Evolution?

[Westerner]

Here is the thread. And here's kind of where it started.

This isn't really for talking about the origin of the universe. You can believe it was created by God or formed by a Big Bang. Because nobody was there, both need to be taken by faith.

Mainly, let's discuss how the world developed. Intelligent design? Time + chance? Aliens? What?

[bluebooger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A

[Saharapost]

when it comes to how the world developed, I think we cannot fully/truly claim knowledge as if we were there when the Big Bang "banged" or when the creator designed, however, I think we can always try to offer our suggestions or opinions. Also, I had always believed in the theory of evolution before arriving Europe. In Europe, I began to question my stance on evolution and how complicated life seems to be... I am not religious- I don't even go to church any longer, but I take some time to examine scientific claims regarding how we evolved, how our universe came into being, and the "myraids of mysteries of unsolved "puzzles" which tend to point towards a force, a powerful one for that matter, that controls the universe. Now whether this powerful force is God, I don't know, but I think there is something powerful behind human existence and how the universe came into being. And yes, I am sceptical about religious claims as well.

[Leebo]

This isn't really for talking about the origin of the universe. You can believe it was created by God or formed by a Big Bang. Because nobody was there, both need to be taken by faith.

You managed to take something this topic supposedly isn't about and phrase it in such a way that I feel obligated to comment on it. The Big Bang is not taken on faith. It is the consequence of the fact that we can currently observe that the universe is expanding. If you look at where everything is moving and move backwards from there, you end up with a situation where everything was concentrated in a single point. There is a great deal of evidence that can be observed today to support this model of the universe. That's the opposite of faith. Do you accept that it's possible for police to solve crimes they didn't witness, or do you reject the entire idea as having to be accepted on faith?

Mainly, let's discuss how the world developed. Intelligent design? Time + chance? Aliens? What?

I'm guessing when you say "time and chance" that you are referring to mainstream evolution. But that's not a particularly helpful way to describe it. Chance makes it sound like it's completely random. There is randomness in mutations, sure, but natural selection is not random.

I provided this link in the other topic.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

If people want to discuss evolution, please confirm that you are talking about what science actually describes as evolution. Many people have an inaccurate view of what scientists actually say, even people who think they accept evolution as true.

Evolution, the process of gene frequencies changing over time, is an indisputable observed fact. It's not up for discussion.

The theory of evolution is a comprehensive model explaining the diversity of life which fits with all known facts and observations. This goes well beyond fossils. DNA, geographical distribution of organisms, and pretty much every concept in biology is either supported by or integral to evolution.

If the fact and theory thing is difficult to grasp, think of it in terms of something less controversial. Gravity is an observed fact. The theory of gravity is a model which explains how it works in accordance with our observations.

[topdog98]

A admission from one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, Professor Richard Lewontin:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

[Leebo]

What exactly is the purpose of posting that? Science is, by definition, limited to what we can test and observe in the physical universe. No one is stopping anyone from believing anything else, but they don't get to call those beliefs scientific.

I'm curious which other fields of science people reject on the basis of being limited to the natural world. You're using a computer right now. You benefit from medicine and technology developed not with faith, but the scientific method.

[Jack1798]

Leebo,
I would like to say that I agree with you that the Big Bang occurred I believe this based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, universal expansion as you mentioned, radiation afterglow, great galaxy seeds, and Einstein's general theory of relativity (Smoot, Jastrow, 1978 and 1989). Also, I think we can both concede that scientific laws and the laws of physics and nature only work in our universe because these laws are merely descriptions of our interactions with the material parts within the universe. Since we have agreed that the big bang happened, I would like to start forming my case. I will begin with a variation of Kalam's cosmological argument:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
The Big Bang had a Beginning
Therefore, the Big Bang had a cause.

Now the problem is in determining what that cause was. As I said before, the laws of science and physics only work in our universe. However, they are useful in telling us what the big bang brought about. We know based on our experience with the universe that the Big Bang brought about all:
Time
Space
Matter, and
Energy.

Because of this whatever caused the Big Bang had to be:
Timeless
Space-less
Immaterial, and
All Powerful

Why? because all of the elements that I just listed are necessary for the causation of the Big Bang. Before the Big bang was a point of absolute nothingness, zero, natta. How much matter can you have in a zero spacial volume? 0. How much Energy can you have when there is no energy? 0. How much space can you have when there is no space? 0. Must I go on?

So, that is all that science can tell us about the causation of the big bang. There are now only three fields of study that can tell us more about the causation of the big bang, those being theology, ontology, and philosophy.
using these fields of study we can eliminate atheism and pantheism from the equation because atheists obviously believe there is nothing or any "higher power" outside of the universe and pantheists believe that God or gods are of nature itself. Based on what I have just said, these two worldviews cannot exist scientifically because we have established that the cause of the big bang has to be outside of the universe. This leaves us with only two different worldviews those being Deism and Theism. If you think about, that limits us to only three different religions and two different gods, those being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; and Jehovah and Allah respectively. If you have any questions please feel free to ask and I look forward to hearing your responses as well as continuing this fascinating discussion in the future.

Jack

[Leebo]

I don't have too much time to respond because I'm going to take an exam this afternoon, but the problem with that kind of argument is that it just pushes the problem back one step and doesn't explain anything. It's called special pleading to say that everything must follow a specific rule and then invent something that conveniently doesn't need to follow that rule.

After you've decided without any evidence that there must have been an external cause, you are still no closer to knowing anything about it.

And it's really silly to say we are limited to the gods you mentioned. I could make up an infinite number of gods to meet those criteria if you gave me enough time.

Also... this is completely off the topic of evolution.

[soliloquy]

You managed to take something this topic supposedly isn't about and phrase it in such a way that I feel obligated to comment on it. The Big Bang is not taken on faith. It is the consequence of the fact that we can currently observe that the universe is expanding. If you look at where everything is moving and move backwards from there, you end up with a situation where everything was concentrated in a single point. There is a great deal of evidence that can be observed today to support this model of the universe. That's the opposite of faith. Do you accept that it's possible for police to solve crimes they didn't witness, or do you reject the entire idea as having to be accepted on faith?



I'm guessing when you say "time and chance" that you are referring to mainstream evolution. But that's not a particularly helpful way to describe it. Chance makes it sound like it's completely random. There is randomness in mutations, sure, but natural selection is not random.

I provided this link in the other topic.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

If people want to discuss evolution, please confirm that you are talking about what science actually describes as evolution. Many people have an inaccurate view of what scientists actually say, even people who think they accept evolution as true.

Evolution, the process of gene frequencies changing over time, is an indisputable observed fact. It's not up for discussion.

The theory of evolution is a comprehensive model explaining the diversity of life which fits with all known facts and observations. This goes well beyond fossils. DNA, geographical distribution of organisms, and pretty much every concept in biology is either supported by or integral to evolution.

If the fact and theory thing is difficult to grasp, think of it in terms of something less controversial. Gravity is an observed fact. The theory of gravity is a model which explains how it works in accordance with our observations.

I don't have any objections to the Big Bang Theory itself. I have an issue with atheism in combination with the Big Bang Theory. The idea itself, that the universe came into existence due to an explosion, is not necessarily incompatible with the biblical creation account.

Since you pointed out the issue of an expanding universe, there are 17 scriptures in the Bible that said the universe was expanding long before astrophysicists figured this out via scientific models in the mid-1900's.

[Leebo]

When people mention that the Bible holds scientific claims that are thousands of years old, they tend to be either very vague, not applicable to what they are claimed to be applicable to, or just generally ideas that aren't impossible for humans without scientific knowledge to imagine. If you are going to count these things as evidence in the Bible's favor, you have to count the aspects that it gets wrong. For instance, we understand quite well how the Earth formed, and the Bible's account gets the order all wrong.

But again, we're off of evolution.

And just one more thing before I really do have to leave for my exam, atheism is just a lack of belief that a god exists. Some people can claim to know gods don't exist, but that's not a position that can actually be supported. Just wanted to clarify that before the atheism thing got expanded on while I was gone.