawn? very low. oh, but i didn't allow enough time. alright; we'll take the airplane up to 10,000 feet and drop them, giving the natural laws more time to work on them; what is the result? the strips are even more scattered than they were before. and this is with me starting with all the pieces in the correct order; already assembled. how much does it hurt the liklihood if i don't even start with the right pieces, and i drop them in different locations as i fly along? nonliving chemicals being susceptible to the Second Law of thermodynamics, life arising from them without design is, well, impossible.




*figures and notations are derived from works compiled by Geisler and Turek.

[Duo_Maxwell]

:shrug: everything from the lack of other explination to atronomical probabilities to biological probabilities to the necessary perfection of the athiestic argument.

And where exactly is evidence for intelligent design? All the things you name are aganist abogenesis (which isn't a part of evolution). Here we have a classical example of a pro-creationists arguing aganist something rather then prove his argument.

[cpwill]

well it seems you have two options; either something was created with intellegence or without it. therefore; either side showing the weakness of the other is an argument for their own. as Holmes said best, if all other possibilities are false, the one remaining is true. for the evidence of the likelihood of it arriving without it; see my above reply to the lovely bowerbird. i didn't even go into a few other pieces of evidence, for example, interdependent complexities of life-sustainment.

[Duo_Maxwell]

well it seems you have two options; either something was created with intellegence or without it.

And you know this how? That is the basic fallacy of exclusion of the middle, that a third, or fourth, or many other alternative does not exist. Evolution or Creationism's falsity does not make the other one any more correct.

therefore; either side showing the weakness of the other is an argument for their own. as Holmes said best, if all other possibilities are false, the one remaining is true.

Assuming the latter one is even possible in the first place, and that it has supporting evidence, both which are in severe doubt with your belief. Besides, if we want to do it that way, evolution is correct due to Creationism's sheer literal lunacy and outright falsitiy. However, I don't subscribe to outright fraud, and neither should you.

[Mr Pariah]

What anti-evolutionists seem to not consider is that these mutations came about over MILLIONS of years - how long has the development of the aircraft taken??? You seem to overlook the fact that aircraft are a product of intelligent design.

[skyraider]

Originally Posted by bowerbird
What anti-evolutionists seem to not consider is that these mutations came about over MILLIONS of years - how long has the development of the aircraft taken???


You seem to overlook the fact that aircraft are a product of intelligent design.

To clarify, my article on dexview.com refers to the aircraft as a non-intelligently designed machine with all required materials existing in a primordial soup. Yeah, the molecular structure that makes up headphones floating around in the Mariana Trench.
However, not all of the amino acids required for protein formation existed on "early earth" - in fact, most of them didn't, according to current experimentation.

Irreducible complexity is just another name for argumentum ad ignorantiam. Like "it's too complex for us to understand, so it must be created by Aliens or something".

Apparently, you don't understand Irreducible Complexity. It has nothing to do with aliens and nothing to do with being "too complex" for us to understand. We understand the bacterial flagellum, and that's definately irreducibly complex (again, bring up the TSS, but I will just link you to Dembski's article on why the TSS protein doesn't disprove the flagellum as an example of IC).

Completely random assembly of living cells, aeroplanes and such is indeed pretty much impossible. Luckily, it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution theory.

Certainly you don't expect an F-16 figher jet, much less a cell, to form randomly. You expect DNA/RNA to form randomly (unless you're another type of Neo-Darwinist) - well, I would assume, because that's the thinking among macroevolutionismists right now. Thinking - not knowing - because current experiments are showing that the right substances for random DNA/RNA formation (quite impossible in itself) probably didn't exist on the "earth earth".


Macro and micro evolution are not clearly defined scientific terms. Yet another creationist invention.

Yes they are. To say that is to say Stephen Jay Gould wasn't a prominent evolutionist. He used the terms.

Besides, even if evolution is wrong, it doesn't make creationism any more correct. Merely attacking your opponent's argument without proving your own does not make your argument correct, which is the fundemental reason creationism cannot be taken seriously, it cannot argue itself without attacking evolution.

Uhm, where did creationism come in to this debate?


And where exactly is evidence for intelligent design? All the things you name are aganist abogenesis (which isn't a part of evolution). Here we have a classical example of a pro-creationists arguing aganist something rather then prove his argument.

You need to read Darwin's Black Box by Micheal Behe (no, irreduicble complexity has NOT been discredited - he answers all major critics in the back & disproves them - I took a look at some of the critics online and their arguments were rather bad.... and the TSS does not disprove IC either (see arn.org article by Dembski)

Then read The Design Revolution by William Dembski - great book on the evidence for Intelligent Design. I can't type of all of the evidence in this thread, obviously...

See my article The Information Quandary (http://dexview.com/2004/12/information-quandary.html) for a brief intro, but you really need to pick up those books! My article only covers one argument for specified complexity and does not cover ID as a whole. You may be interested in some of the other articles on their that explain neo-Darwinian flaws and why evidence leads to intelligent desing. But again, I am not the greatest resource for ID.

Go to arn.org (http://arn.org) - the Access Research Network - to read articles on ID from a boatload of scientists.

You all are missing the point. I posted about neo-Darwinian flaws - not about how those flaws lead to ID (not that those flaws are the most prominent evidence for ID), but now we're talking about ID. Ah well. Anways, those flaws DO NOT account for the formation of immensly specified & in some cases irreducibly complex organs such as the eye, the whale's sonar system or a bat's sonar system. The mechanism can account for neither the brain nor the liver. It can't even account for a single cell. The neo-Darwinist argument is as follows: "Yes it does! If it couldn't account for a single cell, then macroevolution would be impossible!" I don't know if you all support that argument - but I hope you don't, because it's quite ignorant.

[cpwill]

And you know this how?

basic common sense; either the universe was created with intellegence or without it.

That is the basic fallacy of exclusion of the middle,

:lol: if you ever think of a way that the universe is created kinda sorta almost by intellegence, let me know :)

Assuming the latter one is even possible in the first place, and that it has supporting evidence, both which are in severe doubt with your belief.

:shrug: in an either/or scenario, if you weaken one side, you strengthen the other; the same is true in a multi-possibility scenario; as illustrated by Holmes use of the deductive method. furthermore, i'm not sure you have any idea of what belief you are talking about; as you then took it to:

Besides, if we want to do it that way, evolution is correct due to Creationism's sheer literal lunacy and outright falsitiy.

when i've already said that i'm not arguing creationism vs evolution :)

However, I don't subscribe to outright fraud, and neither should you.

well then you should show more honesty with how you answer other's views. :)

[barciad]

So, let me get this straight, there still seem to be some of you out there (no names mentioned) who would like to believe in a notion which should have died with the coming of things like electricity and the internal combustion engine. But to see it still around 50 years after the discovery of DNA, and in the presence of the information revolution is rather disheartening to say the very least.
It really does puzzle me what scientific breakthrough is required to get you lot to drop it and final join us in the modern world. All too few of you took the hint over the Gallileo affair and who was right.

[cpwill]

;) the discovery of DNA strengthens our argument, barciad.

[mataj]

mataj; where, precisely; would you place the beginning of life, then; if not with the first living things?That's impossible to place precisely, because there's no exact definition of life.

Transition between unanimate and animate was gradual.

we have 21% oxygen in our atmosphere; if it were 25% spontaneous outbursts of fire would be constantly occuring, if it were 15% life would suffocate;Chemical composition in our atmosphere varied wildly in the past. Oxygen is relatively new ingredient. It would have been toxic for earliest life forms on out planet.

furthermore, natural creation of life itself is against the laws of science, in particular the second law of thermodynamics; that nature tends to bring to disorder, rather than order.We've been through this before. Creationists miserably misunderstood the second law of thermodynamics.

You seem to overlook the fact that aircraft are a product of intelligent design.The process of intelligent design is very similar to evolution.

[cpwill]

That's impossible to place precisely, because there's no exact definition of life.

Transition between unanimate and animate was gradual.

and composed of what?

Chemical composition in our atmosphere varied wildly in the past. Oxygen is relatively new ingredient. It would have been toxic for earliest life forms on out planet.

and if present in too large quantities would have led to their demise.

We've been through this before. Creationists miserably misunderstood the second law of thermodynamics.

no, we haven't been through this before; the second law of dynamics is pretty well shown.

The process of intelligent design is very similar to evolution.

:lol:, no, really?;)

[mataj]

and composed of what?Self replicating molecules. Is that what you've asked?

no, we haven't been through this before; the second law of dynamics is pretty well shown.***SIGH*** Well, OK, maybe it was someone else.

Local decreases of entropy do not violate the second law of thermodynamics. As a matter of fact, they are pretty common in nature: crystallization, annealing, evolution if you want, and so on. Such local increases of order come with a price, of course: greater disorder elsewhere.

:lol:, no, really?;)Yea, really.

Many phylosophers imagine design as straigthforwards process: Intelligence devises a plan, and executes it, or draws it on a paper, and instructs someone else to execute it. That's pretty naive notion. If it would be correct, Wile E Coyote would catch his Road Runner a long time ago.

In reality, nothing ever goes according to plan. There must always be adjustments and tinkering.

Design process, as well as research and development goes as follows:

1- Known solutions are combined in a new way, with a couple of more or less random modification

2- Resulting design is tested

3- More random tinkering is done. If tinkered design performs better, it's retained, otherwise it's scrapped.

4- Back to point one.

Point 1 is equivalent to sexual multiplication in biology.
Point 2 is equivalent to natural selection
Point 3 is equivalent to mutation

That Air Force 1 jet mentioned earlier is therefore a product of some sort of evolution too.

[barciad]

;) the discovery of DNA strengthens our argument, barciad.

And exactly how does that work CP? :shrug:
Genetics comes across as pretty much a cold hard science as physics or chemistry.

[cpwill]

And exactly how does that work CP? :shrug:

a couple of ways; but the most significant is it's incredible complexity; it's quite a bit to post; so swap on over to the debate i'm having with bowerbird for a chunk of it (post no. 14 in this thread). basically; the earliest life-form being an amoeba; the incredible amount of information and genetic code present in the simplest of amoeba's make the liklihood of it occuring on it's own in the time allotted to be, well, not zero, but so close as to make no rational difference.

Genetics comes across as pretty much a cold hard science as physics or chemistry.

yup; although how that would somehow preclude the idea of intellegent design works no better for genetics than it does for physics. remember, if God exists; then it naturally follows that science will show His effects.

[Platypus]

Hugh Ross is so full of expletive deleted that I can't be bothered writing my own refutation of his not-even-half-baked numbers. What I'll do instead is link to someone else's (http://www.exmormon.org/boards/honestboard/messages/1043.html).

[Redratio1]

a couple of ways; but the most significant is it's incredible complexity;

This is proof of what?

the earliest life-form being an amoeba; the incredible amount of information and genetic code present in the simplest of amoeba's make the liklihood of it occuring on it's own in the time allotted to be, well, not zero, but so close as to make no rational difference.

And how do you know this?

remember, if God exists; then it naturally follows that science will show His effects.

And yet no experiment can be deviesd to prove this hypothesis.

Isn't it equally possible that the rules of the universe were layed out at its creation and need no further tampering? Wouldn't that be even more sublime, but equally untestable?

[cpwill]

This is proof of what?

mathmatically speaking the incredible unlikliness of it occuring on it's own in the time allotted

And how do you know this?

feel free to take a look at what i've presented; if you like, i'll take it further.

And yet no experiment can be deviesd to prove this hypothesis.

as God exists independent of this universe, no, which is why instead we weigh available options and see what the odds are. personally; as pertains to the creation of the universe; we have to options; either something was created from nothing (and a something so precise as to defy any kind of probability), or something was created by something. the law of causality (upon which science itself is based) would indicate the second. the implications of this is why so many steady-statists held out as long as they did.

Isn't it equally possible that the rules of the universe were layed out at its creation and need no further tampering?

layed out by what?
going deist on us?;)

Wouldn't that be even more sublime, but equally untestable?

one could even argue that they are the same :)

[cpwill]

Self replicating molecules. Is that what you've asked?

but doesn't explain the transition to life.

***SIGH*** Well, OK, maybe it was someone else.

***YAWN*** must've been cause i don't remember it :p

Local decreases of entropy do not violate the second law of thermodynamics. As a matter of fact, they are pretty common in nature: crystallization, annealing, evolution if you want, and so on. Such local increases of order come with a price, of course: greater disorder elsewhere.

yarg; Okay, Everybody: AGAIN, I'm Not Arguing Evolution Here. :rolleyes:

Yea, really.

Many phylosophers imagine design as straigthforwards process: Intelligence devises a plan, and executes it, or draws it on a paper, and instructs someone else to execute it. That's pretty naive notion. If it would be correct, Wile E Coyote would catch his Road Runner a long time ago.

funny you should use that example; however; the argument is flawed because what we are dealing with here is an intellegence and a power rather beyond our kin, i don't think the normal rules of test/fail would apply.

In reality, nothing ever goes according to plan. There must always be adjustments and tinkering.

Design process, as well as research and development goes as follows:

1- Known solutions are combined in a new way, with a couple of more or less random modification

2- Resulting design is tested

3- More random tinkering is done. If tinkered design performs better, it's retained, otherwise it's scrapped.

4- Back to point one.

Point 1 is equivalent to sexual multiplication in biology.
Point 2 is equivalent to natural selection
Point 3 is equivalent to mutation

firstly; the four options here require a goal; what provides the goal.
secondly; I"M NOT FRIGGIN ARGUING EVOLUTION :lol:

That Air Force 1 jet mentioned earlier is therefore a product of some sort of evolution too.

indeed, it is :)

[Redratio1]

mathmatically speaking the incredible unlikliness of it occuring on it's own in the time allotted

You know the mathematical probablilities of combinations of self assembling nucleotide molecules over a billion years? WOW! You must be a mathematical and biochemical genius!

Complex nucleotide and amino acids have been found in Comet dust.

as God exists independent of this universe, no, which is why instead we weigh available options and see what the odds are.
Does he now? Then how does he interact with it. Obviously there must be some connection. :rolleyes:

personally; as pertains to the creation of the universe; we have to options; either something was created from nothing (and a something so precise as to defy any kind of probability), or something was created by something. the law of causality (upon which science itself is based) would indicate the second.

Actually the idea of causality is fatally flawed. If something was created from nothing then causality has a break point at the begining. If it was created from something then that something must have had causal effect. Basically you cannot use that arguement for a absis for creationism as you then must define a prior causal event.

one could even argue that they are the same
Yes, unprovable and untestable.

[cpwill]

You know the mathematical probablilities of combinations of self assembling nucleotide molecules over a billion years? WOW! You must be a mathematical and biochemical genius!

no; i'm simply using the figures compiled by those who are :)

Does he now? Then how does he interact with it.

;) now you're getting it! that is indeed the question, and what we know of the answer is constantly evolving.

Actually the idea of causality is fatally flawed. If something was created from nothing then causality has a break point at the begining.

precisely my point; if something was created from nothing then causality (and, thus, all of science) is flawed. of course, since it is science that tells us about the beginning of the universe; it's a rather self-defeating cycle :)

If it was created from something then that something must have had causal effect.

no, because only things which come to be have causal effects; causality is limited by time and material. as both of these were created by the big bang; whatever it is that caused the big bang must, by definition, be independent of time, space, and material (immaterial and infinite)

Basically you cannot use that arguement for a absis for creationism as you then must define a prior causal event.

which is precisely why the idea that everything exploded from nothing doesn't hold up; don't forget; we're talking about literally "before time" (not good wordage; but the closest we can really come in english)

Yes, unprovable and untestable.

actually i was reffering to the common points found between the deistic and calvinistic views of God's interaction with the universe via time. however, in the measure of proof and testing; there is certainly a heckuva lot more evidence in favor of the existance of God than there is of his lack of existance.

[Platypus]

no; i'm simply using the figures compiled by those who are :)
That's just appeal to authority, and a very dubious authority if you're referring to Hugh Ross. Either way, it's not much of an argument.

[Redratio1]

no; i'm simply using the figures compiled by those who are
Most would disagree with you regardless.

precisely my point; if something was created from nothing then causality (and, thus, all of science) is flawed. of course, since it is science that tells us about the beginning of the universe; it's a rather self-defeating cycle.

No it only means that causality has its ultimate limits to make the leap that causality must be thrown out completely because it has philisophical limits is silly.

no, because only things which come to be have causal effects; causality is limited by time and material. as both of these were created by the big bang; whatever it is that caused the big bang must, by definition, be independent of time, space, and material (immaterial and infinite)

No, that is a flawed arguement as well. Before the Big Bang there could very well have been another universe with similar spacetime rules. Nothing has been ruled out by science about the conditions prior to the Big Bang. To indroduce God just prior to the Big Bang is to limit further discussion of what "a universe" is. There are many competing theories on parallel multiverses, and serial repeating universes, or evolutionary branching universes.

which is precisely why the idea that everything exploded from nothing doesn't hold up;

Which is not what science says at all.

there is certainly a heckuva lot more evidence in favor of the existance of God than there is of his lack of existance.

There is no evidence either way; it is an untestable hypothesis.

[Redratio1]

That's just appeal to authority, and a very dubious authority if you're referring to Hugh Ross. Either way, it's not much of an argument.

I agree.

[mataj]

yarg; Okay, Everybody: AGAIN, I'm Not Arguing Evolution Here. :rolleyes:
. . .
I"M NOT FRIGGIN ARGUING EVOLUTION :lol:
What are you arguing then?

what we are dealing with here is an intellegence and a power rather beyond our kin, i don't think the normal rules of test/fail would apply.Oh, you mean a certain perfect and infallible mythical intelligence. There's no proof, that such intelligence exists.

Our intelligence on the other hand, is everything but perfect, and quite fallible. That's why each and every ascertainment must be tested.



firstly; the four options here require a goal; what provides the goal.Goal is survival. Memes capable of surviving do, others disappear.

In biology, species unfit for survival die out.

In technology, unsuccesful or unmarketeable designs become obsolete, and fall into oblivion.

Clumsy scientific theories, that don't match all relevant facts are soon forgotten. The same thing happens to religions, which are not persuasive and aggressive enough.

[cpwill]

That's just appeal to authority, and a very dubious authority if you're referring to Hugh Ross. Either way, it's not much of an argument.

when discussing microbiology; i tend to find out what microbiologists are saying; appealing to authority is not a fallacy; appealing to an authority who is not an authority on the subject is.

[cpwill]

Most would disagree with you regardless.

most disagree with the implications; they do not dispute the facts.

No it only means that causality has its ultimate limits to make the leap that causality must be thrown out completely because it has philisophical limits is silly.

and that's how most choose to work around it, by ignoring the laws they themselves are dealing with and attempting to define it such that materialism is the only available medium. law of causality (upon which all of science is built) states that nothing comes from nothing, everything that comes to be comes from something.

No, that is a flawed arguement as well. Before the Big Bang there could very well have been another universe with similar spacetime rules.

fine, then what created that universe?
furthermore, where did that universe go? did something become nothing? did time collapse? is there any evidence whatsoever for alternate or preexisting universes? (answer: no)

Nothing has been ruled out by science about the conditions prior to the Big Bang.

that's because there were no conditions prior to the big bang; nothing existed. not space, not time, not material: nothing.

To indroduce God just prior to the Big Bang is to limit further discussion of what "a universe" is.

how about "all existing material and space"

There are many competing theories on parallel multiverses, and serial repeating universes, or evolutionary branching universes.

:lol: none of which have any support whatsoever; they're made up. even then, for serial repeating universes: what caused the first one?

Which is not what science says at all.

go to the dictionairy and look up "big bang"

There is no evidence either way; it is an untestable hypothesis.

on the contrary; there is plenty of evidence for the support of a supernatural immaterial and infinite intellegent force. not least of which is the fact that the alternative (lack of such) seems to be rather physically so close to impossible as to make no difference (see above).
however, there is plenty of evidence outside astrophysics; there is also the lack of liklihood of life ever being created at the complexity at which it has been.
this isn't even bringing into the picture the necessary perfection of the athiestic argument. think about it; if there is no God, then every person who has ever claimed any sort of belief in Him or contact with Him must be completely and tottally wrong. we're talking Einstein, Mendel, Newton, Martin Luther King jr., Benjamin Franklin, everybody. you'd have to literally argue that millions and millions of people; including some of our most brilliant minds; were either all hallucinagenic (and having the exact same hallucination) or were all lying. if so much as one of these experiences or individuals had something; then the entire athiestic argument falls.
furthermore you've got the same imprint on all members of the human race. think about it; there hasn't been a single civilization ever without a religion; no people have ever arisen (until lately) who do not believe in an after life, and similarly; everyone seems to have roughly the same set of basic moral beliefs. there is no country where you would be proud of betraying the person who most trusted you for your own personal gain, nor is there a people who consider murder a virtue and virtue a vice. and these are cultures, civilizations; growing in complete isolation from each other. spirituality and it's connection to moral law seem to be pretty plainly wired into the human mind.

[cpwill]

What are you arguing then?

that the conditions of the universe and of life are such that their creation by happenstance is statistically so close to being zero as to not matter; and that thus the rational mind realizes that it was not happenstance.

Oh, you mean a certain perfect and infallible mythical intelligence. There's no proof, that such intelligence exists.

there's plenty; see my reply to red.

[mataj]

that the conditions of the universe and of life are such that their creation by happenstance is statistically so close to being zero as to not matter; and that thus the rational mind realizes that it was not happenstance*** SIGH *** :( For the 2933th time: That statistics is miscalculated.
there's plenty; see my reply to red.There's indeed plenty of things we don't know, but ignorance is not a proof.
. . . Big Bang . . .Big Bang was an explosion, right? Explosion is not an act of creation, but an act of desctruction. If Big Bang was caused by some superior being(s), the said being(s) probably had demolition on his/hers/its/their mind. Or, maybe it was an accident, or act of wantonness.

[Redratio1]

most disagree with the implications; they do not dispute the facts.
No actually at most you could say the implications are discussed not the facts, sheesh! Where do you get off trying to be an authority on science?

and that's how most choose to work around it, by ignoring the laws they themselves are dealing with and attempting to define it such that materialism is the only available medium. law of causality (upon which all of science is built) states that nothing comes from nothing, everything that comes to be comes from something.

Again you are wrong. All theories must have their place. Force an idea on reality that does not fit is pointless. That is why wave-particle duality and quantum-probabilities were so astounding when they were proven to be true.

fine, then what created that universe?

What created God?

is there any evidence whatsoever for alternate or preexisting universes? (answer: no)

:lol: How can you answer that? The best minds in science have not disproven that. There is some mathematical evidence and observational evidence that there was at some point prior to the Big Bang as state of existence the universe held.

that's because there were no conditions prior to the big bang; nothing existed. not space, not time, not material:

You cannot prove that either. While our spacetime vector may have started at the Big Bang who is to say that some other space time vector did not exist prior, or that we are merely a branch of a previous spacetime vector?

how about "all existing material and space"

Still limits it. And of course you must introduce a God to introduce a God which is a subjective entity of the human mind's creation with subjective attributes no of which are testable.

none of which have any support whatsoever; they're made up.

You know this for a fact? I seriously doubt it. Again you try to front like you are an eminent expert on leading scientific theories when you are not even close.

even then, for serial repeating universes: what caused the first one?

If you like the answer "God" then you must introduce a previous "God" to account for the current "God". As I said, causality is insufficient arguement when you are talk about the extremes of the universe. An infinite stack of turtles to stand on if you will. Unless you subjectively give this God all sorts of artibutes like perminance and first cause...etc. Totally subjective and made up.

go to the dictionairy and look up "big bang"
AHAHAHA!!! Puleeese! I took 2 graduate level classes on cosmology in college. I think I know what the Big Bang theory entails.

there is plenty of evidence for the support of a supernatural immaterial and infinite intellegent force.

Where? What experiement will show this?

not least of which is the fact that the alternative (lack of such) seems to be rather physically so close to impossible as to make no difference (see above).

Again you fail to show this in at any level. In fact the evidence is clear that under the right conditions the self-assembly of nucleotides, complex organic molecules and amino-acids is quite rapid and self sustaining. This has been shown over and over again by experiement and observation.

there is also the lack of liklihood of life ever being created at the complexity at which it has been.

Again you have failed to show this at any level. In fact evidence is quite to the contrary.

this isn't even bringing into the picture the necessary perfection of the athiestic argument.

No need to be atheistic, just not jumping to conclusions and inserting God into every point at which we don't understand just to satify your urge to find God in all places. Seriously I think there has been such a dearth of miracles lately that some Christians want to insert God and say "Behold! A miracle of creation." Well the evidence isn't there, so hold your horses and let science do its think, and you can sit at church and prey.

if there is no God, then every person who has ever claimed any sort of belief in Him or contact with Him must be completely and tottally wrong. we're talking Einstein, Mendel, Newton, Martin Luther King jr., Benjamin Franklin, everybody. you'd have to literally argue that millions and millions of people

How does this even approach a valid arguement? There is plenty of evidence of people believing silly stuff throughout the ages and science proving them completely wrong. What do you think the whole Galileo bit was about? I mean really, just because the human race was collectively certain of something does not mean they were correct. Why would you even think that should be the case? The whole point of science is to verify the truth and facts of our ideas through experiement and observation, removing the subjective nature that has kept us in such darkens for all of human existence.

think about it; there hasn't been a single civilization ever without a religion;

Communism

no people have ever arisen (until lately) who do not believe in an after life, and similarly

Yup, its a great way to control the population. And there is not doubt that people want to believe something. That doesn't make it necessary that there is anything to believe other than pure facts.

everyone seems to have roughly the same set of basic moral beliefs.

A question of biological/zoological behavioral necessity that social norms and taboos be similar in form throughout human civilization, though I'd disagree that moral beliefs are totally the same. IT however is a matter of biology and cultural identity rather than any external proof of a creator. I see no reason to jump to that conclusion.

[Churlant]

that the conditions of the universe and of life are such that their creation by happenstance is statistically so close to being zero as to not matter; and that thus the rational mind realizes that it was not happenstance.


Assuming your statistics are correct (and a few people seem to think otherwise), why does "close to 0" = "not happenstance" ? There is a 100% margin of difference between "improbable" and "impossible". The rational mind only needs to realize we won a cosmic lottery...

In truth, the easiest explanation is that life arrived on Earth from a comet, asteroid, or other object originating from space. What do your statistics say the chances of life occuring is when you factor in 10-13 billion years?

-JC

[mataj]

Assuming your statistics are correct (and a few people seem to think otherwise), That statistics was calculated according to "jumbo jet randomly assembled by tornado" model- as if 1st living cells appeared by chance. Evolution theory makes no such claims. Living cell is not a start of evolution, but it's product. Living cell could have evolved from such http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4104483.stm, or simpler stuff. If there was an ocean of this once on Earth, it would be a miracle if life wouldn't evolved.

The rational mind only needs to realize we won a cosmic lottery...We won nothing. If intelligent life wouldn't evolved on Earth, some other rational minds somewhere else would ruminate about the same questions as we do. In the unlikely event, that no rational minds would evolve at all, theese questions would be irrelevant, because there would be nobody to care about them.

[Platypus]

when discussing microbiology; i tend to find out what microbiologists are saying
Then find a microbiologist. Ross is an astrophysicist.
appealing to authority is not a fallacy; appealing to an authority who is not an authority on the subject is.
Actually it's a fallacy regardless, because it's always the argument that matters rather than the person who makes it. It's just a worse kind of fallacy when the authority is anonymous or false.

[cpwill]

Then find a microbiologist.

i did

Ross is an astrophysicist.

which is why i quoted him as such :)

Actually it's a fallacy regardless, because it's always the argument that matters rather than the person who makes it.

not at all; else all arguments are ultimately only a person's opinions, and all opinions would be equal.
think about it, if you have a four year old debating a chemist on the composition of air; who are you going to believe?

It's just a worse kind of fallacy when the authority is anonymous or false.

which is why i named my sources :)

[Platypus]

not at all; else all arguments are ultimately only a person's opinions, and all opinions would be equal.
Wrong again. Arguments are about facts, and the reasoning that connects them, which is not the same as opinions. If your hypothetical four-year-old used independently verifiable facts and sound logic to argue for one composition, while your hypothetical chemist offered nothing but say-so, it's the chemist who is failing to make an adequate case. It's command of the facts, including the ability to explain them, that makes someone an expert, not the expertise that makes something a fact.

[skyraider]

I see that not a single one of you responded to my argument for Intelligent Design on page two.


In truth, the easiest explanation is that life arrived on Earth from a comet, asteroid, or other object originating from space. What do your statistics say the chances of life occuring is when you factor in 10-13 billion years?

Bah! What evidence supports the "comet theory"? The fact that National Geographic made a totally unsupported, completely ridiculously unscientific show about it that I somehow brought myself to watch, of course.


Again you have failed to show this at any level. In fact evidence is quite to the contrary

There is no evidence that exists within the scientific community, besides behind the cover of the fallacious, decietful non-scientific National Geographic textbook, that such amino acids required to form simple proteins even exited on the "early earth". If you know anything about geochemistry, you will know that current experiments are showing that those acids did not exist in that environment. You also fail to realize that RNA and DNA are infinately more complex than computers (if you have ever taken a high-school level or above biology class). What evidence supports the "comet theory", then? None to date.

Just because some amino acids existed on a few comet fragments doesn't mean that all of the required acids did. And if you honestly think that such acids will combine to form RNA when a comet smashes into the earth, you have fallen into the lure of National Geographic, now known throughout a large portion of the scientific community as a distributor of false information (i.e. their recalled "missing link" article and their extremely, unbelieveably misrepresented and unsupported claims).

I bolded my argument so that it isn't ignored (see the top of this message, please). The neo-Darwinist must be able to meet the challenge showing emperical data to prove his theory. So far, no such genetic data has been brought forth (notice how NatGeo all but skipped the DNA section of their November issue, "Was Darwin Wrong?". Also, they explored, in detail, the evidence for variation within a species. Within that entire article, there was not a single fragment of good, solid emperically-based evidence for the philosophy that is macroevolutionism.

[cpwill]

No actually at most you could say the implications are discussed not the facts, sheesh! Where do you get off trying to be an authority on science?

lol, where do you? i'm taking evidence from some pretty big names here; nobel laurates and such. if you want to call them liars that's your call.

Again you are wrong. All theories must have their place. Force an idea on reality that does not fit is pointless. That is why wave-particle duality and quantum-probabilities were so astounding when they were proven to be true.

:lol: is this your way of arguing that, yes, something came from nothing, in direct contradiction to the most fundamental law of science?

What created God?

:sigh: as the supernatural force existed without time (prior to the big bang; in which time did not exist) and without space (prior to the big bang, at which point space did not exist) and without material (prior to the big bang, at which point material did not exist); it could not have been created, but would rather by definition be infinite.

:lol: How can you answer that? The best minds in science have not disproven that.

they have offered no evidence for it.

There is some mathematical evidence and observational evidence that there was at some point prior to the Big Bang as state of existence the universe held.

okay, explain what the last bit was supposed to mean; and then we'll talk about this "evidence" :)

You cannot prove that either.

i'm not; that's why i'm depending upon the scientists; and THEY claim it is so.

While our spacetime vector may have started at the Big Bang who is to say that some other space time vector did not exist prior, or that we are merely a branch of a previous spacetime vector?

this reminds me of the "seeds across the galaxy" theory that was used to explain the formation of life on earth once we understood how complex and unlikely it's original formation was.
as physicist (that's an expert on science stuff; in case you're worried i'm claiming this quote as my own) Paul Davies wrote in response to the multiple-universe theory (which was then produced within science as the leading contender to the anthropics) "one may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than on observation."

Still limits it.

precisely; it limits it because the universe is finite.

And of course you must introduce a God to introduce a God which is a subjective entity of the human mind's creation with subjective attributes no of which are testable.

:rolleyes: to be a scientist is to have just as much faith as an athiest and just as much as a christian. it's what you have faith in that differs. reason is no more testable than God is.

You know this for a fact? I seriously doubt it. Again you try to front like you are an eminent expert on leading scientific theories when you are not even close.

:lol: wow, you're really offended that i would actually try to point out some science, aren't you.
i'm no more an expert in astrophysics and microbiology than i am an expert in 11th century chinese poetry: that's why i pointed out that it wasn't me coming up with these figures and these discoveries; but rather (oh my gosh) eminent experts on leading scientific theories :rolleyes:
look, calm down, don't worry; even if i win the debate, you still don't have to believe in God.

If you like the answer "God" then you must introduce a previous "God" to account for the current "God".

alright :)

As I said, causality is insufficient arguement when you are talk about the extremes of the universe.

oh really, and why is that.

An infinite stack of turtles to stand on if you will.

an infinite number of actual objects is an impossibility

Unless you subjectively give this God all sorts of artibutes like perminance and first cause...etc. Totally subjective and made up.

:shrug: not at all; rather, i stand on the shoulders of giants. everyone from einstein on down.

AHAHAHA!!! Puleeese! I took 2 graduate level classes on cosmology in college. I think I know what the Big Bang theory entails.

good for you; then you ought to know better than i that it was the original creation act from which all matter eventually came:)
(as a personal note; didn't you find Galaxy Seeds to be really cool?)

Where? What experiement will show this?

:lol: can you experiment on something that is immaterial, not effected by time or space?
not in this universe you can't. nice try; but you're working outside of the definition. it's akin to me stating kim jung il is the leader of north korea and you claiming that can't be because you've never seen him rule new york.

[cpwill]

Again you fail to show this in at any level. In fact the evidence is clear that under the right conditions the self-assembly of nucleotides, complex organic molecules and amino-acids is quite rapid and self sustaining. This has been shown over and over again by experiement and observation.

at the point of complexity with all the nessecary interdepentant constructions in the right order and then somehow creating animation? chemically speaking, whats the difference between a dead body and a live one. nothing, then why is the dead body dead.
spontaneous generation of life has never been observed, ever since Pasteur figured out sterilization life has only ever been observed arising from life (prior to that scientists were believers in spontaneous appearance of life). scientists can't even create a single DNA molecule, much less life, all experiments to do so (including the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment) have not only failed; but suffer from the illegitimate application of intellegence. if they ever succeed, all they will have proven is that it's possible for intellegence to create life. however, up until now scientists have come up with highly intellegent and ordered experiments which still cannot accomplish what they tell us mindless natural laws have done.

Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Proffessor of Zoology: thats another science-expert guy), who is himself a strict darwinist still writes that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"; perhaps it is this appearance and the difficulty in explaining it away that led Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA; another big science expert guy, in case your' worried i'm pretending to be an expert here), who is another ardent darwinist, to warn other biologists to "constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved."

indeed, as microbiologist (that's another big science expert guy) Michael Denton (who is an athiest) points out "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakis, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (emphasis added)

Again you have failed to show this at any level. In fact evidence is quite to the contrary.

not at all; as i've pointed out; the odds of it occuring are astronomical.
indeed, it's a rather interesting chicken/egg scenario; because DNA relies on proteins for its production, but proteins rely on DNA for their production.

No need to be atheistic, just not jumping to conclusions and inserting God into every point at which we don't understand just to satify your urge to find God in all places.

:shrug: it's not what i'm doing; i remain open to any new scientific discoveries along these paths as my faith is hardly dependent upon being able to spot God in His creative works. out of the two of us; it is you who are being the absolutist.

Seriously I think there has been such a dearth of miracles lately

:lol: i've witnessed plenty of miracles; i don't need any more to try to legitimize my beliefs.

that some Christians want to insert God and say "Behold! A miracle of creation." Well the evidence isn't there, so hold your horses and let science do its think, and you can sit at church and prey.

this is something that's interesting, too; the animosity that science seems to hold for religion. what is it's source? certainly it's not the objective, that scientists pride themselves on; rather it is the subjective; religion threatens their position.

How does this even approach a valid arguement?

simply that it is; in order to be able to claim that there is no God; you have to be willing to label a large chunk of the human race (including some of our best minds) hallucinagenic; insane, or liars.

There is plenty of evidence of people believing silly stuff throughout the ages and science proving them completely wrong.

:) two problems
1. science is incabable of ever proving the existance of God wrong; as you so correctly pointed out; there is no experiment that can measure or test God.
2. this isn't merely a belief (oh, the earth is the center of the galaxy); it is an experience we're talking about. these guys wouldn't just be wrong; they'd have to be hallucinating. there aren't plenty of examples of millions upon millions (billions) of people all experiencing the same hallucination.

Communism

A: recent
B: arose within a religious civilization; in fact, get's it's civilization from that religious source
C: utilizes religious language; in fact, many have accused it of fufilling the role of and being a religion in and of itself
D: is stoooopid (sorry, couldn't resist:lol::p)

Yup, its a great way to control the population.

except that then you have the difficulty of explaining the religions which do not control any populations.

And there is not doubt that people want to believe something. That doesn't make it necessary that there is anything to believe other than pure facts.

no, but it should trigger the curious mind to wonder where this innate longing for spirituality that seems to be imprinted on the human race came from.

A question of biological/zoological behavioral necessity that social norms and taboos be similar in form throughout human civilization, though I'd disagree that moral beliefs are totally the same.

you are walking along and see an old lady about to get hit by a car; what is the moral action?

[Churlant]

Bah! What evidence supports the "comet theory"? The fact that National Geographic made a totally unsupported, completely ridiculously unscientific show about it that I somehow brought myself to watch, of course.


There is no evidence that exists within the scientific community, besides behind the cover of the fallacious, decietful non-scientific National Geographic textbook, that such amino acids required to form simple proteins even exited on the "early earth". If you know anything about geochemistry, you will know that current experiments are showing that those acids did not exist in that environment. You also fail to realize that RNA and DNA are infinately more complex than computers (if you have ever taken a high-school level or above biology class). What evidence supports the "comet theory", then? None to date.

Just because some amino acids existed on a few comet fragments doesn't mean that all of the required acids did. And if you honestly think that such acids will combine to form RNA when a comet smashes into the earth, you have fallen into the lure of National Geographic, now known throughout a large portion of the scientific community as a distributor of false information (i.e. their recalled "missing link" article and their extremely, unbelieveably misrepresented and unsupported claims).

I bolded my argument so that it isn't ignored. The neo-Darwinist must be able to meet the challenge showing emperical data to prove his theory. So far, no such genetic data has been brought forth (notice how NatGeo all but skipped the DNA section of their November issue, "Was Darwin Wrong?". Also, they explored, in detail, the evidence for variation within a species. Within that entire article, there was not a single fragment of good, solid emperically-based evidence for the philosophy that is macroevolutionism.

I haven't seen the NG show you are bashing here. And I was not naming a comet as a bringer of building blocks of life.. I was naming the comet as the bringer of COMPLETE life. It is only a lack of your personal imagination that would refuse to believe non-terrestrial life forms could be deposited by comets, asteroids, etc.

In the end I only offered the possibility as a counter to the "it couldn't have happened by chance in so few billions of years" argument - which is completely false to begin with. I gave it the benefit of a doubt, however, and proposed a scenario in which life indeed took 13 billion years to evolve on its own, and was simply brought here from somewhere else.

There is no less "evidence" for this hypothesis than Intelligent Design. In fact, since raw materials and, in fact, living organisms have been shown to survive in the harsh environments of asteroids and such, there is much greater physical evidence for this situation than any Creator your could name.

-JC

[cpwill]

so where did the comet get life from?

[skyraider]

simply that it is; in order to be able to claim that there is no God; you have to be willing to label a large chunk of the human race (including some of our best minds) hallucinagenic; insane, or liars.


Hehe, that's what Richard Dawkins likes to do. For whatever ridicolous reason, he belives that there is genetic evidence for neo-Darwinian philosophy, which leads him to believe that we should lock up creationists (he has not regretted that comment).

I haven't seen the NG show you are bashing here. And I was not naming a comet as a bringer of building blocks of life.. I was naming the comet as the bringer of COMPLETE life. It is only a lack of your personal imagination that would refuse to believe non-terrestrial life forms could be deposited by comets, asteroids, etc.

Well, of course it's a lack of imagination! Why? Because the only evidence that supports your comet idea IS imagination!


In the end I only offered the possibility as a counter to the "it couldn't have happened by chance in so few billions of years" argument - which is completely false to begin with. I gave it the benefit of a doubt, however, and proposed a scenario in which life indeed took 13 billion years to evolve on its own, and was simply brought here from somewhere else.

There is no less "evidence" for this hypothesis than Intelligent Design. In fact, since raw materials and, in fact, living organisms have been shown to survive in the harsh environments of asteroids and such, there is much greater physical evidence for this situation than any Creator your could name.


First of all, stop confusing yourself, please. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the Christian creator.

Where do you based this alleged lack of evidence? Have you read Darwin's Black Box? The Design Revolution? You will find, when examining emperical data, that genetic evidence points directly to a designer. Just ask Behe, or WFU biophysist (he studies this controversy too) Jed Mackosko. Or any of the other scientists on arn.org (http://arn.org).

Living organisms can't pop up on their own, even given 238472398472392327 centillion years - as far as we know, at least. Why? Because the evidence shows that, most likely, not all of the required components existed!

[cpwill]

:) wow, this is quite a hot spot thread :lol:

[skyraider]

It's time for emperical data to crack down on Darwininist dogma, philosophy and assumption. Hot spot indeed :)

[Churlant]

so where did the comet get life from?

Not sure. But it had a lot longer to do so, that way your "statistically impossible - almost" claim can be satisfied. Believe me I don't think it would have been necessary, but if you're going to insist it would take more time, then I've given you a scenario in which you have more time. :shrug:


First of all, stop confusing yourself, please. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the Christian creator.

Where do you based this alleged lack of evidence? Have you read Darwin's Black Box? The Design Revolution? You will find, when examining emperical data, that genetic evidence points directly to a designer. Just ask Behe, or WFU biophysist (he studies this controversy too) Jed Mackosko. Or any of the other scientists on arn.org.

Living organisms can't pop up on their own, even given 238472398472392327 centillion years - as far as we know, at least. Why? Because the evidence shows that, most likely, not all of the required components existed!


First of all - could you start putting the name of the person you are quoting IN the quotes? Would be helpful...

Second, I never mentioned "Christian Creator". Just "Creator". I did so intentionally :) Whether it is Christian, Jewish, or Other, Intelligent Design declares a higher power of some sort by default. Unless, of course, ID somehow refers to a process not started by the "intelligent" part of the term...

No, I haven't read the books. If they detail some sort of signature on our genetic code, please let me know. Otherwise it seems to me we have people who are taking their own interpretations of their own ignorance and applying it to a general lack of knowledge in order to make sense of things no one yet understands.

No one is claiming organisms "pop up on their own". :sigh: this gets so old... look, ALL of the evidence is NOT in yet. The evidence is INCOMPLETE... you cannot take a conclusion and then proceed to form proof around that ending. That's what you're doing.

You say to yourself "you know, from everything we can see and study, it seems like life couldn't evolve from just chance! That means there must be a designer!" Then you go out and point to lack of proof for "chance" as being proof for "designer". That isn't how science is supposed to work. Just because a given hypothesis is statistically improbable doesn't mean it is wrong until you find either a better hypothesis, or actual proof which shows the first to be truly impossible. Until then you simply lack every piece of the puzzle. And no... ID doesn't get to be an actual scientific hypothesis. It has no evidence except, again, pointing to a "lack" of conclusive evidence for another theory.

-JC

[mataj]

I see that not a single one of you responded to my argument for Intelligent Design on page two.Oh, I've overlooked it, sorry. I'm used to QUOTE=author style quoting, and I haven't noticed you are responding to me.


Apparently, you don't understand Irreducible Complexity.I believe, that's the definition:
http://www.berteig.org/mishkin/IrreducibleComplexity.html
A system is irreducible if we cannot find any less fit predecessor genotype that can be mutated to the genotype in question.Mathematics seems to be in order in above link. The flaw is in the basic presumption. Namely, author presumes, that evolution is equivalent to the hill climbing optimization methods (gradient method, and such), where search goes strictly in the direction of bigger fitness. With natural evolution, this is not the case. Hill climbing optimization methods can find only local maximum, which is nearest to the starting point. Stochastic optimization methods, on the other hand, are capable of finding global maximum. They can bridge seemingly "irreducible" gaps. A couple of links.

Short description of various optimization methods http://www.fenews.com/fen5/ga.html

Simple illustration of difference between hill climbing and genetic optimization methods http://www-scf.usc.edu/~csci460/notes/lecture7quad.pdf. Bridging "Irreducible complexity" is roughly equivalent of jumping from one local maximum to another.


Certainly you don't expect an F-16 figher jet, much less a cell, to form randomly. You expect DNA/RNA to form randomly (unless you're another type of Neo-Darwinist)There is no such thing as Neo-Darwinist. Neo-Darwinism is just a creationistic fabrication, a straw man. Nobody expects nor living cell, nor aeroplane to form randomly.


To say that is to say Stephen Jay Gould wasn't a prominent evolutionist."Prominent" is not the same thing as "infallible". If he was wrong about a thing or two, that doesn't mean, that he was wrong about everything. And, that certainly doesn't mean, that entire evolution theory is wrong.

[Craig]

In National Geographic's world of the macroevolutionary hypothesis, everything is like a geometric theorem - true without proof. Bah. There is no genetic evidence whatsoever that any mutation - point, frameshift etc - can actually create the type of new, specified complexity that allegedly produces completey new, super-complex systems like a whale's sonar system using the neo-Darwinian mechanism. I know I'm setting myself up for a 6-12 page athiestic rant here, but you have to be really, really, really super-igornant as far as biochemistry goes to think that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can actually produce the new, specified information requried by the macroevolutionary hypothesis.

This is only part of the reason that the macroevolutionary hypothesis is really more of a philosophy, based not on fossil evidence but on the lack of it (i.e. "puncuated equilibrium") and based not on genetic evidence but the appearance of genetic "evidence".

See my article (http://dexview.com/2004/12/information-quandary.html) on specified & irreducible complexity (go ahead and bring up the TSS protien if you'd like because I can defend it :)) and why the neo-Darwinian mechanism does not produce it.

And that's why I posted this in the religion forum, because we're talking about Darwinist religion.

Skyraider,

Unfortunately, for all of the apparent complexity of this discussion, all that you've posted here is simply a rehash of old, tired arguments. Regarding the irreducible complexity, I defer to Talk Origins:

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system which loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

Deletion of parts.
Addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system [Pennisi 2001].
Change of function.
Addition of a second function to a part [Aharoni et al. 2004].
Gradual modification of parts.

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common [Lynch and Conery 2000; Hooper and Berg 2003; Dujon et al. 2004], and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible, but expected. In fact, it was predicted as early as 1939 [Muller 1939].

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility was no obstacle to its formation [Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996].


The Boeing 747 example is little more than a intellectually dishonest reductio ad absurdum. Again, I defer to Talk Origins:

Since Dembski's method is supposed to be based on probability and he has promised readers of his earlier work a probability calculation, he proceeds to calculate a probability for the origin of the flagellum. But this calculation is based on the assumption that the flagellum arose suddenly, as an utterly random combination of proteins. The calculation is elaborate but totally irrelevant, since no evolutionary biologist proposes that complex biological systems appeared in this way. In fact, this is the same straw man assumption frequently made by Creationists in the past, and which has been likened to a Boeing 747 being assembled by a tornado blowing through a junkyard.

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

In fact, I really suggest you begin to work at refuting each one of the points found in the links here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html) if you really know as much about evolutionary biology as you think you do.

[Redratio1]

at the point of complexity with all the nessecary interdepentant constructions in the right order and then somehow creating animation? chemically speaking, whats the difference between a dead body and a live one. nothing, then why is the dead body dead.

There is a huge biochemical difference. If you can't see this at just a bsic level then I think this discussion is over.

spontaneous generation of life has never been observed, ever since Pasteur figured out sterilization life has only ever been observed arising from life (prior to that scientists were believers in spontaneous appearance of life).
Piece by piece we are coming closer. Self-assembly has already seen with almost all aspects of life. Just because we have not created life in the lab, yet, this does not mean it will not. True science is only 250 years old.

scientists can't even create a single DNA molecule,

Actually this isn't true, this is done routinely to form small base pair sequences.

much less life, all experiments to do so (including the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment) have not only failed; but suffer from the illegitimate application of intellegence. if they ever succeed, all they will have proven is that it's possible for intellegence to create life.

Ok basically your entire arguement is that science has not progressed fast enough and even if it did it would only prove your point? Come on that is circular and self defeating arguements. Denying what we can do and we haven't done? Should we then live in a shack and pick our noses?

Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Proffessor of Zoology:
"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakis, vastly improbable event."

Well he is right, there was no single event. Soooo whats the point?

as i've pointed out; the odds of it occuring are astronomical.

And no proof of this or evidence of this mathematical certainty has been seen..... :shrug:

indeed, it's a rather interesting chicken/egg scenario; because DNA relies on proteins for its production, but proteins rely on DNA for their production.

News flash! Aminoacids and proteins can be created without DNA.

it is you who are being the absolutist.

I'm just pointing out your arguement's severe errors. If it sound absolute then so be it.

i've witnessed plenty of miracles; i don't need any more to try to legitimize my beliefs.

Could have fooled me.

this is something that's interesting, too; the animosity that science seems to hold for religion.

There is a respect for facts and a distain for unverifiable ideas, and superstistions. And face it religion has been persecuting science for hundreds of years, and each generation there is someone who wants to impose his little superstition on everyone else claiming they have all the facts through mere beliefs without even trying to prove them. And all this time there are the gullable willing to follow that prophet to their doom. (e.g. Heaven's Gate Cult)

Religion has done a lot of harm over tens of thousands of years, and look what science has done in 200 years.

in order to be able to claim that there is no God; you have to be willing to label a large chunk of the human race (including some of our best minds) hallucinagenic; insane, or liars.

So? The majority has been shown to be many times wrong before by science.

BTW I haven't claimed there is no God yet.

except that then you have the difficulty of explaining the religions which do not control any populations.

Which are those?

you are walking along and see an old lady about to get hit by a car; what is the moral action?

This is proof of what? To me it would be intraspecies altruistic behavior evolve to maintain population size and survivability.

[barciad]

Why does science fear and loath religion? Does the Spanish Inquisition ring any bells. If you lot were still in charge, the Sun would still be going round the earth. Religion fears and hate science because its rationalist, enlightened message is a mortal threat to the absolutist state that certian people would be only too happy to go back to.
Not being alarmist or anything, but hooray for Newton, Locke, Darwin, Einstein, and Gallileo. May their ideals continue to prosper.

[Churlant]

Why does science fear and loath religion? Does the Spanish Inquisition ring any bells. If you lot were still in charge, the Sun would still be going round the earth.

Eh? The sun doesn't revolve around the Earth? When did that happen? I know better :p liberal liars you people are... I see the sun come up and go down every day, so it obviously moves around us :p

-JC

[Redratio1]

Eh? The sun doesn't revolve around the Earth? When did that happen? I know better :p liberal liars you people are... I see the sun come up and go down every day, so it obviously moves around us :p

-JC

And there is no way you could be wrong! Everyone throughout history has seen the same thing!!!!

[Churlant]

And there is no way you could be wrong! Everyone throughout history has seen the same thing!!!!

Actually I think there was one guy who thought the Earth actually revolved around the SUN! Thank God they took care of THAT nutcase!

-JC

[Platypus]

I don't think it's so much that scientists (or the scientifically minded) hate religion, but that they resent having the language of science misappropriated to propose theories that are not scientific in their origin. It's probably pretty similar to how the Christian hierarchs would feel if somebody were to edit the Bible for the sake of greater scientific accuracy. There's nothing wrong with faith, but people shouldn't try to present faith as something else. Even many Christians believe that trying to prove the existence of God is either missing the point or in outright opposition to God's intent.

[Rivet]

BTW I haven't claimed there is no God yet.
If we are ever able to create life in a test tube from non-life, does that mean that there is no God?

[Redratio1]

If we are ever able to create life in a test tube from non-life, does that mean that there is no God?

No, it means we are able to create life in a test tube.

[barciad]

The fact is, you cannot 'prove' God either way. That is the entire point. It is about faith (i.e opinion), not fact. Either you think there is a God (and you follow on from there) or you don't. It is not too difficult a concept to understand.

[Rivet]

No, it means we are able to create life in a test tube.

Sneaky answer.

But won't that have a large impact on the way people think about life?

How will all the different religions reconcile this revelation?

[Churlant]

Sneaky answer.

But won't that have a large impact on the way people think about life?

How will all the different religions reconcile this revelation?

Not really. We've managed to break into cloning.. which already smacks traditional views of how life is supposed to begin. The only true impact on this type of argument will be discovery of life on another planet. My money is still on Mars and Europa... wish we weren't taking so damn long, though. Even then you'll just get what we've always gotten as science progresses - new excuses ;)

-JC

[Redratio1]

I don't think so, because the stages to get to that point will be so gradual that we probably will not notice the transition from non-life to life in terms of the history of its developement.

Of course I could be wrong, but as cpwill has stated, the religious already have their answers lined up for that eventuality. "See! You intellegentlly designed life!" :rolleyes:

[cpwill]

Not sure. But it had a lot longer to do so, that way your "statistically impossible - almost" claim can be satisfied.

not really; you've still got to deal with the odds against a planet having all the necessary conditions for life: i believe it was 1 to 10 to the 138th power? and then you've got to explain how complex life was able to form on that planet; and.... all it really does is push the problem back a few years.

Believe me I don't think it would have been necessary, but if you're going to insist it would take more time, then I've given you a scenario in which you have more time. :shrug:

:shrug: hey, when biologists have to resort to aliens to explain the arise of life here on earth; then i know they're desperate to find a intra-universal answer.

First of all - could you start putting the name of the person you are quoting IN the quotes? Would be helpful...

i have a feeling he might be referring to some of the same people i am; if it helps.....:shrug:

[cpwill]

Of course I could be wrong, but as cpwill has stated, the religious already have their answers lined up for that eventuality. "See! You intellegentlly designed life!" :rolleyes:

hey, if you ever witness it forming on it's own; let me know;)

[Redratio1]

hey, if you ever witness it forming on it's own; let me know;)

You do the same when a woman is made from a man's rib! :D

[Churlant]

not really; you've still got to deal with the odds against a planet having all the necessary conditions for life: i believe it was 1 to 10 to the 138th power? and then you've got to explain how complex life was able to form on that planet; and.... all it really does is push the problem back a few years.


Honestly CP :P how on Earth (pun intended) can anyone truly know the conditions required for ALL forms of life? I still maintain our defintion of "life" is severely flawed... in any case, you are talking about billions of years as if it were minutes. None of us - not you or myself - are capable of even grasping the enormity of that expanse or what is possible within it.


:shrug: hey, when biologists have to resort to aliens to explain the arise of life here on earth; then i know they're desperate to find a intra-universal answer.


Terming this as "aliens" is extremely dishonest - as if it weren't possible. Take a resiliant form of bacteria on the ground of a planet with low gravity and a weak atmosphere. Smash a comet or asteroid into the surface and away it goes. It's been done on Earth, in fact, no reason it can't happen elsewhere.

-JC

[mataj]

The Boeing 747 example is little more than a intellectually dishonest reductio ad absurdum. More and more of the records our civilization keeps are stored on short lived media, paper, disks, and so on. I'd imagine, that not much of this would be preserved for posterity, if our civilization runs into trouble. Archeological remnants would be pretty scarce, but suppose, that --say-- in 13500AD, archeologists find the fossilized remnants of the 747. Creationist logic would then go as follows: "There is no way people of old could have built such magnificant flying machine from scratch. There must have been some superior alien intelligence involved. This finding is an excellent scientific proof of alien existence. Biplanes? What biplanes! Show me the remnant of biplanes! There is no evidence of smaller aircraft anywhere. Hundred of years earlier, they were travelling around on horseback, and then, all of the sudden, 747s appear. It's an irreducible complexity.

Oh, and BTW, if you don't believe this, aliens will notice it, and fry your ***."

[cpwill]

The fact is, you cannot 'prove' God either way. That is the entire point. It is about faith (i.e opinion), not fact. Either you think there is a God (and you follow on from there) or you don't. It is not too difficult a concept to understand.

paul tells us to be able to answer those who would challenge our faith. there's nothing wrong with and alot good with apolegetics ministries.

[cpwill]

You do the same when a woman is made from a man's rib! :D

:lol: touche :)

actually that's not an entirely accurate translation: the original Hebrew word is alot closer to side; which i personally is kind of neat; we are each two sides of one whole.:)

also; the creation story in genises is allegory; not data. that being said; as creation stories go; it's pretty dang accurate.

[cpwill]

Honestly CP :P how on Earth (pun intended) can anyone truly know the conditions required for ALL forms of life?

good point; you probably can't: the guy merely identified 122; there could quite possibly be others' he didn't think of.

I still maintain our defintion of "life" is severely flawed... in any case, you are talking about billions of years as if it were minutes. None of us - not you or myself - are capable of even grasping the enormity of that expanse or what is possible within it.

consciously, no; mathametically, however........

Terming this as "aliens" is extremely dishonest -

okay, "extra-terrestrial life"; is that better?:p

as if it weren't possible.

it is; however, there is no evidence and simply pushes the debate back one step, and back a few years. (it would probably also decrease the odds; now they have to work for two planets.)

[Redratio1]

[quote]also; the creation story in genises is allegory; not data.

I'll just take the rest of the bible as an allegory and not data. :D

that being said; as creation stories go; it's pretty dang accurate.

Eh?

[cpwill]

I'll just take the rest of the bible as an allegory and not data. :D

:shrug: you can; but your conclusions will be innacurate.

Eh?

the universe appears in a single event, later the world is created, then the oceans and continents are seperated and then plant life appears followed by animal life followed by humans who live in a natural state for a while before becoming self-aware and then developing civilization. compared to any contemporary story (which usually involved the body of a fallen god being hollowed out, or something similar); it's spot-on.

after all; you can't exactly explain astrophysics and microbiological genetic engineering to an illiterate sheepherder in the desert in the year 11,000 BC.

[Redratio1]

:shrug: you can; but your conclusions will be innacurate.

So I can pick and choose the literal parts? Not much of a manual to live by. :devil:

the universe appears in a single event, later the world is created, then the oceans and continents are seperated and then plant life appears followed by animal life followed by humans who live in a natural state for a while before becoming self-aware and then developing civilization.

Broad, but I suppose it can be interpreted in that way. Although many creation stories start with that logical sequence. After all, it is a logical series of events.

after all; you can't exactly explain astrophysics and microbiological genetic engineering to an illiterate sheepherder in the desert in the year 11,000 BC.

Thought the universe was only 6000 years old?

[cpwill]

So I can pick and choose the literal parts?

no; you simply have to read intellegently:)

Not much of a manual to live by.

it's the best ;)

Broad, but I suppose it can be interpreted in that way. Although many creation stories start with that logical sequence. After all, it is a logical series of events.

logical to you and me; not hardly to that illiterate sheepherder; as demonstrated by the fact that that's the most accurate story. i'd love to hear about these other stories that have the same logical sequences.

Thought the universe was only 6000 years old?

nope :) as stated; i'm not arguing literal creationism.

[Redratio1]

no; you simply have to read intellegently:)

I do the same with Dune.

logical to you and me; not hardly to that illiterate sheepherder; as demonstrated by the fact that that's the most accurate story. i'd love to hear about these other stories that have the same logical sequences.

I'll see if I can accurately dig up something, I'd hate to bastardize it in a post.

as stated; i'm not arguing literal creationism.

Just plain, old, non-literal creationism? :confused:

[cpwill]

I do the same with Dune.

:lol: well fine, but the one requires a bit more than the other.

I'll see if I can accurately dig up something, I'd hate to bastardize it in a post.

i'd highly reccomend Old Testament Parallels by Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin.

Just plain, old, non-literal creationism? :confused:

:shrug: pretty much; science is a subset of theology; you know;)

[Redratio1]

pretty much; science is a subset of theology; you know

Science is the light casting off the darkness of superstition.

[cpwill]

:lol: it certainly is part of the process; yes :)

[mataj]

:shrug: pretty much; science is a subset of theology; you know;)Gaaaah! :eek: You serious?

[Platypus]

the creation story in genises is allegory; not data.
Don't tell the fundamentalists, who by definition insist on the literal truth of the entire Bible and frown on facile attempts to pick and choose the most convenient parts to take literally.

[cpwill]

Gaaaah! :eek: You serious?

very much so; in the study to find out about God (theology); one of the methods we can use is studying his creation (science).

Don't tell the fundamentalists, who by definition insist on the literal truth of the entire Bible and frown on facile attempts to pick and choose the most convenient parts to take literally.

:shrug: i've debated them as well; usually they have to resorty to calling my faith into question rather than actually answering my points.

[Craig]

very much so; in the study to find out about God (theology); one of the methods we can use is studying his creation (science).


Well, if you want to talk about science in those terms, then we'd better clarify that theology is really just a subset of philosophy. ;)

[cpwill]

not really; philosophy (the study of reason) becomes merely a subset of science.

[Craig]

not really; philosophy (the study of reason) becomes merely a subset of science.

Au contraire, both science and theology are really just sub-branches of epistemology, (edit: theology and certain parts of science are also properly a sub-branch of metaphysics), which are both sub-branches of philosophy.

[mataj]

very much so; in the study to find out about God (theology); one of the methods we can use is studying his creation (science).OK, let's suppose for a moment, for the sake of the argument, that the universe was created somewhere in the past. During the Big Bang maybe, if that theory is correct.

There are the following possibilities then

Creator(s) just set the universe into motion. Universe now evolves independantly, by itself. Creator(s) interfere(s) with the universe's working only occasionally, by causing major deviations from the usual activity, so called "miracles", for propagandistic reasons. Religions (and consequently theology) deal almost exclusively with miracles. Science, on the other hand, studies regular, day to day operation of the creation. Scientific laws are only approximations, constantly corrected and improved. They are not exactly equal to the laws universe actually follows. As a matter of fact, we don't even know for sure, if such laws exist at all. Science can therefore offer as only a couple of indirect hints about less significant aspects of the creator(s)- maybe.


Creator(s) haven't just set the universe into motion, but also constantly overlooks it's operation. Everything that comes to pass is a direct result of creator's will. If this would be the case, laws of physics would directly describe the creator's will, to a certain degree of accuracy, of course. But, there's a problem: Entity described by the laws of physics is not intelligent. It's a mathematical machinery, inanimate, and predictable. This certainly can't be the will if intelligent being.

[cpwill]

:shrugs: as proffered by the scientific evidence, both are possibilities; the only difference being that the creator would have to be extremely intellegent to have designed the universe in the precise manner in w hich it was so. also; if he runs the universe; who is to say he is not consistent; and what you are measuring mechanically and mathmematically and predictably are merely his actions; not he himself.

[cpwill]

Au contraire, both science and theology are really just sub-branches of epistemology, (edit: theology and certain parts of science are also properly a sub-branch of metaphysics), which are both sub-branches of philosophy.

:sorry: but as the universe is finite, and God infinite; the study of theology naturally includes all that is created in the universe as well as a bit elsewise.

philosophy is something God's creations do, excercises in reason, which is a creation of God as well as an attribute of God; thus, philosophy falls under theology.

[mataj]

:shrugs: as proffered by the scientific evidence, both are possibilities; the only difference being that the creator would have to be extremely intellegent to have designed the universe in the precise manner in w hich it was so.Science does not claim, that universe behaves in precise manner, on the contrary. Measurements, on which scientific truths are based, are accurate only to the certain number of decimals, and so are scientific truths.

also; if he runs the universe; who is to say he is not consistent; and what you are measuring mechanically and mathmematically and predictably are merely his actions; not he himself.This is the same thing. Everybody is defined by his actions.

[cpwill]

Science does not claim, that universe behaves in precise manner, on the contrary. Measurements, on which scientific truths are based, are accurate only to the certain number of decimals, and so are scientific truths.

had the universe expanded at a rate of one millionth part faster than it did; it would have been going to fast for galaxies to ever form; the same amount too slow and it would have imploded back in on itself. i'm willing to call that pretty precise.

This is the same thing. Everybody is defined by his actions.

not at all; after all; we have thoughts;)

[mataj]

had the universe expanded at a rate of one millionth part faster than it did; it would have been going to fast for galaxies to ever form; the same amount too slow and it would have imploded back in on itself. i'm willing to call that pretty precise.Observations in cosmology are notoriously inaccurate. There's no way we could calculate anything with a 6 digits accuracy. Such claims are therefore dubious at best.

Moreover, our physics is familiar only with phenomena it can measure and observe here on Earth. I'm sure, there's a lot of stuff we know nothing about going on out there. Here are a couple of examples I came across recently.
Gravitation field is extremely weak compared to other forces. The possible explanation would be, that gravitation is leaking into other dimensions. This could cause gravitation to behave differently on the cosmic scale.
If gravitation is a quantum field similar to other forces, it could behave differently on the cosmic scale. For the time being, we know nothing about eventual quantum nature of gravitation, because it's too weak to be accurately measured.
Cosmic constant, vacuum energy that balances gravitation. Introduced by Einstein, retracted by Einstein, and recently introduced again as an explanation for accelerated expansion of the universe.
2nd Newtons law might not hold for extremely low accelerations. That's quite reasonable speculation, because we know next to nothing about the exact nature of mass, and interaction of mass and acceleration or gravitation on the quantum level. It's a possible explanation of rotation of galaxies. Unfortunately, there are no such small accelerations in our part of the universe, so this phenomena is unmeasureable for the time being.
Multiverse theory is my favorite: There is a multitude of universes out there. We exist in ours, because it's capable of harbouring matter and life.
This is the same thing. Everybody is defined by his actions.not at all; after all; we have thoughts;)Thoughts, that do not result in actions, are irrelevant. That accounts to about 99.99% of them.

[cpwill]

Multiverse theory is my favorite: There is a multitude of universes out there. We exist in ours, because it's capable of harbouring matter and life.

but there's no evidence of it.

Thoughts, that do not result in actions, are irrelevant. That accounts to about 99.99% of them.

well i'm not sure about that percentage (did you know that 87.5% of statistics are made up on the spot?;)) but they nevertheless go into making up who we are.

[mataj]

but there's no evidence of it.Of course not. There's very little evidence for everything I've mentioned above. Authors of that presumptions openly admit it, and that's why they can be considered seriously.

Most of available cosmological measurements are a couple of 10% accurate at best. Measurements, which would prove claims such as this
had the universe expanded at a rate of one millionth part faster than it did; it would have been going to fast for galaxies to ever form; the same amount too slow and it would have imploded back in on itself. i'm willing to call that pretty precise.would have to be at least 0,0001% accurate. That's why they can't be taken seriuosly. Moreover, they could justifiably be called "deceptions".

well i'm not sure about that percentage (did you know that 87.5% of statistics are made up on the spot?;)) but they nevertheless go into making up who we are.If we don't reveal our stupid thoughts, and if we don't act on them, it doesn't matter whether we have them or not.

[cpwill]

Of course not. There's very little evidence for everything I've mentioned above. Authors of that presumptions openly admit it, and that's why they can be considered seriously.

:shrug: as always, speculation is fun. personally; i'm not such a fan of the multi-universe theory; it seems one universe enough is a daunting challenge. :p

Most of available cosmological measurements are a couple of 10% accurate at best. Measurements, which would prove claims such as this
would have to be at least 0,0001% accurate. That's why they can't be taken seriuosly. Moreover, they could justifiably be called "deceptions".

well i think i'm just going to continue to take the astrophysicists words for it: especially considering that many of them go from quoting these figures to pointing out that they aren't suggesting a deviation from materialism, etc.

If we don't reveal our stupid thoughts, and if we don't act on them, it doesn't matter whether we have them or not.

to others perhaps; however, they still make up a part of who we are.

[mataj]

i'm not such a fan of the multi-universe theory; it seems one universe enough is a daunting challenge. :pOur solar system is only one of a billions and billions of others in our galaxy. Our galaxy is only one of a billions and billions of other galaxies in our galaxy cluster. Our galaxy cluster is only one of billions and billions of other galaxy clusters in our universe. So, why wouldn't our universe be only one of billions and billions of other universes in our multiverse?


well i think i'm just going to continue to take the astrophysicists words for it:You can take words here if you will, but you can't take numbers. Available measurements are simply not accurate enough.

especially considering that many of them go from quoting these figures to pointing out that they aren't suggesting a deviation from materialism, etc.You mean like: "I wouldn't like to deviate from materialism, but ..."

Statements like this are one more reason for being more skeptical than usual. It's like if someone says "let me be completely honest" Ha! So he wasn't honest up to now. Or "I assure you, I'm not lying" or "believe me, I'm not lying", or "verily I say unto you". Why would anyone bother to emphasize that he's not lying, if he's not lying?

And, for that matter, why would anyone emphasize that he's not suggesting deviation from materialism, if he's not suggesting deviation from materialism?


to others perhaps; however, they still make up a part of who we are.A very small, tiny part. Thoughts come, thoughts go, and they are soon forgotten.

[Strel]

had the universe expanded at a rate of one millionth part faster than it did; it would have been going to fast for galaxies to ever form; the same amount too slow and it would have imploded back in on itself. i'm willing to call that pretty precise.


Assuming this is correct, what does it mean?

Some will say it is evidence of intelligent design: that such precise conditions must have been engineered to be so such that the Universe could come into existence. But can this effect logically imply a cause?

Perhaps, or perhaps we happen to be just lucky enough to live in the Universe that expanded the way it did, out of countless others that did not. We just happen to be in the one that worked out, so naturally the measurements work out to produce the result. If there are infinite Universes out there, the probability that one of them would posses the exact same characteristics as ours approaches 100% as the number of Universes approaches infinity.

Or perhaps all the Universes fall within these parameters, obeying some constant or law of physics yet undiscovered.

It's too bad no one has come up with a method of testing string theory, or we might be able to find out.

Unanswered questions like these make it impossible for me to be religious, and likewise impossible for me to be an atheist.

[Craig]

:sorry: but as the universe is finite, and God infinite; the study of theology naturally includes all that is created in the universe as well as a bit elsewise.

philosophy is something God's creations do, excercises in reason, which is a creation of God as well as an attribute of God; thus, philosophy falls under theology.

Charlie, that God is infinite is completely irrelevent to the argument. So too is the statement that God's creatures excercise reason which is an attribute of God. You have not explained why infinity automatically trumps all subcategorizations and becomes a supreme category unto itself. Not only that, but there are cases where the infinite is a subcategory of the finite. For example, the mathematical concept of infinity is still considered to be a subcategory of math, even though much of mathematics deals with the finite. Just because God is infinite does not make Him and theology automatically transcend all categories.