Natural selection v Intelligent design

quatona · Jul 1, 2015

stevevw said:
But surely there had to be a beginning to time and space.

Well, yes, maybe in the way the 21st century had a beginning or this day had a beginning, or my relationship with my best friend had a beginning.
You know, "beginning" is a pretty unprecise term used in different meanings.
Strictly speaking, we don´t observe any beginnings at all. All we observe are changes of that which is.
So "beginning" as in "starting to exist where nothing was before" is not exactly something we can talk about from experience or by comparison.

paulm50 · Jul 1, 2015

stevevw said:
I guess the beginning of existence as we know it, time and space. What else could there be. Before that there was nothing and when I mean nothing I mean absolutely nothing otherwise there would have been something. But even for all that to start there had to be something great.

Before what exactly? Before the big bang, before what created the big bang, before what created the thing that created what came before the big bang? And so on.

stevevw said:
What do you mean I think the earth is dead matter.

Read what I was replying to.

The problem is when you read what scientists think caused it or more specifically what they think happened before the big bang it seems to be similar to what they claim God as an explanation is. So its not that they haven't found an answer yet but that the type of answers they are already trying to come up with show that they have to appeal to things beyond the boundaries of the logic and science they use to explain everything else. So this shows that whatever the answer is going to be its going to be outside the normal parameters of our reality and existence.

For example from your links.

In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause.
http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html

Fortunately, the thinky types have come up with some ideas, and they’re all one part crazy, one part mind bendy, and 100% bananas.
http://www.universetoday.com/116835/what-came-before-the-big-bang/

So as you can see even the scientists will have to appeal to crazy and far fetched ideas that step outside the ways in which we explain things to be able to come up with an answer. So no matter how you look at it scientists will have to do the very thing they claim believers in Gods creation do which is to appeal to a force or occurrence beyond our reality.

As you point out that don't know yet and some are saying the ideas of others are wrong. some are saying we may never know. That's the beauty of science, they argue, debate and grow. Ancient man couldn't understand how Earth, Man and all the animals arrived here. Now we know, something the miracle came from dead matter on the Earth, but that's ignorance. There was no dead matter on the Earth. Life evolved over billions of years from live volcanic matter. That was always here.

So the creationists have nowhere to go but backwards to what created the big bang. If we find out that, they will go back to what created, what created the big bang.

Neither of the sites you pointed to give any credence to the god theory. One says it's the answer for people who can't grasp the possibility of not knowing the answer. Simple answer for simple people, to an impossible question. Maybe one day we will be able to get our head and the question or answer.

stevevw · Jul 4, 2015

bhsmte said:
How do you know there wasn't "something".

And define existence.[/QUOTE]
I believe there was something and that was God. But scientists/evolutionists/atheists have to come up with something to explain what was there before our universe came into existence. With that they say that time and space as we know it came into existence. So this is where we began to measure things as we do with relativity, cause and effect and the physics as we know them. So I guess thats what we call existence.

This goes back to the debate we were having before about reality and other dimensions. When scientists try to imagine what was before the big bang they envision ideas that go beyond our reality and existence. The laws and physics are different and well I am not sure what they try to explain it as. I heard Krauss try to explain this as nothing no really being nothing anymore. That nothing had a sort of something in it and this is how he was trying to explain what was there before the big bang. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

But as some have said this is really something because the things he talks about being nothing is really something. This is how some try to confuse the debate by changing the meanings of things and stepping outside the normal criteria for how we measure things to be able to explain the impossible. But at the end of the day at one point there had to be really really really nothing. How can there be an eternal existence of something. This would break all the laws that are in existence.

If this is the case then there are more laws to existence that we know of which must break the laws we know of. That would then create a whole bunch of other problems and allow all sorts of possibilities to come into the equation including Gods, supernatural agents and anything else you want to include.

stevevw · Jul 4, 2015

paulm50 said:
Before what exactly? Before the big bang, before what created the big bang, before what created the thing that created what came before the big bang? And so on.
Read what I was replying to

Thats right and we could keep going back. But where do we stop. By appealing to some unknown power or mechanism or reality that is different to what we know and how we measure things to explain things is doing the same as what you are saying believers do with God. You are stepping outside the natural and normal ways we see things to be able to explain it. And I agree because thats what we have to do because e cant use the laws of physics that rule our world to work this out. So thats why God as one possibility is not so far fetched. At least with Him we have an agent who claims to be made of the things that we cannot explain and of always being there by saying "I AM WHO I AM". He states that He spoke existence into reality and that He was there before time began.
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:17

As you point out that don't know yet and some are saying the ideas of others are wrong. some are saying we may never know. That's the beauty of science, they argue, debate and grow. Ancient man couldn't understand how Earth, Man and all the animals arrived here. Now we know, something the miracle came from dead matter on the Earth, but that's ignorance. There was no dead matter on the Earth. Life evolved over billions of years from live volcanic matter. That was always here

No that is not proven. Bacteria has an amazing ability to adapt and can live in many different environments. But that doesn't men this is how life started. Evolution takes something and then imagines all sorts of things that have not been validated. They havnt proven this in lab test so why should we believe this from the stories they make.

We dont know at the moment and perhaps will never know. But we are older and wiser and can realize what it takes to explain something. We have the benefit of accumulated knowledge. The problem is with all this knowledge the descriptions that scientists place on what happened before existence is pretty well as far fetched as they claim what Christians say with God. Yet they are allowed to come up with all their ideas as valid possibilities.

As I said before they may not know exactly what occurred but we can get an idea along what lines they are thinking by the type of ideas they are promoting. So far they have all been out of this world. Thats because they have to be because we are dealing with matters that are out of this world and into realms of something greater. This is where God comes in as one of those possibilities.

So the creationists have nowhere to go but backwards to what created the big bang. If we find out that, they will go back to what created, what created the big bang.

Yes we will have to go back to something. Thats something will have to be pretty amazing.

Neither of the sites you pointed to give any credence to the god theory. One says it's the answer for people who can't grasp the possibility of not knowing the answer. Simple answer for simple people, to an impossible question. Maybe one day we will be able to get our head and the question or answer.

Heres some more to ponder.

At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/
Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399

Archaeopteryx · Jul 4, 2015

stevevw said:
But at the end of the day at one point there had to be really really really nothing.

Why?

How can there be an eternal existence of something. This would break all the laws that are in existence.

Wouldn't that rule out an eternal god?

stevevw · Jul 5, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Why?

Think about it. If there was something then that something either had to be created or was always there. If it was always there and that something was the catalyst for the big bang then its suggests time. If it suggests time then it couldn't have always been there. The big bang required certain things to happen. They came together and created the right conditions for the big bang. Those things would have had to have been there before the big bang. If we appeal to some sort of other dimension and other conditions o explain what was before the big bang then that is no different to God.

Wouldn't that rule out an eternal god?

If God is the creator then He is an agent outside all the conditions of existence. If He is the creator then He is greater than anything we would try to describe and explain about existence.

Archaeopteryx · Jul 5, 2015

stevevw said:
Think about it. If there was something then that something either had to be created or was always there. If it was always there and that something was the catalyst for the big bang then its suggests time. If it suggests time then it couldn't have always been there. The big bang required certain things to happen. They came together and created the right conditions for the big bang. Those things would have had to have been there before the big bang. If we appeal to some sort of other dimension and other conditions o explain what was before the big bang then that is no different to God.

You didn't answer my question. To clarify, my question concerned your claim that "nothingness" is somehow a necessity.

If God is the creator then He is an agent outside all the conditions of existence. If He is the creator then He is greater than anything we would try to describe and explain about existence.

"Outside the conditions of existence"? You mean like nonexistence? That's the only way I can interpret the sentence "outside the conditions of existence."

Cearbhall · Jul 5, 2015

paulm50 said:
Natural selection, which is proven. Isn't intelligent. It's hit and miss, creatures evolve and become extinct as climates change, continents shift, and even asteroids hit the Earth. Or even one animal, Man, develops faster than others and kill off other species.

To claim that was gods work or remotely intelligent is, in my opinion, ignoring the obvious.

The way I learned it, whatever happened is what God intended. However random, however flawed, the end goal was us, and here we are.

It's a completely self-fulfilling prophecy, to be sure, but I do think it's possible to believe in ID without contradicting science.

Givemeareason · Jul 5, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
So the idea is that if something is incredibly intelligent and advanced and complex that it requires an intelligent creator, right? It would be impossible for it to occur naturally and develop all on its own? So anything that is complex, intelligent, and advanced was created. So then God was created by Mega-God? God is more intelligent, advanced, and complex than humans, so he requires creation more than even us. Why is it more likely that something complex came first, and then something more basic? Does that ever happen in nature?

And I reject the idea that because the statistical probability for the conditions necessary for life to occur being as low as it is makes it impossible either. If the universe is infinite in size, and that means that there are an infinite number of atoms crashing together simultaneously, then it is not just likely, but absolutely certain that life will exist.

If I tell you that I am thinking of a number and I tell you to guess it, but I give you all of eternity to guess, and you can make an infinite number of guesses per second, how quickly will you guess that number?

I don't think many astrophysicist think the universe is infinite. Didn't the Big Bang dispell that idea?

Moral Orel · Jul 5, 2015

Givemeareason said:
I don't think many astrophysicist think the universe is infinite. Didn't the Big Bang dispell that idea?

Not really. When they talk about the multiverse, they postulate that either each universe is a bubble unto itself, or spacetime is infinite and a new universe pops up here and there and sort of makes a bubble from popping up.

So what we can see as our universe is finite, that doesn't mean that it is. And many astrophysicists believe that inflation theory is correct, and therefore multiple universes are a result of that theory.

Givemeareason · Jul 5, 2015

Agreed but all that as you said is just
postulation. With regard to the Big Bang as being the origin of our universe is considered pretty conclusibe within the realm of science. And as such it is finite since it had a beginning.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 5, 2015

paulm50 said:
... Research how we got from a single cell being and by a process of survival of the fittest, which doesn't mean what you think it does. It wasn't always the fittest that survived, sometime is was the weakest, who could hide in a burrow and escape. Or the less fit who required less food, etc.

Apologies for the late reply, but though I agree with your overall thrust, this part is incorrect. 'The fittest' in this context means the best suited to produce viable offspring in their environment; it doesn't mean gym fit. Whether it's because they are big and strong, or small and weak; whether they hide & burrow, or they require less food, or they are simpler, whether they have more offspring, or they have fewer offspring, they're fit if they're able to persist, generation to generation, in their environment.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 5, 2015

Givemeareason said:
With regard to the Big Bang as being the origin of our universe is considered pretty conclusibe within the realm of science. And as such it is finite since it had a beginning.

Not necessarily; spatially, the observable universe (i.e. as far as we can see) would have been very small at the big bang, but there's nothing in the physics that prevents it being a tiny part of a spatially infinite universe (all very hot and dense) at the big bang.

Temporally, things are a little more complicated - there are a number of hypotheses that the big bang might have been an event in a previous universe (e.g. an 'oscillating' universe) , or that it was the result of energy released at the point of collision of two higher dimensional structures (known as 'branes', short for membranes).

Stephen Hawking has suggested that the universe might be temporally closed, giving the analogy of a sphere, where the north pole would be the big bang and directions south would be analogous to increasing time (i.e. the arrow of time points south), so there would be no sense in which there was a 'before' the big bang, any more than there is anything north of the north pole; it just looks like a beginning from our perspective. This analogy doesn't necessarily follow through to a big crunch at the 'south pole', in fact, recent observations suggest the universe will just keep on expanding.

For any of these hypotheses to be taken seriously, they need to be seemingly valid solutions to the equations of successful physical models, and there needs to be some prospect of falsifying them, either by demonstrating the mathematical solution to be invalid, or finding observational evidence that rules them out. Equally, the prospect of finding observational evidence in support of them, e.g. signatures in the cosmic microwave background, makes them more interesting. Interest in particular hypotheses waxes and wanes according to these criteria and with the introduction of competing hypotheses

Moral Orel · Jul 5, 2015

Givemeareason said:
Agreed but all that as you said is just
postulation. With regard to the Big Bang as being the origin of our universe is considered pretty conclusibe within the realm of science. And as such it is finite since it had a beginning.

The beginning part isn't totally accurate either though. There was a state of really low entropy at one point, which is what people consider the time right after the big bang, and we can't look back past that. That doesn't necessarily constitute a beginning though.

stevevw · Jul 5, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
You didn't answer my question. To clarify, my question concerned your claim that "nothingness" is somehow a necessity

I just did by explaining the consequences. If there is something then we have to deal with that somehow ie how did it get there, how long it was there (eternity), was there a beginning to it. Does the same conditions that we know of apply to what was before the big bang and if so does this mean that there are other dimensions that are involved in our existence or non existence. All these factors would have to be dealt with if there is something rather than nothing.

Of course as Lawrence Krausse has tried to do is say that the nothing before the big bang was really something. But that something was really nothing in the sense that we know nothing. But that seems ridiculous because as soon as you try to explain that nothing you start to talk about something. Its sort of allowing special conditions outside the normal parameters we deal with things to be able to explain things because scientists cant deal with absolutely nothing. I cant see any difference between that and saying God was responsible for it all.

Just in case you bring up God as one of those conditions. God is outside all of those conditions and isn't part of it as He was responsible for making those conditions.

"Outside the conditions of existence"? You mean like nonexistence? That's the only way I can interpret the sentence "outside the conditions of existence."

When I say outside the conditions of our existence that is exactly what I mean outside our reality. Outside the things we know such as our physical laws, logic, cause and effect that is compared to conditions before the big bang. It is different to conditions of non existence as that may mean after death. Thats unless you want to acknowledge that there may be some sort of condition after death. I guess if some scientists want to acknowledge that there is really something rather than nothing before existence and life then I guess it stands to reason that there is something rather than nothing after life.

Archaeopteryx · Jul 5, 2015

stevevw said:
I just did by explaining the consequences. If there is something then we have to deal with that somehow ie how did it get there, how long it was there (eternity), was there a beginning to it. Does the same conditions that we know of apply to what was before the big bang and if so does this mean that there are other dimensions that are involved in our existence or non existence. All these factors would have to be dealt with if there is something rather than nothing.

Sorry, steve, you still aren't addressing my question. You claimed that nothingness was somehow necessary. I asked you how you knew that that was the case.

When I say outside the conditions of our existence that is exactly what I mean outside our reality. Outside the things we know such as our physical laws, logic, cause and effect that is compared to conditions before the big bang. It is different to conditions of non existence as that may mean after death. Thats unless you want to acknowledge that there may be some sort of condition after death. I guess if some scientists want to acknowledge that there is really something rather than nothing before existence and life then I guess it stands to reason that there is something rather than nothing after life.

"Outside reality"? You mean like unreal? Is this an intentional attempt at humour?

Givemeareason · Jul 6, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Sorry, steve, you still aren't addressing my question. You claimed that nothingness was somehow necessary. I asked you how you knew that that was the case.

"Outside reality"? You mean like unreal? Is this an intentional attempt at humour?

This is getting a bit esoteric for me. How about this one that I sometimes think about. I think the latest estimate of the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. We still have no real evidence of intelligence in the universe. That says the uinverse may have existed all this time for all we know without even any awareness of the existence of the universe. Suddenly we come into existence and thought comes into existence. With thought we begin to understand and find there are laws of physics and all sorts of things even technologies that might never have been known. Knowledge is nonexistent without us. Why are all these things possible? Why has it been possible all this time? Of course we couldn't ask that if we didn't happen to be here. But it just seems so incredible considering all the possibilities wondering after all this time now that thought has finally come into existence what might happen next.

paulm50 · Jul 6, 2015

stevevw said:
Thats right and we could keep going back. But where do we stop.

This shows the difference between the two sides, creationist v evolutionists.

Creationist, stop around 5,000 bc. By sticking to a story that was once oral and then written down. Claiming these stories can never be wrong.

Evolutionists, never stop learning more. The steps of evolution are here to be seen. From early life in the sea, to today. The gaps are being filled all the time. We never stop learning. Which is part of our being human.

No that is not proven. Bacteria has an amazing ability to adapt and can live in many different environments. But that doesn't men this is how life started. Evolution takes something and then imagines all sorts of things that have not been validated. They havnt proven this in lab test so why should we believe this from the stories they make.

We dont know at the moment and perhaps will never know. But we are older and wiser and can realize what it takes to explain something. We have the benefit of accumulated knowledge. The problem is with all this knowledge the descriptions that scientists place on what happened before existence is pretty well as far fetched as they claim what Christians say with God. Yet they are allowed to come up with all their ideas as valid possibilities.

As I said before they may not know exactly what occurred but we can get an idea along what lines they are thinking by the type of ideas they are promoting. So far they have all been out of this world. Thats because they have to be because we are dealing with matters that are out of this world and into realms of something greater. This is where God comes in as one of those possibilities.

Yes we will have to go back to something. Thats something will have to be pretty amazing.

Heres some more to ponder.

At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/
Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399

You see, you can never be wrong because Stone Age men knew it all. You're assuming evolution is a non fail process, it fails all the time. Species don't fit and die, new born don't fif, don't reproduce and the flaw gets removed. Look at how most dinosaurs died out, too big to survive in the new environment. Some smaller ones evolved into birds, not in one giant leap, in small steps by DNA adapting. Which we can now replicate in a lab. As we learn more, we grow.

Cearbhall said:
The way I learned it, whatever happened is what God intended. However random, however flawed, the end goal was us, and here we are.

It's a completely self-fulfilling prophecy, to be sure, but I do think it's possible to believe in ID without contradicting science.

If a god exists, and I'm open to the possibility.
He could only of kicked off the Big Bang and tampered with the Evolution process at best. The proven steps are too many and too obvious for the Genesis story to be right.

Has this god been used as an excuse to gain from others? Not long after being given the Ten Commandments, Moses starts to covet, kill, steal and probably enslave and rape the Canaanite. Because they were told by god to take their land. Irony or did the Commandments not include Gentiles? Numbers 21:32-35, just one of a string of stories the Jews are using today to steal the land from the Palestinians. GWB said he was on a mission from god to invade Iraq. That led to the crisis today.

This event is one of 10,000s times where men have used the word of god to benefit themselves to the detriment of others. The apple story is just a great way of telling people "I know what you have to do, and this is what happens if you don't."

And there's my argument with organised religion. I believe in a lot that Jesus, Paul and Peter preached. I don't believe in it all without question. Because doing that makes it a perfect tool for evil men.

Moral Orel · Jul 6, 2015

Givemeareason said:
We still have no real evidence of intelligence in the universe.

We have evidence of us, and we're intelligence in the universe. Why isn't that evidence that there should be more? We're one star in a galaxy with 100 billion stars. There are 100 billion galaxies out there, just in the part of the universe we can see. Why would you assume that our intelligence is special and unique?

We have a very limited scope because we can't look and travel very far. There's a good chance that there is life in the ice on Mars, but it's so hard to go there and look that we can't know for sure right now. Just because we can't see and communicate with other planets yet doesn't mean it isn't likely that there is more life out there. It doesn't even have to be our kind of life. We have plenty of extremophiles on Earth that don't look like our kind of life and don't require all the things we think life does, so chances are actually really good that life exists elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in UFOs or any sort of conspiracy theory like that. I just think that life is likely, intelligent life is likely, but two intelligences contacting each other is unlikely and there are plenty of explanations for why that would be so difficult.

stevevw · Jul 6, 2015

Givemeareason said:
This is getting a bit esoteric for me. How about this one that I sometimes think about. I think the latest estimate of the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. We still have no real evidence of intelligence in the universe. That says the uinverse may have existed all this time for all we know without even any awareness of the existence of the universe. Suddenly we come into existence and thought comes into existence. With thought we begin to understand and find there are laws of physics and all sorts of things even technologies that might never have been known. Knowledge is nonexistent without us. Why are all these things possible? Why has it been possible all this time? Of course we couldn't ask that if we didn't happen to be here. But it just seems so incredible considering all the possibilities wondering after all this time now that thought has finally come into existence what might happen next.

This relates to something some scientists have said that the mind is what gives meaning and reality and the things we see. This goes back to the thought experiments made in quantum physics. The observer is what makes things come into reality.

In saying that I find it hard to believe that a meaningless , dark and cold universe can produce a mind that has so much meaning and intelligence. Surely the thing that produces such a mind has to be as great if not greater than that mind.

Just to add we do have certain things we can say indicates that there may be some intelligence involved in the universe. One is a finely tuned universe for life. But I can never understand how some can say there is no intelligence in existence and life. I find it almost silly in that everything we see has the hallmarks of intelligence. Its not as if everything is a dumb mistake. Even if you say evolution has intelligence involved. But dont say its not intelligence. Its a denial to not acknowledge this.

Natural selection v Intelligent design

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Wanderer

inquisitive

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

inquisitive

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

inquisitive

Similar threads