Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you have doubts about Heliocentrism and want to have a career in astronomy, then you should probably keep your opinions to yourself.
Do you know why? Because being absolutely wrong about the most basic concepts in your field of work casts you in a bad light.
He is claiming that you reject evolution when the vast majority of biologists accept it as true.
How have you determined that it is proof of intention? The Bible says that the universe was created for humans. Why then is the huge majority of it hostile to human life? What does it say about the "creator's" intentions when the creation is nearly entirely anti-human?
Seems much more likely that the creator made the universe for all that vacuum that's out there. Very supportive to vacuum.
Ah yes, this creation that is clearly a creation. I'll come back to this...
The burden of proof would seem to be on you here. You are making the claim that there is an intention there, so you must support it. You don't get to make any nonsense claim you want and then say your claims are valid unless someone else can disprove them.
Okay, so let's establish some words and their definitions then, shall we?
I will use the word "create" (for the purposes of this discussion) to mean what you say here.
Something is "created" if there is some intelligent agency at work. When I write some music, I CREATE music because I am taking conscious action. When my husband made hamburgers for dinner last night, he CREATED hamburgers because he had to take conscious action. I will leave out any and all implications of artistic merit from this, so a creation does not need to be an artistic thing. I can create a clean shower just as easily as I can create a piece of music.
On the other hand, I will use the word "cause" to refer to something that came about without some conscious choice as to the outcome. Thunderclouds CAUSE lightning, for example. This can also happen when people make things but have no control over the outcome. When I pour a bowl of oats and raisins for breakfast, I CAUSE a particular arrangement of raisins int he bowl. But since I do not choose where each raisin goes, I do not CREATE it.
I hope that the meanings of each word as I am using them here is clear to you, and I also hope that the difference between the two is clear.
Now, tell me...
How can you tell them difference between the two? If you see a particular thing, how can you tell if it was the result of some CAUSAL influence or a CREATIVE influence? You said earlier that the universe is a creation. How would you tell the difference between a created universe and a caused universe?
Evolution is a well established fact. Macroevolution on the other hand is not.
A world-famous chemist tells the truth: theres no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent
Oh men...Do you seriously consider this an argument against our existence? The fact that we exist is enough to refute it. The Universe is big because it is expanding, if it didn't expand we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Again before 1000 years all it takes to have life is a planet, in our case earth. Today we know that it takes much more things to have life. Everything inside the Universe is an open system, planets belong to systems and galaxies belong to clusters. This shows interconnection, even what you see as void it isn't truly void, it consists of dark matter and dark energy.
Does the vacuum has consciousness?
Our existence isn't important because of our size or position in the Universe.
It is a Creation because there is no randomness. Basically true Randomness can exists only in Nothingness.
A design doesn't need a Designer anymore?
To disprove a Creator you must first disprove the Creation and say that we live in a Cosmic mistake, of course this doesn't happen, the Universe is governed by Laws and Constants. The fact that intelligent conscious life was determined
Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)
It shows a plan to have consciousness and since matter doesn't understands what consciousness is ONLY a conscious mind could plan conscious minds to exist. THE ONLY THING you can say to refute it is that Consciousness is an illusion and we are cosmic mistakes. Remember Evolution is Deterministic.
Lets analyze that scenario
Only matters exists, mind is an illusion
- Cogito ergo sum. I have conscious experiences. Even if these experiences (including the feeling of being the subject of conscious expriences) are illusions, I am still experiencing these illusions. Therefore consciousness exists even if all other apparent conscious beings in the universe would be philosophical zombies (that is, beings that act rational, but lack conscious experience).
- If consciousness exists, there is mind. This rules out orthodox materialist monism (the notion that there is only matter, and that mind is an illusion).
- Caveat: I can only falsify this for myself, because I cannot with certainty claim anyone else has conscious experiences. Vice versa, you cannot verify my conscious experiences, so you should not believe my claim, but base your evaluation on your own conscious experience (or lack thereof).
You know that its the only word you can use since cosmic accident would sound ridiculous! The fact that you use the word CREATION is selfdestructive to your argument that there is no intention behind.
HM? We could predict where the raisin goes, that's pseudorandomness.
Yes you are clear.
What you have here is an argument from physical necessity. The Universe had a cause something physical therefor it wasn't created. I am really tired to explain this over and over again!
Physical Necessity
This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a cosmic landscape of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.
Infinite Causes
The notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious, even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it wont help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.
Why didn't you write " If you have doubts about abiogenesis ...."?
If you think that everything we are currently ignorant of can be answered by "God did it with magic", then why would you be a scientist to begin with?
Let make it clear I don't disagree (as well as other creationists) with evolution in nature. What is being debated is evolution that exist only in evolutionist's mind.Abiogenesis doesn't have, as far as I know, enough supportive evidence for someone expressing dissent to be mocked. Evolution, on the other hand, does.
Evolution is a well established fact. Macroevolution on the other hand is not.
A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent
Oh men...Do you seriously consider this an argument against our existence? The fact that we exist is enough to refute it. The Universe is big because it is expanding, if it didn't expand we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Again before 1000 years all it takes to have life is a planet, in our case earth. Today we know that it takes much more things to have life. Everything inside the Universe is an open system, planets belong to systems and galaxies belong to clusters. This shows interconnection, even what you see as void it isn't truly void, it consists of dark matter and dark energy.
Does the vacuum has consciousness?
Our existence isn't important because of our size or position in the Universe.
It is a Creation because there is no randomness. Basically true Randomness can exists only in Nothingness.
A design doesn't need a Designer anymore?
To disprove a Creator you must first disprove the Creation and say that we live in a Cosmic mistake, of course this doesn't happen, the Universe is governed by Laws and Constants. The fact that intelligent conscious life was determined
Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)
It shows a plan to have consciousness and since matter doesn't understands what consciousness is ONLY a conscious mind could plan conscious minds to exist. THE ONLY THING you can say to refute it is that Consciousness is an illusion and we are cosmic mistakes. Remember Evolution is Deterministic.
Lets analyze that scenario
Only matters exists, mind is an illusion
- Cogito ergo sum. I have conscious experiences. Even if these experiences (including the feeling of being the subject of conscious expriences) are illusions, I am still experiencing these illusions. Therefore consciousness exists – even if all other apparent conscious beings in the universe would be philosophical zombies (that is, beings that act rational, but lack conscious experience).
- If consciousness exists, there is ‘mind’. This rules out orthodox materialist monism (the notion that there is only matter, and that mind is an illusion).
- Caveat: I can only falsify this for myself, because I cannot with certainty claim anyone else has conscious experiences. Vice versa, you cannot verify my conscious experiences, so you should not believe my claim, but base your evaluation on your own conscious experience (or lack thereof).
You know that its the only word you can use since cosmic accident would sound ridiculous! The fact that you use the word CREATION is selfdestructive to your argument that there is no intention behind.
HM? We could predict where the raisin goes, that's pseudorandomness.
Yes you are clear.
Physical Necessity
This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.
Infinite Causes
The notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious, even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.
Developmental biologists know the difference. Microevolution usually involves genetic changes in late embryo development after the body plan has been establish while macroevolution involves changes in early embryo development where the development genes are interconnected involve the body plans. So far in the lab they found embryos will developed only one way and it extremely resistance to changes.It's the same thing. It's like saying that me walking across the room really happens, but I'm incapable of walking down the street.
Developmental biologists know the difference. Microevolution usually involves genetic changes in late embryo development after the body plan has been establish while macroevolution involves changes in early embryo development where the development genes are interconnected involve the body plans. So far in the lab they found embryos will developed only one way and it extremely resistance to changes.
It's more like microevolution is a walk in the park while macroevolution is like going across the galaxy.
I have seen many biologists who have said otherwise. So until you can produce the source I ask for, I'll stick with what I know, okay?
You use the same argument with the black holes. Life was not the main plan of God because He likes to create stars and stare at them. I think i said why life is more important than a rock for God.
Intelligent Life was an inescapable fact
Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)
You have no arguments, YOU WANT YOUR LIFE TO HAVE THE SAME VALUE AS A ROCK!
Why do you claim that they are superior to us? They don't even wonder why they exist.
That's it. Do you see how simple it was for God to have a Universe filled with Black holes?
You said that God is not conscious, if i supported that i wouldn't have a problem to call physical necessity or nothingness God, they have the same properties according to this, both unconscious.
So we are doing science for our egoism? No offering to the community? Have you seen lots of Scientists to discover something and keep the discovery for themselves? Lol
Science started when different conscious beings came together. Your argument is not only fallacious, it also destroys the meaning we do science.
Criminologists doesn't have to see the criminal act to have a suspect.
Even the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious, even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. You can't escape the first cause.
You still try to lock God inside the Physical Universe, God created this Law
because it applies only to the Physical Universe which is Finite.
Space = Time
Of course the Universe didn't "exist" before someone to cause it to exist.
That means that the cause is spaceless and timeless.
See? An atheist will say that the Universe popped out of Nothingness instead of follow the simple way to conclude that the Universe was caused by something timeless and spaceless. Remember quantum physics can't help you either, quantum vacuum still demands space to exist.
Are minds physical? If they are how can you measure a mind?
These models are wrong therefor there is no meaning to analyze it anymore.
You do know that evolution affects POPULATIONS, not individuals, yes? The development of an embryo occurs to an INDIVIDUAL.
I do know before evolution can affect population it has to effect individuals first. This is as dumb as saying cancer doesn't effect individual cells but the body. Cancer doesn't have an effect on the body until the cancer grows so large.
You don't appear to understand how evolution works.
No one does , they just accepted it by faith.
Yes, people do. Don't project your ignorance onto others.
Oh but I'm not ignorant on the subject and know some evolutionist have tried to say there were some unknown "toolkits" were involved in the past that are no longer here. They would be more open about their ignorance if it wasn't for ID movement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?