Discussion on the how it all started

[MIDutch]

How do u consider evolution the true explanation of how it started and how it works

Evidence.

Evidence, evidence, and more evidence.

The "creationist model" was the rigidly enforced (sometimes by imprisonment, torture and death) default explanation for how the universe started in the Western world for most of the past two millennia. It really wasn't until people started looking for evidence of this "creationist model", such as looking for geological evidence of the Noachian flood, that people (very often Christian clergy) started discovering that the "creationist model" was wrong. And the deeper people started looking, the more evidence they found. And more evidence. And more evidence. And more evidence. And ... well you get the idea.

As an aside, it was actually geology, not biology (evolution), that forced people looking at the evidence to conclude that the "creationist model" was wrong, and that there were other, much better scientific models out there that explain what we see on the universe around us.

 

[pitabread]

I personally think God is the best explanation for this organised universe not a random process. Now how is evolution or some other explanation more logical?

The issue I see with invoking "God" is that it's not an explanation. Rather, it's just a placeholder for a gap in human knowledge.

Further, I don't see the necessity for an outside intelligence as a requirement for the emergence of complexity or what we perceive as "organization" in our universe. Just the study of emergent properties and how complex things can emerge from simple principles provides more answers than invoking an arbitrary entity.

Insofar as how it all began (e.g. the very origin of the universe itself), that's still an unknown. I am comfortable leaving that as an unknown as we learn more about the nature and origin of our universe.

 

[Speedwell]

Because their personal experience with God (or, more specifically, with the resurrected Jesus and the Holy Spirit) in their life is so huge that you must give them really a huge amount of evidenc, logic, reasoning etc if you want to convince them otherwise.

Sadly, many young earth creationists make a mistake by equating their experiences with God to "everything in the Bible must be literal and scientific". This is something I would concentrate on. The Universe did not have to be created in 6 literal days for God to exist and for Christianity to be true.

But that is the very thing creationists are trying to defend. They only attempt to turn the discussion into a theism/atheism debate when their defense falters.

 

[solid_core]

But that is the very thing creationists are trying to defend. They only attempt to turn the discussion into a theism/atheism debate when their defense falters.

Yes, I have seen this from both sides, both YEC and atheists sometimes try to turn old universe into "God is not needed".

 

[Larniavc]

You fail to understand just because u use biology to explain how a man came to be is no way a percentage better explanation than how God created adam by breathing a soul into him. You are using biology as an excuse here. If u claim that is how man came to be u gotta prove it not assume it happened that way.

Can I ask you a question?

What do you think motivates people into accepting ToE?

 

[SkyWriting]

Yet you are perfectly willing to accept "and then magic happened" as your "scientific " answer.

I find it hilarious that creationists demand an incomprehensible level of evidence, logic, rational thought, reasoning, etc. from science, yet fail to demand the same of themselves.

That option was never mentioned, nor do I believe in it. Keep trying!
I don't think God touches or changes one single thing in the Cosmos.
But He has every moment and motion planned out, beginning to end.

 

[MIDutch]

That option was never mentioned, nor do I believe in it. Keep trying!
I don't think God touches or changes one single thing in the Cosmos.
But He has every moment and motion planned out, beginning to end.

For which you don't require the same standard of evidence that you ask of science.

In other words, you basically just reaffirmed my comment about creationists.

Why don't you just say "I don't think God touches or changes one single thing in the Cosmos. But He has every moment and motion planned out, beginning to end. I don't have a single shred of evidence for this belief, and I don't need any to believe it".

At least everyone will know right off the bat that you have this inherent double standard. That way everyone will know that there will never be enough scientific evidence in support of big bang cosmology and biological evolution to satisfy you, and the complete and utter lack of evidence for your own beliefs will never dissuade you from holding those beliefs.

It would at least be honest.

 

[SkyWriting]

For which you don't require the same standard of evidence that you ask of science.

In other words, you basically just reaffirmed my comment about creationists.

Why don't you just say "I don't think God touches or changes one single thing in the Cosmos. But He has every moment and motion planned out, beginning to end. I don't have a single shred of evidence for this belief, and I don't need any to believe it".

At least everyone will know right off the bat that you have this inherent double standard. That way everyone will know that there will never be enough scientific evidence in support of big bang cosmology and biological evolution to satisfy you, and the complete and utter lack of evidence for your own beliefs will never dissuade you from holding those beliefs.
It would at least be honest.

Ha! My explanation is good engineering, not magic.
Good engineering is easy for anyone to spot.

Just look at bad engineering.
Then go back and look at good engineering:
21 minutes ago#106

 

[public hermit]

Why can't the substance of the Universe itself be this necessary first cause?

What would that substance be? You may know some potential candidates (quantum field?). I am open to hearing the possibilities. One reason I have for thinking there needs to be a 1st cause is that even if the universe is eternal, if it is substantially contingent, then it still needs a cause. I don't know if there is a potential candidate (some feature of the universe) that is not contingent (i.e. not dependent on a cause). If there is not, and each part is contingent, then the whole is contingent. If the whole is eternal and contingent, then it would still require a further cause. Or, so it seems to me.

Someone might balk and claim I am engaging in the fallacy of composition. That could be, but not necessarily. If I say "All the bricks are small, so the brick wall is also small" I would commit such a fallacy. If I say, "All the bricks are clay, so the brick wall is clay" I would not. It is not a formal fallacy, so there are exceptions. Some ontological and modal features seem to allow for composition. If all the parts are necessary, so is the whole. If all the parts are impossible, so is the whole. If all the parts are contingent, so is the whole.

 

[MIDutch]

Ha! My explanation is good engineering, not magic.

For which you don't have a single shred of evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The traditional cop out is that before the Big Bang the Cosmos was so compressed that normal physics didn't apply. If our understanding of Physics doesn't apply, then we can't create models of what happened before the Big Bang.

So do *you* have the physics to explain before the big bang?

[The answer of course is "no", because no one does.]

If you don't, then how is it a "cop out"?

 

[Godistruth1]

But he did not say that the Big Bang theory is right because many Christians believe that.

He said that you should not call the Big Bang theory "atheistic", because its held by more Christians than atheists, therefore there is nothing specifically "atheistic" about it.

Hmm. Alright. Got the point

 

[Godistruth1]

Actually the pattern genetic evidence supports the relatedness of humans and chimps.

The fossil and tool remains tell us that the extinct transitional hominids existed.

I think the presence of fossils of progressively more human like apes in th he fossil record before the first humans appear is extremely good evidence.

Science deals in evidence, and the evidence for the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the other apes is strong enough to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt.

No sir u are assuming they are related. If something is similar does not mean they are absolutely related. What u need to do is give me evidence to verify this as true which i can observe or test. And like i said earlier human skulls even now tend to look in the same fashion as u depict in the process. Some initially are more ape like and later human like. Evolutionist scientists say we did not evolve from apes but then again u have no proof to prove that also. We again could have. You belief is strong just like somebody's belief in God but unless it can be verified by observation and experimentation now its still a guess

 

[Godistruth1]

The "creationist model" was the rigidly enforced (sometimes by imprisonment, torture and death) default explanation for how the universe started in the Western world for most of the past two millennia. It really wasn't until people started looking for evidence of this "creationist model", such as looking for geological evidence of the Noachian flood, that people (very often Christian clergy) started discovering that the "creationist model" was wrong. And the deeper people started looking, the more evidence they found. And more evidence. And more evidence. And more evidence. And ... well you get the idea.

No doubt there can be things creationists can be wrong at but not all creationists claim Noah's flood as a proof and not all are Christians. The basic belief of creationism is order around the universe. And no sir what u call evidence is only again yet another assumption which uses science as an excuse.

As an aside, it was actually geology, not biology (evolution), that forced people looking at the evidence to conclude that the "creationist model" was wrong, and that there were other, much better scientific models out there that explain what we see on the universe around us

You are speaking like a true believer in evolution just like any other believer in God. Nobody proved the creationist model wrong. U need to prove that there is no God to prove it wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The traditional cop out is that before the Big Bang the Cosmos was so compressed that normal physics didn't apply. If our understanding of Physics doesn't apply, then we can't create models of what happened before the Big Bang.

How is that a cop out? When you make accusations you need to be able to defend them. Especially when you make claims about others. There is this little thing in the Bible called the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Beings cannot be demonstrated at your will. They are not physical laws. You must conclude their existence from other things. For example you cannot demonstrate your grand grand grand father existed. But I can logically conclude that he did, because you are here.

But we have evidence for our "grand grand grand<sic> father" For God, not so much. You refute yourself with your example.

 

[Godistruth1]

The issue I see with invoking "God" is that it's not an explanation. Rather, it's just a placeholder for a gap in human knowledge.

Its is an explanation. Let me ask u this. Is it one of the possibility that God created the universe?

Further, I don't see the necessity for an outside intelligence as a requirement for the emergence of complexity or what we perceive as "organization" in our universe. Just the study of emergent properties and how complex things can emerge from simple principles provides more answers than invoking an arbitrary entity.

Insofar as how it all began (e.g. the very origin of the universe itself), that's still an unknown. I am comfortable leaving that as an unknown as we learn more about the nature and origin of our universe

You seeing it not necessarily does not make it a fact. Like u see it as unnecessary we see it a necessity. There is no difference u see. Both are beliefs and both cannot be scientifically proven or disproven unless proven otherwise.

 

[Godistruth1]

Can I ask you a question?

What do you think motivates people into accepting ToE?

The motivation in my opinion is people who accept it think it a better explanation for origins of universe. Again for the record some people think creationism is a better explanation. Unless there is evidence that we can verify now not assume nobody can claim to have a better explanation. Better explanation is always subjective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No doubt there can be things creationists can be wrong at but not all creationists claim Noah's flood as a proof and not all are Christians. The basic belief of creationism is order around the universe. And no sir what u call evidence is only again yet another assumption which uses science as an excuse.

Hardly. Scientific evidence is a concept that is well thought out and extremely useful. In fact your ability to post here is due to the development of the concept of scientific evidence. For you to denigrate it and depend upon it is more than just a little hypocritical.

You are speaking like a true believer in evolution just like any other believer in God. Nobody proved the creationist model wrong. U need to prove that there is no God to prove it wrong.

One does not need to be a believer in evolution. If one understands the science one knows. Now the problem with creationists is not only are they science deniers. They also are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence. And no if you claim there is a God the burden of proof is upon you. The null hypothesis is not a belief in a thing. The null hypothesis is a lack of belief until sufficient evidence has been supplied. Your belief in God may be comforting, but it is not rational.

And of course the fact of evolution does not refute the existence of God so that should not worry you very much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The motivation in my opinion is people who accept it think it a better explanation for origins of universe. Again for the record some people think creationism is a better explanation. Unless there is evidence that we can verify now not assume nobody can claim to have a better explanation. Better explanation is always subjective.

There is evidence for evolution. For creationism, not so much.