Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

Science is currently silent on the issue of where reality (space, time, matter, physics) came from. It doesn't say chance, and it doesn't say it was created. It simply doesn't say.

So it doesn't say, but it's all natural. Interesting.

And people that believe in creation have faith huh?

All I'm saying is that you trust that science will eventually be able to prove where everything came from though there really isn't a scientific reason to believe it. Again, very interesting.

 

[Danoff]

So it doesn't say, but it's all natural. Interesting.

It doesn't say.

Up to now everything that has been explained that science was previously silent on, has been explained via nature. What makes this different?

 

[Swift]

It doesn't say.

Up to now everything that has been explained that science was previously silent on, has been explained via nature. What makes this different?

What?

 

[Pako]

*snip*
I've explained many times in this thread and others that evolution and life are not a matter of chance, but a natural consequence of our reality.

Wait, I thought we were talking about origin's here. So your saying that because of our reality, the consequence is life? Sounds a little to mystic for me, and I still have to disagree. If it were as cut-and-dry as you would think, this conversation would have been over long ago.

 

[Danoff]

What?

So far, nothing that once appeared mystical has required mysticism to explain. There is no reason to think that just because we don't have answers for some of these questions today means they require mysticism to explain.

People throughout history have thought that and have been wrong every time. People thought god created the rain, they were wrong. They thought god created the earth, they were wrong. They thought god created man, the stars, etc. Science has explained all of this via nature. There is no reason to think that the questions surrounding the very beginnings of what we know as reality will come in the form of mysticism. Historically, mysticism has a poor track record.

Wait, I thought we were talking about origin's here. So your saying that because of our reality, the consequence is life? Sounds a little to mystic for me, and I still have to disagree.

Yes, life is a natural consequence of our universe. It isn't mysticism, it's logic. It's cause and effect if you will. When you understand how life forms and the chemical composition and sheer size of the universe, it becomes apparent that life was inevitable.

 

[Pako]

*snip* Yes, life is a natural consequence of our universe. It isn't mysticism, it's logic. It's cause and effect if you will. When you understand how life forms and the chemical composition and sheer size of the universe, it becomes apparent that life was inevitable.

Which begs the questions, were did the universe come from? Again, thought we were talking about origins here. I agree, as vast an expanse as the universe is....life MUST exist. But why is there a universe at all? Has it always been? Logic and reason tells you that it must have had some kind of beginning.

 

[Danoff]

Which begs the questions, were did the universe come from? Again, thought we were talking about origins here. I agree, as vast an expanse as the universe is....life MUST exist. But why is there a universe at all? Has it always been? Logic and reason tells you that it must have had some kind of beginning.

But this:

it should lead us closer to denouncing God's involvement with the universe and accept a non-inspired cataclysmic event of random chance that started the 'creation' of all things.

Does not follow from "it must have had some kind of beginning". "Some kind of beginning" is not a "cataclysmic event of random chance". Science has no answers for why the universe was born (though we observe that it did), or why the laws of physics exist. But mysticism has historically not been a good explanation of that which science does not know (it has a 0% success record). I'm willing to wait for us to figure it out.

At no point does science say that the universe or life was created by chance.

 

[Duke]

YES, they do dictate that there is probably a beginning. What danoff is saying is that mysticism has never successfully kept its place as the only plausible explanation for anything in history. So therefore, even though science has not yet explained the origin of this reality/universe, there is no reason to suspect (based on looking at past experiences) that science cannot explain the origin of the universe as our understanding improves.

 

[Pako]

Where the universe came from?

I have a pretty good idea of what the answer will look like - it's a fundamental conseuqence of nothingness.

That's convenient. It just poofed out of thin air, not wait...out of nothingness. You can see the flaw in your logic? The consequence of nothing IS nothing. The universe is clearly not nothing, so therefore it can't be a consequence of nothing, but a consequence of something (or someone?),

 

[Famine]

The consequence of nothing is not necessarily nothing.

The concept of zero didn't reach us until about the 12th Century, and spawned a technological renaissance.

Without zero your computer would cease to work - it requires nothing to generate something...


However, I think you're crossing HOW the universe came into being with WHY.

 

[Swift]

The consequence of nothing is not necessarily nothing.

The concept of zero didn't reach us until about the 12th Century, and spawned a technological renaissance.

Without zero your computer would cease to work - it requires nothing to generate something...


However, I think you're crossing HOW the universe came into being with WHY.

Those are all great points. But what do they have to do with the origin of the universe?

 

[Pako]

The consequence of nothing is not necessarily nothing.

The concept of zero didn't reach us until about the 12th Century, and spawned a technological renaissance.

Without zero your computer would cease to work - it requires nothing to generate something...


However, I think you're crossing HOW the universe came into being with WHY.

Mathematically speaking, the number zero is NOT nothing. It is a point between negative and positive. It is another notch on the number line.

The creation of the universe is clearly a consequence of some great force. This 'force' seems to be core of this discussion or general topic.

 

[Famine]

How is it "clearly"?

 

[Pako]

How is it "clearly"?

I'm glad to see that you agree zero isn't nothing.

Cause and effect? If you know something that I don't then please share. If you're willing to entertain philosophical idea's that are beyond the realm of our current science, then don't rule out the possibility of a divine creator.

 

[Famine]

I'm glad to see that you agree zero isn't nothing.

Don't do that. It undermines your position.

I skipped your comment because it wasn't the most important part of your post, not because I agreed with it. Zero is indeed nothing - and something. As with the pre-universe. 0 is an absence or nothingness - in binary it's an absence of input and can create the presence of an output.

Cause and effect?

Why are you asking me? You said that it's "clearly a consequence of some great force" - why is it "clearly" anything?

Let me ask a better question. Do you agree with the notion that the universe is currently expanding (regardless of the speed, direction or what it is expanding "into" - merely that the universe NOW is slightly smaller than the universe NOW)?

 

[Pako]

Don't do that. It undermines your position.

I skipped your comment because it wasn't the most important part of your post, not because I agreed with it. Zero is indeed nothing - and something. As with the pre-universe. 0 is an absence or nothingness - in binary it's an absence of input and can create the presence of an output.



Why are you asking me? You said that it's "clearly a consequence of some great force" - why is it "clearly" anything?

Let me ask a better question. Do you agree with the notion that the universe is currently expanding (regardless of the speed, direction or what it is expanding "into" - merely that the universe NOW is slightly smaller than the universe NOW)?

Zero really has zero or little importance.....this I agree, I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that the number zero is not always = null, but it can be used in numeral systems using positional notation.

I have been told that the universe is expanding. Seems to be a popular scientific idea. Don't know if I agree with the notion, but I am not prepared to prove it otherwise nor do I have a reason to question it.

 

[Famine]

Okay, so we've established that the universe is expanding.

Why is it?

Edit: Not a trick question.

 

[Pako]

Perhaps we are measuring the result of a random cataclysmic event that occurred some x number of years ago, or perhaps the universe is more organic that we think and it is ever growing. I really have no idea, you?

 

[Perfect Balance]

I can't come up with an answer. Matter cannot be created or destoyed. So unless the things in the universe are spreading apart to create this expansion, I don't know why it would.

EDIT: There's also the question of where it is expanding into, because they say the universe is everything. But then again, you have to put in the possibility of parallel universes, so that means it can't be "everything"

EDIT#2: What a weird place we live in.

 

[Danoff]

That's convenient. It just poofed out of thin air, not wait...out of nothingness. You can see the flaw in your logic? The consequence of nothing IS nothing. The universe is clearly not nothing, so therefore it can't be a consequence of nothing, but a consequence of something (or someone?),

I was just putting forth the possibility that the absense of reality is equivalent to reality. The idea is pretty simple... reality must exist because it is a fundamental consequence of nothing.

I don't have any proof, I don't have anything at all backing that claim up. Only that it makes logical sense to me for why we're here. Hawking theorized (and it has evidence to support it) that two particles (a negative and a positive) spring forth out of nothing, attract each other, collide, and cancel out entirely. Then the process repeats over again. On a universal scale the result would be that we're the positively charged particles, and dark matter is the negatively charged particle, and eventually we'll collide and cancel each other out. It's basically an extension of what we already know about space - that it's impossible to have nothing (because these particles would spring into and out of existence if you did).

It's not meant to convince. It's simply meant to give you a way to conceive of a universe without a creator - something many people have trouble doing.


Here's a concrete representation of what I just said:

1 + -1 = 0

 

[Pako]

I was just putting forth the possibility that the absense of reality is equivalent to reality. The idea is pretty simple... reality must exist because it is a fundamental consequence of nothing.

I don't have any proof, I don't have anything at all backing that claim up. Only that it makes logical sense to me for why we're here. Hawking theorized (and it has evidence to support it) that two particles (a negative and a positive) spring forth out of nothing, attract each other, collide, and cancel out entirely. Then the process repeats over again. On a universal scale the result would be that we're the positively charged particles, and dark matter is the negatively charged particle, and eventually we'll collide and cancel each other out. It's basically an extension of what we already know about space - that it's impossible to have nothing (because these particles would spring into and out of existence if you did).

It's not meant to convince. It's simply meant to give you a way to conceive of a universe without a creator - something many people have trouble doing.


Here's a concrete representation of what I just said:

1 + -1 = 0

I understand what you're saying. The only problem with that idea is that we are still around. Shouldn't we have been zapped by our negative counter part by now?

1 + -1 IS 0. "Is" = a point of time that is equal to "now". If the universe is trillions of light years apart from edge to edge (how do they know that? I mean honestly...anyways) then I would think we would have been cancelled out already. It's an interesting idea though.

Why do think that:

It's simply meant to give you a way to conceive of a universe without a creator - something many people have trouble doing.

Would you say that "many" is actually "most"? Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic here. This isn't a popularity contest and you shouldn't base your ideas on what the majority of the populous believes (I know you don't believe anything but bare with me) but maybe they know something you don't? Don't answer that, it really isn't relevant or fair to even ask that. But yeah, I don't "know". It could be God, the great spaghetti monster in the sky, reality going in and out of phase or an experiment of a superior race. A question for you though, why is it such a far fetched idea for you to accept that it could be a superior life form that started the chain of events that created our universe? We can start reactions in our own environments, we can even create artificial environments. Why is the idea of a 'creator' beyond the realm of possibility for you?

 

[Danoff]

I understand what you're saying. The only problem with that idea is that we are still around. Shouldn't we have been zapped by our negative counter part by now?

Depends on how long it takes for the breaking apart and coming back together to occur. Perhaps at the universal scale that takes a really long time.

Would you say that "many" is actually "most"? Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic here. This isn't a popularity contest and you shouldn't base your ideas on what the majority of the populous believes (I know you don't believe anything but bare with me) but maybe they know something you don't?

You mean like they know God exists? That would require evidence.

why is it such a far fetched idea for you to accept that it could be a superior life form that started the chain of events that created our universe? We can start reactions in our own environments, we can even create artificial environments. Why is the idea of a 'creator' beyond the realm of possibility for you?

It isn't out of the realm of possibility, it's just out of the realm of probability for me. Especially if you restrict it to the Christian God of the bible. But I honestly hope that the answer doesn't turn out that something started the universe. Because then we'll be left with a whole new round of questions "Where did that come from? Where did it go?" Etc.

 

[Perfect Balance]

This is kinda off topic from whats being discussed right now, but IF there is a superior power, then you're screwed danoff.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps we are measuring the result of a random cataclysmic event that occurred some x number of years ago, or perhaps the universe is more organic that we think and it is ever growing. I really have no idea, you?

Happily, for my point, it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that it does expand.

We are agreed that in order for the universe to expand there must be a force of some variety? That's the "how". Now comes the "why"... Why? Why must there be a force making the universe expand? What, exactly, would this force be acting against?


This is where science gives up, says "I don't know" and goes on to sticking ears on mice or something, but where religion picks up the baton and runs with it.

As science currently stands, we cannot investigate the "why", because we don't have the tools to measure it, but we can tell you, for sure, the "how". You say that the universe is clearly a consequence of some great force, because of cause and effect - but the truth of the matter (a-hahaha) is that the great force is a consequence of the universe, because of cause and effect. But we absolutely cannot tell you WHY the existence of the universe creates this great (expansion) force, only that it does and, like life, it is apparently a completely natural effect of the universe's existence.


Yet.

This is kinda off topic from whats being discussed right now, but IF there is a superior power, then you're screwed danoff.

That's not a great reason for believing in one though.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Who created God and where did he come from?
If something created God, where did that thing come from?

Now if you answer

"God is the creator and his always existed"

Then why cant we say

"Matter is the building blocks of life and has always existed"

 

[ledhed]

If you say the universe is expanding... then what is the epicenter of the expansion ? Is it like a doppler expansion ? Or are portions expanding at a non relitive rate from other portions ? What is driving / forcing this expansion ? What is the equal and opposite reaction if it is not a doppler type expansion ?

Why are you making think of this crap ?

 

[Perfect Balance]

That's not a great reason for believing in one though.

That's not why I believe it, i'm just pointing that out. I wouldn't be able to just force myself to believe in God. A person can't just decide one day that he will "believe" in God so he will have some kind of "insurance" when he dies, just in case there really IS a god. You either believe in a god or you don't.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is kinda off topic from whats being discussed right now, but IF there is a superior power, then you're screwed danoff.

...but you could actually say that about any religious person too... I cite Homer Simpson here (from Series 4, "Homer The Heretic"), that if it turns out we're worshipping the wrong God, then by going to church every Sunday we're actually just making the real God angrier and angrier!

I always find it quite funny when people discuss God as if he were a headmaster of a school, who you only meet when you die and he reads through his file on you and decides whether you've been naughty or nice. If anything, I'd say that if you believe in God as some sort of cosmic insurance policy for when you die, then you're missing the point a bit.


Watched a bit of a programme on TV last night ('God's Next Army' - Channel 4, UK) about America's new breed of Evangelical Christians at Patrick Henry College - which they hope will become a Christian Ivy League university. It was all well and good until they come to the bit about teaching Biology and, of course, Creationism.

Any self-respecting educator, teacher, lecturer, tutor, in my opinion, should hang their heads in shame for teaching stuff that they know to be totally and utterly factually incorrect.... but that is, sadly, the nature of the beast. To say that the entire structure of the Earth's surface is only as it appears today because of 'The Great Flood' is simply preposterous (a lecturer briefly attempted to explain that the appearance of strata in the Earth's outer crust is not due to millions of years of sedimentation, but is infact a direct result of the Biblical flood....) The same goes for biology. Prof. Steve Jones (University College, London) said in a recent lecture to the Royal Society (viewable here) on creationism and biology, "You can't be a biologist without understanding evolution".... although you do have Creationist scientists, I don't think any creationist has the right to call themselves a biologist if they reject the facts of evolution...

That is why I have such a problem with these people... not because of their faith, but because not only do they fail to separate fact from fiction, actual truth for perceived truth, they go on to actually 'teach' their misconceptions too. Faith, however strong (or blind, even), is simply no excuse for teaching blatant falsehoods to impressionable young people. The same, if not more so, goes for evolutionary biology.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

TM - I for one completely understand your feelings toward christians in general. not that they all are, but most - are happy to turn away from truth, just because they won't dare challenge the preconcieved notion. And a perfect example is them getting angry if I say ass, but then they say butt. I say ****, they say Freak.

But I have to ask, the flood, why couldnt that have shaped the earth in various and numorous ways? hell, there was an ice age, right? imagine a flood, over the whole world, so massive, it covered most all the land. (pretend it was global warming if you like). now imagine winter comes, but it's colder than usual, because all the water evaporation caused an extremely dense layer of clouds to form, blocking sunlight. You know the rest, it now freezes over.

 

[Touring Mars]

TM - I for one completely understand your feelings toward christians in general.

I'm glad, but just to be clear, I don't have a problem with Christian or religious people per se, I only have a problem with anyone (religious or not) who knowingly goes into a class and teaches material that is factually incorrect.

But I have to ask, the flood, why couldnt that have shaped the earth in various and numorous ways?

Good point - the fact that the Earth's surface has been shaped in innumerable ways by a variety of phenomena (ice ages, weathering, flood basalts, volcanoes, continental drift, asteroid impacts etc.) is not in dispute. Indeed, floods (both water and lava) have continually be reshaping the surface of the Earth since the year dot.

The problems arise when you attempt to explain the incredible complexity of the history of the shape of the Earth's surface by attributing it all to just one event - the Biblical flood. Read this post here to see just one argument about why this doesn't fit with reality... the reality is far more complicated than any scribe 2000 years ago could possibly have known.

The reality, however, involves starting from a vantage point that can atleast accommodate the evidence i.e. that you appreciate evidential value, and you do not have a pre-conceived notion about the age of the Earth. This is a major sticking point with Creationists, as they claim to know (with certainty, and as a matter of 'fact') the exact age of the Earth. In truth, no-one knows the exact age of the Earth. But we do know how old it isn't... and we do atleast have a 'ball-park' figure (of around 4 billion years - based on multiple, cross-referenced points of evidence). Unfortunately, creationists who obviously promote the biblical flood story have an age of the Earth of just 6,000 years... this isn't just a bit wrong, it is massively wrong. If 4 billion years is 'in the ball-park', then 6,000 years is not even in the same country...

As intelligent animals, human beings have carried the notion for centuries that, for some reason, we have a God-given right to inhabit this Earth. One only has to look at the evidence (including the current behaviour of the planet) to realise that this is not actually true. Yes, we are here, but no, we won't be for ever. Yes, we are making the most of it, but also, as the Tsunami of 2004, or the (multiple) mass extinction events of the distant past show, we needn't make ourselves too comfortable. We are merely tenants, not landlords...