Evolution or Creationism?

[HitchSlap]

ToE could be falsified, I suppose, however, there would need to be a better, more robust evidence better explaining the world and cosmos as we perceive it.

Don't be lulled into thinking that if A is proved false, then B must be correct. B will still need to be demonstrated as true.

 

[HitchSlap]

I would have no problem if that was consistent with reality, it isn't. Why do you find it so troublesome that the universe was cosmically meant for us humans to exist?

Because it wasn't. Humans can barely survive on 2% of the planet we inhabit, let alone the cosmos.

 

[Oncedeceived]

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe will kill you within seconds of you setting foot in it. Even the infinitesimally minute fraction of the universe you occupy - the Earth - is largely inhospitable to you.

In light of this, I am unable to summon the gargantuanly arrogant level of hubris it takes to assert that it was meant for humans.

1. We are not designed to live in other parts of the universe.
2. The fact that there are parts of the Earth that are not hospitable does not preclude the magnitude of special needs for carbon life to exist being met by the universe and earth itself.
3. There is absolutely no arrogance in giving credit where credit is due.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it wasn't. Humans can barely survive on 2% of the planet we inhabit, let alone the cosmos.

I repeat:

1. We are not designed to live in other parts of the universe.
2. The fact that there are parts of the Earth that are not hospitable does not preclude the magnitude of special needs for carbon life to exist being met by the universe and earth itself.
3. There is absolutely no arrogance in giving credit where credit is due.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

To answer the OP... no. That is a false dilemma.

Falsifying the Theory of Gravity does not imply the existence of microscopic pixies that pull objects toward one another.

Falsifying Germ Theory does not imply the existence of infections and diseases caused by malicious spirits.

Falsifying the Theory of Evolution does not imply the existence of an invisible sky wizard that conjures fully formed biological organisms with magic.

 

[HitchSlap]

I repeat:

1. We are not designed to live in other parts of the universe.
2. The fact that there are parts of the Earth that are not hospitable does not preclude the magnitude of special needs for carbon life to exist being met by the universe and earth itself.
3. There is absolutely no arrogance in giving credit where credit is due.

"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." C.S.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." C.S.

I wonder if Carl would feel the same knowing that there are not only two parameters for life on earth but many many more. Regardless, the vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for life to exist.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

1. We are not designed to live in other parts of the universe.

Oh, I get it. So the universe was designed for us, but we were not designed to exist in anything but an infinitesimal fraction of it.

Is that supposed to make sense?

2. The fact that there are parts of the Earth that are not hospitable does not preclude the magnitude of special needs for carbon life to exist being met by the universe and earth itself.

It does preclude any assertion that it was designed with us in mind. No one is denying the apparent rarity of conditions for carbon-based lifeforms - in fact, that's a point against your assertion, not for it. Your attempt to move the goalposts in duly noted.

3. There is absolutely no arrogance in giving credit where credit is due.

It is immensely arrogant, actually. You are like a single molecule of basalt on a quartz planet the size of the sun, asserting that the planet was made for you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Regardless, the vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for life to exist.

How could you even know this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, I get it. So the universe was designed for us, but we were not designed to exist in anything but an infinitesimal fraction of it.

Is that supposed to make sense?

This is so ironic. Your position is that this immense universe just by chance came into being from nothing for no purpose with no goals and just by chance was the right distance from the sun and has just the right conditions necessary for life on earth and further that mankind is found in a galaxy that looks to be devoid of any other life forms. Then we go further and find that not only did this improbable event with all the requirements met for life but intelligent life that can comprehend it all exists in this universe that is a chance mindless place with no apparent reason.

It does preclude any assertion that it was designed with us in mind. No one is denying the apparent rarity of conditions for carbon-based lifeforms - in fact, that's a point against your assertion, not for it. Your attempt to move the goalposts in duly noted.

Explain how that point is against my position.

It is immensely arrogant, actually. You are like a single molecule of basalt on a quartz planet the size of the sun, asserting that the planet was made for you.

It was created for all life, not just me.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I wonder if Carl would feel the same knowing that there are not only two parameters for life on earth but many many more.

Carl had a strong grasp of basic logical fallacies, so I assure you, he wouldn't care any more than I do.

Regardless, the vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for life to exist.

This is an utterly vacuous naked assertion, and completely ad hoc. You could say the exact same thing for literally any other feature of the universe.

The vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for stars to exist.

The vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for methane to exist.

The vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for the empty vacuum of space to exist.

etc.

All of which are much, much more abundant in the universe than life, incidentally.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that a universe actually designed by a god, with humanity in mind, would have no need for such a horrendously wasteful method. He could have designed the entire universe as a single planet with a sky canopy covering it, just as the Bible writers believed he did.

If this god exists, he is either weak, stupid or abysmally incompetent.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This is so ironic. Your position is that this immense universe just by chance came into being from nothing

You are thoroughly confused. Universes that appear magically is what you believe in, not me.

Explain how that point is against my position.

You are invoking the extreme rarity of the conditions for carbon-based life in a universe you are asserting was designed specifically for life. That is precisely my point - that these conditions are met in an infinitesimal fraction of the universe, and the rest of it will kill you.

It was created for all life, not just me.

So you're a miniscule colony of basalt molecules on a quartz planet the size of the sun. That makes effectively no difference to the analogy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How could you even know this?

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-is-universe-so-big.html

The short answer to the question ‘why is the universe so big?’ is that, since Erwin Hubble’s observations in the first half of the 20th century, we have come to realize that the universe is expanding and therefore its huge size is a consequence of its great age. This rate of expansion and vast expanse of time turn out to be critical for the development of complex life for a variety of reasons.

Any universe that contains the kinds of things you need to develop complexity must be sufficiently old enough for stars to form and generate the elements on which life is based. The universe throughout its history has been constantly changing and has gone through around 10-15 billion years of expansion. As the universe expanded it became a continually changing environment; sparser, more rarefied and cooler. As this process occurs certain conditions can then arise. The tempreture of the universe at the moment is pretty low. If we ran the tape back to when the cosmos was 300,000 years old, the conditions become very extreme and too hot for even atoms to exist. As things got cooler atoms and molecules were able to form and basic chemistry was able to begin. Once this occurred, great islands of material were able to form and get denser, until eventually their gravity became great enough to form stop them expanding. They formed great achipeligos of material where such objects as stars, planets and people could eventually form.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is so ironic.





It was created for all life, not just me.

That would include the 99% of all species that have gone extinct, as well?

 

[HitchSlap]

/snip/

I asked you for an example of something from nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe will kill you within seconds of you setting foot in it. Even the infinitesimally minute fraction of the universe you occupy - the Earth - is largely inhospitable to you.

In light of this, I am unable to summon the gargantuanly arrogant level of hubris it takes to assert that it was meant for humans.

Kinda like a swimming pool, isn't it?

Meant for humans to have fun in, but "largely inhospitable," except on the surface.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Carl had a strong grasp of basic logical fallacies, so I assure you, he wouldn't care any more than I do.

Guess we will never know.

This is an utterly vacuous naked assertion, and completely ad hoc. You could say the exact same thing for literally any other feature of the universe.

The vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for stars to exist.

The vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for methane to exist.

The vastness must be what it is for there to be the conditions for the empty vacuum of space to exist.

etc.

All of which are much, much more abundant in the universe than life, incidentally.

Scientists are in agreement in that "assertion".

The short answer to the question ‘why is the universe so big?’ is that, since Erwin Hubble’s observations in the first half of the 20th century, we have come to realise that the universe is expanding and therefore its huge size is a consequence of its great age. This rate of expansion and vast expanse of time turn out to be critical for the development of complex life for a variety of reasons.

Any universe that contains the kinds of things you need to develop complexity must be sufficiently old enough for stars to form and generate the elements on which life is based. The universe throughout its history has been constantly changing and has gone through around 10-15 billion years of expansion. As the universe expanded it became a continually changing enviroment; sparser, more rariefied and cooler. As this process occurs certain conditons can then arise. The tempreture of the universe at the moment is pretty low. If we ran the tape back to when the cosmos was 300,000 years old, the conditons become very extreme and too hot for even atoms to exist. As things got cooler atoms and molecules were able to form and basic chemistry was able to begin. Once this occurred, great islands of material were able to form and get denser, until eventually their gravity became great enough to form stop them expanding. They formed great achipeligos of material where such objects as stars, planets and people could eventually form.
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-is-universe-so-big.html

Which is to say nothing of the fact that a universe actually designed by a god, with humanity in mind, would have no need for such a horrendously wasteful method. He could have designed the entire universe as a single planet with a sky canopy covering it, just as the Bible writers believed he did.

He created it the way He wanted it, your idea on how He should have done it is of no concern to Him.

If this god exists, he is either weak, stupid or abysmally incompetent.

Or...you are blind, uninformed and biased.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That would include the 99% of all species that have gone extinct, as well?

Yes. Fossil fuel has made modern life as we know it possible.

 

[HitchSlap]

Kinda like a swimming pool, isn't it?

Meant for humans to have fun in, but "largely inhospitable," except on the surface.

No, it's nothing like a swimming pool. SS answers should stay in SS.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I asked you for an example of something from nothing.

The fact that there is always a cause and effect in our universe provides evidence of something outside of the universe for its creation.