Chance and evolution

lucaspa · #81 4th November 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by gnarly love

You cleary do not know the history of evolution.

I think I clearly do. I do know, for instance, that Darwin wrote these passages in Origin of the Species:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Now, if evolution really were atheism, how could Darwin write this?

There are 250 creation biologist alone.

Why can't AiG or ICR or the Discovery Institute ever get more than 25 to sign statements supporting creationism.

However, you think that is a lot? Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. You will get over 120,000 articles. Most have many more than one author. How many evolution biologists do you think this represents?

If you an evolutionists and athiest, why not lie to help supprt your belief, it doesnt matter if you do or not, you wont get punished, but in the frame work of christianity, lying is punishable.[/quote]
In the framework of science, lying is also punishable. And unlike in Christianity, it ALWAYS gets caught.

First of all sciencitists selectively select what they look at. Also this was said by an evolution scientist.

You are describing Creation Science, not regular science. If one scientist only looks at some data, other scientists trying to prove him wrong will look at the rest of the data.

If as evolutionary theory claims 1 species gradually evolved into another we would surely expect intermidiate forms. Fish that began to be amphibians. Retiles that started to grow wings.

And those intermediate forms are found. Now, what you have mentioned is NOT one species evolving to another. It is rather whole new CLASSES of species. But that is OK, the intermediate forms are there.

The fossil record is cited by evolutionists as support for their theory. Actaully it is rather embarassing to the theory of evolution. And provide support for the concept of direct special creation. If evolution was true then the fossil record would begin with every simple forms of life and gradually evolve into more complex forms of life. ALso if the evolutionary theory was correct you would expect to find tremendous intermidiate forms or transitional forms. On the other hand if creation were true we would expect no transitonal forms between created kinds or basic types of plants or animals.

That last sentence has creationism be falsified. Let's be clear here: creation and creationism are two separate things. Creation is a theological statement that God created. Creationism is a particular how of creation. But evolution is also a how of creation. So evolution is also creation.

Now, there are transitional series of individuals linking speciea and then across species to genera, family, order, and even class. I can post the references if you want.

Now, evolutionary theory actually says we should not find many of these transitional series. Why not? Because most speciation is allopatric. That is, a small population is isolated from the main population, faces a new environment, and changes to a new species in less than 50,000 years. Since most strata of rock is laid down in at 50-60,000 years, the tansition is too rapid for the fossil record to catch. Also, since the transition occurs in a limited area, it's unlikely that this area will be exposed on the surface for paleontologists to find it.

Lets understand the fossil recordand know what it reveals. In cambrain rocks which evolutionists meiantian they wre laid down about 600 million years ago. We find a extraordinary assortment of very complexforms of life. for examlpe we find trilobites, they are so complex evolutionists say it took around 2,000 million years to evolve.

Trilobites are NOT found in the Cambrian. Someone has fibbed to you. Also, they failed to tell you that in recent years we have found many more primitive fossils in pre-Cambrian rock.

If all of this is true in the precambrain rocks, which are generally under cambrain formations, we must see evolutionary ancestors of those complex incertraebrates, many of these rocks aer undistrubed nd perfectly suitible for preservation of fossils.What do we find in these precambrian rocks? Certainly we can say no one has ever been able to find the evolutionary ancestors of these precambrain animals. none for sponges, jellyfish, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, brachipods, worms or any of the other cambrain animal have an evolutionary ancestor.

Not true. The fossils in the Cambrian have hard body parts. We know that soft body parts don't fossilize well, so the soft-bodied ancestors of the hard-shelled Cambrian organisms won't show up very often. But they do show up and the fossils are there. Here are some references if you are interested:
1. Ramskold, L and Hou, X 1991 New early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran
Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoan. Nature, 351: 225-228
10. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...rustacean.html Crustacean pre-Cambrian but not hard-shelled.

I'm afraid your source has violated the 9th Commandment.

They believe this tansiton tokk about 100 millio years, if thats true then we should expect to find a vast amount of these "in between" forms. We find not one single transitonal form from invertebrates to vertebrates. Fishes all appear to be fully formed in the fossils without evolutionary ancestors. So we are left with the same conclusion regarding the rest of the fossil record. No intermidiate types between invertebrates to verterates. No intermidiate types between fish and amphibian. No intermidiate types between amphibians and reptiles. No intermidiate types between reptiles and mammals.

All those a fib.

Reptiles to mammals
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_01.htm general article on fossils and evolution
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4505_Fossil_Record.htm

Lucas list of transitional fossils on the web http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

No intermidiate types found anywhere in the world neither living nor fossil.

As to living species, ever hear of mudskippers (intermediate fish and amphibian), seals (intermediate mammalian land and sea) and penguins (intermediate birds and sea dwelling.

AS a matter of fact we found ones of regular birds in the same geological formation as those of archeoptri, therefore specimiens of archeoptrix could not have been an ancestor of thiose birds.

I'll go into the details and flawed logic you used for Archie later. Right now I want to point out the semantic shell game you are using. You started out wanting "intermediates" between classes. Archie is such an intermediate. In fact, it's such a good one that you switched terms and now want "transitionals" or a direct ancestor-descendent sequence. Yes, Archie is not the ancestor of modern birds. It is one of the hundreds of species in the transition from dinos to birds. But it is an intermediate form that creationism says can't exist. Therefore it falsifies creationism very well.

But if evolution is true, it relies on the big bang, the big bang is the question not the ecolutionary theory. Evolution is a process after the big bang, How can anything come from nothing?

Evolution does not rely on the BB. Even creationists think BB is evidence for God: www. reasons.org. You are using the First Law of Thermodynamics. But that law, like all scientific laws, works only in the universe. It can't apply before the universe or be used to prevent the universe from coming into existence.

lucaspa · #82 5th November 2003, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by gnarly love

GOD by defintion is a necessary being, it is not possible for GOD not to exist. The very name GOD symbolizes that which is an absolute and from that we can measure all other changes.

Sorry, Gnarly, this doesn't follow. You cannot get a necessary being by definition. You must show by independent means that the being is necessary. And it is possible for deity not to exist. All that has to happen is that the material causes we see by science work on their own.

Now, we can't show thru science that this happens. So, to science God is possible. But God is equally not possible to science. Science is agnostic.

This looks like the "kalam" argument from Aquinas. Hume and Russell destroyed the logic of that one. It is no longer "proof" of God.

lucaspa · #83 5th November 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by David Gould

Arikay,

I think Lucaspa is saying that the demand for an answer to the question 'What caused God?' before accepting that God is the answer to 'What caused the universe?' is not logical, and is certainly not scientific.

The problem is that some Christians connect the two by demanding that everything that exists needs a cause in order to try and prove God and then suddenly somewhere along the way exempt God from this axiom.

Lucaspa, I believe, does not argue for God along those lines. But because so many do there is an automatic connection in many atheists' minds (mine included) between the questions, 'What caused the universe?' and 'What caused God?'

Thank you, David. Well said.

Just because creationists make an error is not an excuse for anyone else to repeat the error.

Now, the only place where "what caused God?" is legitimate is if a creationist claims that nothing complex can arise by chance. If that is the case, then they have cut off any possible explanation for how God came into being, since God is obviously complex. But the creationist must make that specific claim first.

First Cause is always exempt from having a cause. But First Cause is directed solely to the uncaused Cause that starts the chain of cause and effect rolling. This usually means the cause of the universe, since the universe is the start of the cause and effect chain.

lucaspa · #84 5th November 2003, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by gnarly love

you know how to deny everything, as a proponent said, selection is an explaination around the probability. Well it is good at denying reality. but lets quit our fultileness, if the big bang is true i havbe no grounds to speak. Now please, tell me, how something came from completely nothing, and by nothing.

Let's go back to cumulative (natural) selection and cutting down odds. I'll use a simple example.

You have a 1 in 1024 chance of correctly winning 10 coin tosses in a row. But I can guarantee you I can find someone who can do so. How? Simple, use cumulative selection in the form of a single elimination tournament. I start with 1024 people and pair them up. Then each pair tosses a coin. The 512 winners are selected to go to the next round. Again they are paired and do a coin toss; the 256 winners are selected to go to the next round. Repeat this 7 more times. Now you have 2 people who have won 9 coin tosses in a row. The winner of this round has won 10 coin tosses in a row. And it is a certainty that such a person will be found with this method. We have taken odds of 1 in 1024 and converted that into virtual certainty. Now, I don't know which individual will win the tosses, but it is certain that one of them will, given the algorithm of the competition. Evolution by natural selection is a competition algorithm, more complex but analogous to the single elimination tournament algorithm.

Now, as to something coming from nothing, let's go back to virtual particles for a minute. These particles pop into existence in vacuum where there are no particles. They are very real, exerting measurable force. They don't last long because they exist from borrowed energy and give that energy back.

One intriguing fact about the universe is that it has ZERO net energy. That is, the positive energy is balanced by negative energy. Some calculations look at the universe as one huge virtual particle. So, since matter and energy are the same thing, and the universe has zero energy, in a sense the universe is still "nothing".

For the Big Bang being true, go to www.reasons.org. Ross doesn't hold with biological evolution, but in his opinion the only people who deny the Big Bang are atheists. I'm sure you appreciate the irony here.

There are other ways that the universe can arise other than being created. The main problem with your view is that you are incorrectly applying the First Law of Thermondynamics. It doesn't apply to getting a universe in the first place. It only describes the universe after it exists.

lucaspa · #85 5th November 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by gnarly love

As I said before there are 250 creation biologist alone. Go here too: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-sciencebias.html

go here too: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

and Mike, thanks man =)

1. Your first website. Contrary to the site, science is one area where your personal biases don't count. Why not? Because science has an impartial "authority" with which to compare all ideas: the physical universe. I like this summary of the scientific method. It's accurate, simple and to the point:

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Both eliminate bias. If our direct experience of the universe doesn't match our bias, then it is our bias that must change. And since the experience is available to everyone, you can't put your bias over because everyone can see thru it.

For instance, the website discusses fossils. Well, you can objectively measure the features of the organism that was fossilized: height, width, number of ribs, length of ribs, number of teeth, shape of teeth, etc, etc. etc. Then you can compare those numbers with measurements from other fossils and do what are called morphometric analysis to determine how similar/different they are. This also helps determine ancestor-descendent relationships. Now, if someone looks at the same fossil and doesn't agree, then you two can discuss the numbers and what they mean. When everyone who has looked at the data or fossil agree, then you get pretty confident that the conclusion is the correct one. After all, they are all stubborn, determined people who must be convinced and there is no way to force them.

Gnarly, the reason I participate in these forums is because it is relaxing. The arguments here are so tame compared to what I face at work as a research scientist! When virtually all scientists agree to evolution and natural selection, you can be sure that they do so because there is no choice.

2. The second site. The title lets us in on the confusion and attempted deception by the authors. Remember, creation and creationISM are two separate things. It is easy to believe in creation and accept evolution. All you have to do is the second quote in my signature.

Now, as to the scientists mentioned, look up their peer-reviewed publications. That is, the publications in the scientific literature where other scientists critique the work before it is published. You will find that none of their scientific work is on creationism. NONE! Contrast that to Darwin. Darwin went first to his fellow scientists: Hooker, Gray, and Lyell. Only after he was able to convince these people did he even consider speaking to a wider audience of scientists.

Michali · #86 5th November 2003, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

But the thing is. god is often held at a different standard than other things. "First Cause God" probably doesn't have a cause. However, it is automatically assumed that nothing can come from nothing, and then it is automatically assumed that everything that is not god needs a cause. But for some reason god is exempt from this.

Sure, god could Just exist, however, if god can Just exist, then it should also be considered that other things Just exist. If other things need a cause then it should also be considered that god needs a cause.

God could have been a first cause, but so could other things that are not God. They all need to be held to the same standards, and since the scientific standard is that none of the possible first causes have been falsified, or have much over one another, that scientifically, they all should be considered equal.

If God is the thing that "just exists" then it is safe to assume that He is the system in which we live. It can be assumed that other things just exist also, but that would be a completely different system. Or, another "god" of which there is another universe completely unreachable by our own(if there is such a thing.) Obviously, in nothing, something had to "just exist" to have any sort of existence at all. Now, there is no "just exist" in the original "just exist", for from the first system did it come.

If the universe is the "just exist", then the universe is "god". But I don't look at it that way. Rather, I believe the universe to be only a part of another system. That system being the necessary "perfect" in infinity. Or our Living-God.

The Archangel Aethariel · #87 5th November 2003, 03:08 AM

If God is the thing that "just exists" then it is safe to assume that He is the system in which we live.

Why assume this, and not that the 'just-existing' being created another entity in which we live?

~AA

Michali · #88 5th November 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by The Archangel Aethariel

Why assume this, and not that the 'just-existing' being created another entity in which we live?

~AA

I never said that. The "just existing" being did create another entity in which we live, the universe. But the universe, I believe, did not "just exist". The original constant is the only thing with the originless nature. Everything in it will be created out of it.

-edit- And if there is more than one thing that "just exists", they would be off in another realm of existence. Completely unreachable/undetectable by our own. What ever "just exists" is the foundation (system) in which everything exists.

I believe it also has to have omnipotence, but that goes into debates about infinity and the "perfect".

lucaspa · #89 5th November 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

But the thing is. god is often held at a different standard than other things. "First Cause God" probably doesn't have a cause. However, it is automatically assumed that nothing can come from nothing, and then it is automatically assumed that everything that is not god needs a cause. But for some reason god is exempt from this.

Sure, god could Just exist, however, if god can Just exist, then it should also be considered that other things Just exist. If other things need a cause then it should also be considered that god needs a cause.

God could have been a first cause, but so could other things that are not God. They all need to be held to the same standards, and since the scientific standard is that none of the possible first causes have been falsified, or have much over one another, that scientifically, they all should be considered equal.

1. You have noticed that whenever I list candidates for First Cause, I always say "in no particular order", right? That takes care of your last paragraph.

2. You and I are talking about different things. I do not care, right now, what Gnarly is saying. I care about what you are saying. That Gnarly is making a mistake has nothing to do with the accuracy of your statements. The argument that you are using back at Gnarly is not valid. Gnarly can say that deity created the universe and doesn't need to have its existence explained at this point.

3. Gnarly's claim that "something can't come from nothing" is a separate claim and is based on a misconception of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Within the universe she is somewhat correct. We do say that matter and energy can't be created but only change forms. Gnarly thinks this applies to getting a universe. It doesn't.

4. It appears that you are trying to get at an internal inconsistency in Gnarly's statements. Here I think you have the seeds of a valid argument. More and more as I look at it carefully. The logic goes like this: 1. Everything has to come from something. 2. Something can't come from nothing, 3. God exists and is something, 4. Therefore God can't come from nothing. Where then, did God come from? Then you have the contradiction by Gnarly: God doesn't have to come from anything; God just is.

And then, yes. If Gnarly claims that God doesn't have to come from something but just exist, then it is valid to have other entities with the same condition. There is no a priori reason to have God be unique in this respect.

It's just that you didn't make your argument clearly.

lucaspa · #90 5th November 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Michali

If God is the thing that "just exists" then it is safe to assume that He is the system in which we live. It can be assumed that other things just exist also, but that would be a completely different system. Or, another "god" of which there is another universe completely unreachable by our own(if there is such a thing.)

You were doing well up to the last sentence. The "different system" would apply to our universe.

For instance, if Logical and Mathematical Necessity just exists and has the power to create a universe for the equations to describe, then we live in that system and not the system of God.

If the universe is the "just exist", then the universe is "god". But I don't look at it that way. Rather, I believe the universe to be only a part of another system. That system being the necessary "perfect" in infinity. Or our Living-God.

I understand. This is what you believe. However, it is also possible to believe the universe is part of another system. Logical and Mathematical Necessity is such an alternate system.

So is ekpyrotic. In that system two 11 dimension branes arise by quantum fluctuation. They collide and the result of the collision is our universe.

Now, science is unable to tell whether any of these hypotheses/beliefs for First Cause is correct.

This isn't about trying to convince anyone that one is correct and the others false. This is about resistingclaims by people that one is right and the others wrong.