proving evolution as just a "theory"

[TLK Valentine]

I'm asking a question.

Gravitons are a hypothesis, so it is a possibility.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I believe we can. I don't think any attention has been given to this because most people can't even understand the depth of the question.

Most people just think that once we've discovered the properties of a particular object.. that's it.. the study ends there.. but where did the properties that define the object come from?

Sounds a little closer to metaphysics than physics.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Absolute Proof God Exists

Another Thread for those that find my line of thinking interesting

 

[pitabread]

I'm just interested in how you come to the line of thought you've arrived at. Maybe if we start at the basics together we can see where our perspectives shift away from each other.

I don't have a specific answer for the origin of the universe. My general view is this:

1) My understanding is that classical physics breaks down in sub-Planck length and time.
2) Quantum mechanics is weird. Things like traditional classical causality doesn't necessarily work the way we think of it. Consequently, the very concept of causation of the universe at that level may not apply.
3) Conceptually, I think it's near impossible to truly conceptualize what the origin of the universe would be like once we no longer think in classical terms.
4) I find that these arguments about the origin of the universe often run along the lines of "X needs a cause, therefore God is the cause". But this isn't particularly useful since it merely raises the question "what caused God"? Which typically results in special pleading around the nature of God and leads to a dead-end discussion.

If you have something interesting to add on the origin of the universe, then by all means present it.

 

[MrAnderson9]

I don't have a specific answer for the origin of the universe. My general view is this:

1) My understanding is that classical physics breaks down in sub-Planck length and time.
2) Quantum mechanics is weird. Things like traditional classical causality doesn't necessarily work the way we think of it. Consequently, the very concept of causation of the universe at that level may not apply.
3) Conceptually, I think it's near impossible to truly conceptualize what the origin of the universe would be like once we no longer think in classical terms.
4) I find that these arguments about the origin of the universe often run along the lines of "X needs a cause, therefore God is the cause". But this isn't particularly useful since it merely raises the question "what caused God"? Which typically results in special pleading around the nature of God and leads to a dead-end discussion.

If you have something interesting to add on the origin of the universe, then by all means present it.

Why is it special pleading to state that God ... doesn't need a cause?

 

[pitabread]

Why is it special pleading to state that God ... doesn't need a cause?

You're invoking something to explain something else with an arbitrary exception to the thing you're trying to explain. And if you're going to claim that God doesn't need a cause, then perhaps the universe didn't necessarily need a cause either.

Either way, it's a dead-end discussion at that point.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sounds a little closer to metaphysics than physics.

Hey TLK,

Given the topic of the thread I would like to mention, all theory is a unified theory since it unifies facts. One of the biggest problems with physics is they have never came up with a unified theory of physics. The closest they have ever come is String theory and that is almost pure metaphysics.

 

[MrAnderson9]

You're invoking something to explain something else with an arbitrary exception to the thing you're trying to explain. And if you're going to claim that God doesn't need a cause, then perhaps the universe didn't necessarily need a cause either.

Either way, it's a dead-end discussion at that point.

Understood.. but maybe that's the actual end of the discussion... not a "dead' end .. but an actual end. Stating that something required no form of creation.. appears to be in my view the most logical conclusion.. If you see the universe as "One".. linking everything together then yes.. It would appear that everything has always been here.. but I think our universe shows signs of age.. so that would in my opinion imply that our universe isn't that thing that wasn't subject to creation..

 

[mark kennedy]

Understood.. but maybe that's the actual end of the discussion... not a "dead' end .. but an actual end. Stating that something required no form of creation.. appears to be in my view the most logical conclusion.. If you see the universe as "One".. linking everything together then yes.. It would appear that everything has always been here.. but I think our universe shows signs of age.. so that would in my opinion imply that our universe isn't that thing that wasn't subject to creation..

You have a lot going on here, like why you would capitalize 'One'. That the universe has always been which physics trace back to the Big Bang, an no further. The universe shows signs of age which is irrelevant since the creation of the universe was simply in the beginning.

 

[USincognito]

Yeah. Who needs the news? I for one would like to get my information from infomercials.

I guess my point went over your head. A better source would be a scientific paper, or at least a scientific news outlet.

Dont be so surprised. Your eyes do not deceive you my dear

Higgs paper 1964.

1964 no good either?

In the case of the fossil record, no 1951 and 1960 are no good because we're digging up new fossils all the time. If one were to cite a 1951 book (which would have been written at least a year earlier) about human evolution, one would rightfully be laughed out of the room.

 

[USincognito]

Ask me 1 of your questions. Then I'll answer and then you tell me if you're satisfied and we can progress from there.

If whales never were terrestrial tetrapods, why do they have the Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development and develop hind limb buds in utero?

 

[MrAnderson9]

You have a lot going on here, like why you would capitalize 'One'. That the universe has always been which physics trace back to the Big Bang, an no further. The universe shows signs of age which is irrelevant since the creation of the universe was simply in the beginning.

I capitalized "One" because if we see everything together none of it subject to creation then we are a piece of "God" .

Yes but in order for the universe to "begin" i would think something outside of it would be required to initiate it. It seems you're implying that we could go from "nothing".. to "everything" .. or simply put.. something from nothing which doesn't logically make sense to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

I capitalized "One" because if we see everything together none of it subject to creation then we are a piece of "God" .

Yes but in order for the universe to "begin" i would think something outside of it would be required to initiate it. It seems you're implying that we could go from "nothing".. to "everything" .. or simply put.. something from nothing which doesn't logically make sense to me.

That's called, 'ex nihilo', creation out of nothing, something only God can do. It might not make sense to you, or me for that matter, because it's something only God can comprehend.

 

[MrAnderson9]

.. well.. interesting that you'd ask that.. it leads me to some of my thoughts on directed evolution vs blind evolution..

In blind evolution that isn't directed by God.. you would have to imply that a creature could grow features that are specific to the physical realm that it hasn't even experienced.. meaning that the dna/cells etc would have to have a conscious of their own and be fully aware of physics etc..

Think about it.. an animal develops eyes.. how is that possible that it could understand that it needs to "see" and how to develop "sight" to be able to visually capture things in a physical world? These dna/cells etc would have to be acted on by the divine to do that.. like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly.. how does its body understand aerodynamics from the living on the ground?

I could go on and on about intelligent design and evolution.. its a very interesting topic.. but it ultimately like everything else proves the existence of God.

 

[MrAnderson9]

That's called, 'ex nihilo', creation out of nothing, something only God can do. It might not make sense to you, or me for that matter, because it's something only God can comprehend.

I agree.. and I'll read up on 'ex nihilo' sounds very interesting

 

[Ophiolite]

If whales never were terrestrial tetrapods, why do they have the Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development and develop hind limb buds in utero?

Please sir, please sir. I know the answer to this one. Cetaceans are obviously creationists who have deliberately fiddled with their genome just to confuse evolutionists. We should have known. How can you trust a mammal that masquerades as a fish?

 

[Wolfe]

If you can prove evolution wrong there is a Nobel prize waiting for you. Good luck.

Where's my noble prize?

 

[Allandavid]

since the creation model predict it too, then by this criteria this is an evidence for the creation model.

It's also 'evidence' that pixies did it, or aliens, or any other gods you care to dream up!

This is the problem with trying to introduce the supernatural...you can literally claim anything you like...

 

[mark kennedy]

Where's my noble prize?

It's waiting for you do come up with a model. 6,000 years ago God created life. 4,000 years ago a global flood kills all reptiles, birds and mammals not on the ark. I think your looking for a molecular mechanism(s) responsible along with some confirmed population genetics statistics.

 

[Allandavid]

Apart from God I would not be able to understand the Bible. I do not trust in man to explain the Bible. I trust in God to help me to understand.

Sigh...do I need to remind you again that the Bible was written by MEN...?