#150197 - 26/03/2003 13:12
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
One of the things that bugs me is when some creationists try to talk about biological evolution and the Big Bang theory in the same breath. They're two different and completely unrelated theories. Actually my experience has been that this is untrue. Most creationists I talk to affirm the Big Bang and yet deny biological evolution. Certainly there are those out there who deny the Big Bang as well, but I've seen clear delineation between the two theories. Evolution doesn't try to answer the question "where did the universe come from?" It only answers the biological question of how life on this planet became so intricate and complex. Heck, even the Big Bang theory doesn't answer the "where did the universe come from" question, it only theorizes about the first moment of the universe's existence. Completely accurate statement, and I wish everyone would realize it. Creationists like to argue that the first spark of life on this planet, the first time molecules assembled into self-replicating strands, had astronomical odds against it. Scientists counter with: "Yeah, but we had oceans of molecules working on the problem for eons". I counter with: "You're both forgetting that we had an entire universe full of planets, many of them with oceans of molecules working on the problem." From what I understand, it's not just a matter of odds here. No matter how much time or energy was spent "working" (in the metaphorical sense ) on it, it's still difficult to see how molecules could come together without outside intervention to make un-life into life. It's not just a simple matter of unlikely combinations being formed; it takes an implausible series of events. From a scientific point of view, does this prove that there was an intelligent designer? No, since that would be an argument from absence, which I don't like to do. Does it allow for and intelligent designer? I'd at least think that's a reasonable theory. Of course I have evidence outside of science that gives me a very solid answer to this question, but I know your thoughts on testamoniels so I'll leave it off the table. Whatever my experiences may mean to you however, it is reasonable for me to draw my own conclusions from them. We're sitting on a winning lottery ticket, and we've got the evidence to show it. Those who say the game was rigged are missing out on the true wonder and appreciation for the situation. I have much more "wonder and appreciation" for people who make massive amounts of money by talent and intellect rather than those who win out of pure chance. To use another analogy, while neat moments in computer games caused by (pseudo)random algorithms are always fun, seeing the vast worlds the designers create is much more reason for awe and appreciation, at least in my book.
_________________________
-Jeff Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150198 - 26/03/2003 13:20
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
No matter how much time or energy was spent "working" (in the metaphorical sense ) on it, it's still difficult to see how molecules could come together without outside intervention to make un-life into life. So where did this outside intervener acquire life?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150199 - 26/03/2003 14:08
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
He's eternal
_________________________
~ John
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150200 - 26/03/2003 14:26
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
It's a higher power. Your brain can't comprehend Him, just like it can't imagine four dimensions, or it can't comprehend infinity.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150201 - 26/03/2003 16:49
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: tfabris]
|
member
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 153
Loc: Berkshire, UK
|
Thought I'd chime in with my two penn'orth...
Tony wrote:
If we weren't able to sit here contemplating our own existence, then we wouldn't be contemplating our own existence.
That's the WAP (Weak Anthropic Principle, not to be confused with mobile telephony, of course!) in a nutshell, or to quote from an argument on the Internet Infidels website:
The WAP is significant in that it makes the improbability of any one universe (i.e. our own) irrelevant. We should expect that our universe has features compatible with our existence, since, after all, we exist.
Which, to me, copes quite nicely with the calculations of probability you come across from time to time that are so high that it all seems completely improbable.
And I couldn't agree with you more that it's necessary to emphasise that the Big Bang Theory only talks about the first few moments, not about life at all - and what happens before the initial singularity (if the concept of "before" has any meaning, rather than being a question like "what's north of the North Pole?"), is in all likelyhood completely impossible to determine.
I also think it's important to separate the fact of Evolution, as defined as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next", from the theories of how current flora and fauna came to be as they are, from the initial creation of life on the planet. The first is demonstrable in any biology lab; the second open to debate, but the main theories have such a weight of evidence behind them that I find it unreasonable to believe otherwise; and the third is unknown, possibly unknowable, but I don't consider it unreasonable to assign blind chance to it (q.v. the WAP!), especially given such research as this.
_________________________
Bryan.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150202 - 26/03/2003 18:18
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Meatball man is right: He (God, not Meatballman) is eternal. While this of course sounds like a copout to a non-believer or skeptic, I don't think it is. It doesn't take much thought to come to the conclusion that there HAD to be an uncaused cause. Somewhere, somehow, something exists or existed that was never created. Some say our universe itself never had a beginning, other theories include timeless other dimensions that created this one. Christians believe it is God. Given the options, saying that God is an uncaused cause is at least as plausible as anything else we've come up with.
_________________________
-Jeff Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150203 - 27/03/2003 03:45
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Somewhere, somehow, something exists or existed that was never created. Some say our universe itself never had a beginning, other theories include timeless other dimensions that created this one. Christians believe it is God. I believe this is what Discordians refer to as the "Proof by Semantic Gymnastics". If that was all that Christians believed about God, it would merely be an unusual definition of the word. It is, and no doubt you'd characterise this as a Good Thing, a bit of a "leap of faith" to attribute all the rest of the God stuff to this uncaused cause: being sapient, liking to be worshipped, caring about certain complex biochemical structures on one certain world lost in the infinite void, sending "His" "only" "son" there, etc.
Peter
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150204 - 27/03/2003 04:02
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
(Leaping back a bit in the thread, but...)
No, it is saying if he hadn't eaten the apple he'd have been obeying God. That's assuming that God would have given up on tempting Adam to evil if the apple thing hadn't worked. Frankly, from what we see from the apple story of God's taste in practical jokes, this seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely, in fact, that God undertook it in rather the spirit of the makers of Candid Camera or Jackass: try lots of things, but only make a TV show of the one that the patsy falls for. Adam was, reasonably literally, damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Peter
(paraphrased from the "gifts of fruit" sequence in The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe , but no less valid IMO for being penned by a novelist, not a theologian)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150205 - 27/03/2003 05:13
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
if that was all that Christians believed about God, it would merely be an unusual definition of the word In the words of C.S. Lewis: "Don't presume to think that I am saying more than I am." (OK, that may have been a bit of a paraphrase, but the idea is there). The only thing I was answering is the "who made God" question, and even then all I did was provide an explanation among other explanations of the "uncaused cause" question. The other stuff you mentioned cannot be determined by science or logic; it is from divine revelation (the bible) that we understand that God is involved in this universe, sent Jesus to die for our sins, etc. And of course, we've already had that debate in this thread.
_________________________
-Jeff Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150206 - 27/03/2003 05:28
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
(paraphrased from the "gifts of fruit" sequence in The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, but no less valid IMO for being penned by a novelist, not a theologian) Though I don't remember that part (we are talking about the book, correct?), as far as I'm concerned Douglas Adams is fair game as far as quoting (or paraphrasing) goes. Yes, he satires religion (and Christianity) a bit, but he seems to be an equal opportunity satirist giving skeptics a hard time too (remember the guy who runs the universe?). The "Babel fish" piece also contains a message to theologians and non-theologians alike in how we can tie ourselves in knots with simple logic (not to mention being about my favorite sequence from any piece of fiction). Besides, the best fiction is usually written with a purpose in mind (or several) and is generally much more accessable to us "mere mortals" than the "ivory tower" theologian's/ philosopher's writings.
_________________________
-Jeff Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150208 - 27/03/2003 12:28
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
I don't remember that part (we are talking about the book, correct?) FWIW, it's near the end, when Arthur and Ford are travelling from (what turns out to be) prehistoric Islington to prehistoric Norway.
Peter
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150209 - 12/07/2003 23:36
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: drakino]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Random new link that I came across from a new creation science discusson I am having elsewhere. http://www.drdino.com/. Site offers $250,000 to someone proving evolution is real, but it has so many loopholes, it's doubtful anyone will ever get paid, even if they make a time machine and show evolution over millions of years.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150210 - 14/07/2003 13:02
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: drakino]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
OK, I am offering $10E+12 to anyone proving that God is real (of course, I don't have $10E+12, but the same holds for proof of Divine existence).
Please note that "If God does not exist, who pops out the next Kleenex?" does not constitute the proof in this context. Neither does "I feel Divine presence" nor "It says so in the Bible".
Edit: I appologize to genuine believers here and hope they are not offended. Their faith it just that, faith; we are talking proofs here (which are more or less irrelevant for religion, but not for science).
Edited by bonzi (14/07/2003 13:05)
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150211 - 14/07/2003 13:45
Re: "Evidence for a Young World"
[Re: bonzi]
|
old hand
Registered: 01/05/2003
Posts: 768
Loc: Ada, Oklahoma
|
Faith is not completely void of proof. Quite to the contrary in fact. Now those that want to say that everything they have faith in is provable scientifically have a problem also I admit. But the things I have faith in develop out of a platform of truth that has been developed over time. I believe not against what I see proven, but instead I believe what I do because I see it as the logical, yet not provable, extension of those proofs.
I should add that I'm not really sold on Young Earth Theory, even though I am very solidly a creationist.
_________________________
-Michael West
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|