Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 4:21 AM
443 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 441 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,833 Year: 6,439/21,208 Month: 2,200/2,634 Week: 388/572 Day: 5/99 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Points for a creator (Alaninnont and Subbie only)
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 1 of 65 (501037)
03-03-2009 8:14 PM


I guarantee that every atheist here would be absolutely delighted if you were to present evidence contrary to their beliefs. Please, feel free to begin a thread dedicated to evidence against an atheist or evolutionist point of view. I count myself in both camps, and assure you that I will examine any such evidence that you provide and block nothing out.

I love guarantees. Background: I've been harbouring conflicting ideas about origins in my mind for many years. A couple of months ago I decided I would try to come to some kind of conclusion to ease the arguing factions in my mind. After a couple of months of surfing, thinking, and reading I believe it is more probable that a creator was involved in the making of the universe and possibly in the evolutionary process. My methodical (some would say anal) mind has not yet dealt with the question of what kind of creator but I'm hoping to find more input in these forums.
First my apologies for: being long winded, repeating things that have been hashed over in these forums, missing obvious points (I've only been at this a couple of months). Here are the points that I've found for the existence of some kind of creator.

1. The universe couldn't have existed always otherwise all heat and energy would be spread evenly throughout the universe (second law of thermodynamics) and so it was created. That implies that something created it.

2. The conditions needed for life are very specific. It seems extremely improbable that they came about by chance. You can only call on the anthropic principle (it must have happened that way or we wouldn't be here to talk about it) so many times before you say the improbabilities are just too great. Setting up the conditions seem to indicate that something/someone was setting them up.

a) Immediately after the big bang all matter in the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. If it hadn't done so, the conditions for life wouldn't have happened.

b) Then matter expanded at exactly the right speed to form stars and planets. Stephen Hawkins says that if they expanded one part in a thousand million millions slower, matter would have collapsed back on itself. Any faster and stars wouldn't have formed.

c) The stars and the planet earth.

d) After the earth cooled, there was no water. We needed water for life. 326 000 000 000 000 000 000 gallons (that's 16 500 tons of water every minute for 150 million years) appeared on earth with no good explanations for the amount.

e) There are right handed and left handed amino acids. If both existed on earth then life could not have happened. Somehow all the right handed amino acids were eliminated.

f) The development of the atmosphere for life and a stable world with small temperature changes (no other planets discovered so far could support our kind of life).

3. There is no plausible model for the first cell. There is no good explanation for where all the molecules came from and no good explanation for how they came together in close proximity.

4. Even if all the ingredients for a cell are brought together in plentiful supply in a test tube, life does not occur. Something needs to "breathe" life into it.

5. Very specific proteins with very specific tasks (eg. DNA polymerase) are needed for life. The probability of about 1 000 amino acids arranging themselves in the right order is infinitesimally small. There are many more specific enzymes that are needed for life to occur.

6. Life needed a DNA or RNA strand of about 30 000 base pairs to begin. The probability of about 30 000 nucleic acids arranging themselves in the right order is almost too small to be worth considering possible.

7. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any system, open or closed, all things tend toward entropy. For chance evolution to occur, the opposite would have had to happen millions of times over.

8. The fossil record shows sudden jumps in complexity. The first animal was the comb jelly (Nature; April 10, 2008) which has connective tissue and a nervous system. During the Cambrian Explosion, plants and animals suddenly (in the geological sense) went from very simple to very complex. It is easier to believe that something was involved in the process rather than evolution took jumps.

9. Natural selection selects out or for certain traits. It does not increase the complexity of the organism.

10. There have been no beneficial mutations documented that increase the complexity of the organism.

11. In every culture there is a belief in spiritual beings.

12. Complex organs like the eye could not have evolved since there are many steps that give no benefit to the organism and there is no reason to continue along a path to build them.

13. There are DNA segments that exists in different species that did not exist in their common ancestor.

14. In cases of people who have been resuscitated, they experience very similar things including meeting some "being of light." (See work by Dr. Raymond Moody)

15. Any time we see complexity, we immediately assume that an intelligent being organized it. Why would we assume different for the universe?

16. Nobody has observed evolution occuring. Even those there are more humanoid beings living right now than for the last six million years and far more mutanogens. Lots of evolutionary steps happened then. Why are not more happening now? We see the extinction of many species but no new species appearing. Evidence shows fewer species developing.

17. Many cellular systems seem to be front loaded. They seem to contain systems needed for higher level organisms. It seems like someone was setting up evolution from the start. (See posts in early Feb. in http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/)

18. There are many fossil records from early animals but the fossil records of any transitory species is weak at best.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a lot of blank lines.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Modify topic title with "(Alaninnont and Subbie only)" part.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "Great Debate" banners.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 03-03-2009 10:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-04-2009 1:46 AM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 03-04-2009 10:25 AM alaninnont has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 65 (501058)
03-03-2009 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 8:14 PM


Lots of Fun Material, but...
There is lots in this opening post that needs to be discussed; that is the good news.

The not-so-good news is that we try to focus each thread here since we (for a number of reasons) shut threads down at about 300 threads and, more importantly, it is less confusing if we have focus.

Your have points that range from cosmology to details of biology. They are so totally separate that we put them in different forums (sic) not just different threads.

You have a large number that are grouped under what is called the Anthropic Principle and maybe you could just discuss those under that umbrella.

You also have some that are so totally wrong that even creationist web sites say they shouldn't be used any more. (These are sometimes called PRATTs -- points refuted 1,000 times). I suggest you spend a bit of time researching what you are posting. (see point 7)

Others are simply known to be factually incorrect. So you damage your case by putting them forward. (point 9).

You have also lifter at least some of this from another source. This is plagiarism if you don't attribute it (even if it is you as the source it doesn't hurt to reference that fact so you don't appear to be dishonest.)

You might want to take this and pick 2 or 3 points that you consider strongest. Then check to see if they have been discussed here or elsewhere. You can then strengthen you argument and get this off to a better start.

When you have chosen those and updated this please reply so that an admin notices.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 8:14 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3740
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 65 (501074)
03-04-2009 1:36 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3740
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 65 (501076)
03-04-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 8:14 PM


This topic is now a one-on-one "Great Debate"
Alaninnont and Subbie should be the only members posting in this topic.

Any messages by any other member will have the message content deleted.

It is now Subbie's turn to post to this topic.

Adminnemooseus

ps: See here for more info on the origin of this "Great Debate"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 8:14 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 65 (501107)
03-04-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 8:14 PM


Let me take a moment to explain what has happened.

Even though AdminNosy asked you to focus down your message to a couple of narrow topics, Adminnemooseus agreed with me that allowing it to proceed on the basis of a Great Debate would be the best way to proceed. What that means is that you and I should be the only ones posting here, but you do not need to make the changes that AdminNosy asked for.

I trust you recognize that it will take me time to respond to each of your points. What I would like to see from you initially is an indication of which portions of your message are from another site or source and a reference to that source. I ask for this since AdminNosy mentioned that some of your post was copied from elsewhere.

I will point out initially that the quote you began with specifically asked for evidence. At first blush, it appears that a lot of what you have posted is in fact not evidence, but argument, assumption and apologetics. That's not to say I won't respond to it, I'm simply making an opening observation.

So, if you would be so kind as to put quote boxes around the stuff from other sources and identify those sources, I will begin to organize my response(s).


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 8:14 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 9:17 PM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 6 of 65 (501177)
03-04-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
03-04-2009 10:25 AM


Sounds great. You're right that a lot is apologetics. Would it be easier if we hit one point at a time? I'm in a really busy time right now so I might not be too quick in replying either. Maybe the beginning is a good spot. Again, I apologize if these issues have been hashed over ad naseum but, as I said, I'm new to the forum and new to the issue.

1. The beginning.
As I see it, there are two possibilities for the beginning of the universe. It was either created or it existed forever. If it existed forever, then heat should be evenly dipersed throughout the universe therefore it is likely that it was created. Whether the universe expands forever, reaches a stasis, or falls back onto itself for the "big crunch", the stars would eventually burn out and heat would disipate. Since this is not the case, it then follows that the universe was likely created. Was there a creator or did it happen on its own? It doesn't make sense from a science point of view that the energy could have come from nothing (First law of thermodynamics) and it doesn't make sense from a science point of view that a being could have existed forever. Logically, I see a little more weight in a creator since it at least gives a explanation for the universe's existence. There are other options that are on the fringe but if we are looking for answers, no option should be left unconsidered. It is possible that the creator is an alien and that this is some kind of virtual reality. One hundred years ago, there was about 350 km of paved roads in North America, indoor plumbing was a luxury available to a small minority of the population, cars and planes were rudimentary, 95 % of doctors had no college education and the population of Los Vegas was 30. If technology has advanced this far in 100 years, what will it be like in another 100 or 1000 or 10 000 years. There are places in our universe which are much older than we are and so the existence of technology that could give us the perception of reality may be possible. I'm not saying this is probable, just possible.

What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 03-04-2009 10:25 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 12:07 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 7 of 65 (501192)
03-05-2009 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 9:17 PM


quote:
I'm in a really busy time right now so I might not be too quick in replying either.

Well, that's one benefit of a Great Debate format. Feel free to take as long as you like to respond, the thread won't be filling up anytime soon.

quote:
As I see it, there are two possibilities for the beginning of the universe. It was either created or it existed forever.

There's a third option. It came into existence without a creator.

As far as the rest of your comments about the various consequences about where the universe came from, how long it's been been here, what will happen in the future, I strongly suspect that you are speculating about things you really know very little about. I also strongly suspect that your speculations come from some creationist website or other.

Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Loop. Nobody knows. Those who have spent their lives studying these things don't have definitive answers, I certainly am not in a position to give better answers than they are. What's more, I'm not even in a position to evaluate the merits of the various competing theories.

However, as it all relates to the topic of this thread, the existence vel non of a creator, the answers to these questions are irrelevant. The basic form of your argument is what is called the god of the gaps. In essence, the god of the gaps argument relies on unanswered questions. Because there are things that we cannot explain or understand, god must have done it.

For some people, such as yourself, this is a more satisfying conclusion than accepting that we don't know the answers yet. For others, such as myself, that is no answer at all, because it simply pushes things back a step. You're unwilling to accept the idea of an infinite universe because it contradicts your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, but you're willing to accept the idea of an infinite creator that violates those same laws. Well, that's okay with me, but it doesn't even approach the level of evidence of the existence of a creator.

There's a danger inherent in any god of the gaps argument. Every time a gap is closed, god gets a little smaller. 50,000 years ago, gods were responsible for everything; the weather, the seasons, crops growing, diseases, volcanoes, earthquakes, you name it. Today, we can explain all of these things in naturalistic terms without any divine intervention. Today god has been reduced to creator, retributionist, and occasional miracle worker, and the creator part is on the way out, too.

If faith gives you comfort, far be it from me to deprive you of that. But you better find a justification for believing in god other than the fact that there are things about the world that you don't understand, because sooner or later, those things are going to be explained, if they haven't been already.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 9:17 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 8 of 65 (501321)
03-05-2009 4:27 PM


I haven't visited creationists websites unless you group ID in with creationists. Either way, I don't see why the source should affect the validity of a point. I appreciate your sensitivity toward faith but I'd really like to figure this thing out and come to some kind of conclusion in my mind so don't worry about destroying my faith. I've come to the conclusion that many people really don't know what they believe. They accept what they were fed in schools or at home or at church and haven't tore their thought processes down to see if their mind is really accepting it. I spent three years in Haiti where the vast majority of people are Voodoo followers. It vastly changed my ideas. I'm rambling.
There's a third option. It came into existence without a creator.

Please explain how this is possible. I can't see how it could have.

For some people, such as yourself, this is a more satisfying conclusion than accepting that we don't know the answers yet. For others, such as myself, that is no answer at all, because it simply pushes things back a step. You're unwilling to accept the idea of an infinite universe because it contradicts your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, but you're willing to accept the idea of an infinite creator that violates those same laws. Well, that's okay with me, but it doesn't even approach the level of evidence of the existence of a creator.

I haven't come to any solid conclusions yet. From what I've considered so far, I feel it is more likely that some kind of creator was involved in the process. I haven't considered whether he/she/it was infinite or how involved he/she/it was. I'm not trying to bring forth arguments in the sense that I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you should accept my opinion. My point in the first post was that it seems more logical to me that a creator was involved in the initial creation. You're right that nobody knows and science cannot reproduce those initial moments and so hard evidence for either side is difficult. All I can do is look at the evidence at hand, theorize possibilities and then side on the most probable answer. In science it seems like the only certainty is a reasonable probability.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 5:53 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 6:32 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 9 of 65 (501335)
03-05-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by alaninnont
03-05-2009 4:27 PM


quote:
I haven't visited creationists websites unless you group ID in with creationists.

While there are some differences, I do in fact group IDers in with creationists for a variety of reasons. That's not really our topic here, but I'd be willing to devote a subthread to it if you wish. If so, reply to this message for that discussion.

quote:
Either way, I don't see why the source should affect the validity of a point.

The reason relates to part of why I lump IDers in with creationists. Both groups are notorious for including known fallacious information in their arguments. As an example, your claim from the OP that complex organs like the eye could not have evolved is a common one on creationist sites. Actually, the evolution of the eye is very well known. In fact, there are living organisms that exhibit different stages in the evolution of the eye, showing that various intermediate steps are quite functional and beneficial.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in my next message so that we can keep this discussion a separate subthread if you want to pursue it.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by alaninnont, posted 03-05-2009 4:27 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 10 of 65 (501341)
03-05-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by alaninnont
03-05-2009 4:27 PM


quote:
Please explain how this is possible. I can't see how it could have.

I can't. But I also can't rule it out. We're talking about the beginning of the universe. There's no particular reason to assume that the laws of cause and effect that we see as a part of this universe necessarily existed before the universe began.

quote:
From what I've considered so far, I feel it is more likely that some kind of creator was involved in the process. I haven't considered whether he/she/it was infinite or how involved he/she/it was. I'm not trying to bring forth arguments in the sense that I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you should accept my opinion. My point in the first post was that it seems more logical to me that a creator was involved in the initial creation.

I understand that. But it doesn't consist of evidence. It's your preference.

My preference would be for the Big Loop theory of the universe. It's the one that makes the most sense to me, the one that I'm most comfortable with intellectually. But my comfort level has nothing to do with the facts. Likewise, your desire to live in a universe that corresponds to what you think is more logical has nothing to do with reality.

Moreover, it seems you missed the point of my previous post. Resolving what you consider to be logical problems by simply invoking a creator doesn't solve anything. All of your reservations about the initial creation apply equally well to the creator. You think it's more likely that the universe was created than that it always existed, but you have no difficulty assuming that the creator always existed. I suggest that the only reason an infinite creator is more acceptable to you is because you're cultural predisposed to accept it. At least up to this point, you certainly haven't given any evidential reason to prefer one over the other.

quote:
You're right that nobody knows and science cannot reproduce those initial moments and so hard evidence for either side is difficult. All I can do is look at the evidence at hand, theorize possibilities and then side on the most probable answer.

Well, if we're talking specifically about the origin of the universe, neither you nor I are in a position to evaluate the evidence or the theories that scientists have developed to explain the evidence. The science and math behind cosmology is so advanced that only a fraction of a percent of people can even begin to fully comprehend all the positions.

My suggestion to you, if you truly are interested in learning about this, is to look at science websites, not creationist or ID websites. They are demonstrably unreliable. They have an agenda and distort and fabricate information to fit that agenda. Despite what you may believe or have heard elsewhere, scientists have one agenda, accuracy. What's more, science relies on the peer review process to weed out inaccuracies, whether intentional or not.

But beyond all that, I'd suggest to you that the search for evidence proving the existence of god is a fool's errand. If such evidence existed, everyone would believe in the same god. To me, the lack of such unanimity speaks volumes about the quality of hard evidence in support of the proposition.

{ABE} I'd also suggest, if you're interested in learning, that you ask questions on this forum. There are a number of people quite learned in many different disciplines who could explain a great deal. However, the best way to learn is to ask questions seeking information, not to jump in and make assertions about topics about which you really have no knowledge. There's nothing wrong with saying something like, "I've heard that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says evolution can't happen. Is that accurate?" However, to make the assertion then argue against people who actually know what the Second Law says and means is a really poor method of learning. It certainly gives the impression that your purpose here has nothing to do with learning, but more with proselytizing.

Edited by subbie, : As noted


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by alaninnont, posted 03-05-2009 4:27 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 11 of 65 (501589)
03-06-2009 8:50 PM


Here's the wikipedia definition of creationism;
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.

From what I have gathered, IDers form into three major groups.
1) Those that believe that a creator was involved in the original creation of the universe and the beginning of the first cell and then let evolution and the universe take its own course.
2) Those that believe that a creator was involved in the original creation, the first cell, and then tweaked evolution as it was going along to head us toward where we are today but is not actively involved in our lives.
3) Creationists who shy away from their fundamentalist and young earth friends.

{ABE} I'd also suggest, if you're interested in learning, that you ask questions on this forum. There are a number of people quite learned in many different disciplines who could explain a great deal. However, the best way to learn is to ask questions seeking information, not to jump in and make assertions about topics about which you really have no knowledge. There's nothing wrong with saying something like, "I've heard that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says evolution can't happen. Is that accurate?" However, to make the assertion then argue against people who actually know what the Second Law says and means is a really poor method of learning. It certainly gives the impression that your purpose here has nothing to do with learning, but more with proselytizing.

That was my original intent but I got shuffled into this forum. If you prefer, we could postpone while I do some digging around. You'll have to take my word for it that I'm not here to convert you. Try to take this with a stiff upper lip but my scheme is to use and abuse you, bounce ideas off of you, sqeeze some new ones out and then discard you like an old toy when we're done. Sorry but I thought you should know at the start. (tic)

Well, if we're talking specifically about the origin of the universe, neither you nor I are in a position to evaluate the evidence or the theories that scientists have developed to explain the evidence. The science and math behind cosmology is so advanced that only a fraction of a percent of people can even begin to fully comprehend all the positions.

You are right and I'm starting to think that at the end of this all, I won't come to any solid conclusions. The scary part about the amount of information available to us is that we have to take the vast majority of it on faith. Any field we dip into that is not our own, we have to assume many things. I'm starting to think that my best hope at the end of this is a rough estimate of the probabilities.

Despite what you may believe or have heard elsewhere, scientists have one agenda, accuracy.

I don't think I'm going to agree with you on this one. My time in research demonstarted to me that there are many who incorporate fudge factors and even questionable experimental methods to continue their publication parade. My time on a university biology board was a shock. There are many agendas and some shockingly trivial among scientists.

I'd like to know what you think about the virtual reality option. It seems to me that it is the least probable but it does have some virtues. One of the things that I've been wondering about is the silence in the rest of the universe. There are many solar systems and galaxies that are far older than ours. Theoretically, if our technology is advancing this fast at this stage in our development, it is probable that they are in other planets with life as well. It seems that space travel is concievably possible in our future and therefore should be possible if there is other life out there. Even if you don't believe in a creator, if life came into existence from inorganic substances here, it should stand the same chance of coming into existence on other planets. So why hasn't anyone contacted us. I know there are some that say they have but I haven't seen any credible evidence. With SETI and others with their ears on their satellite dishes, there should have been something. I see the options as these;
1) We are all there is.
2) There are aliens but the physical characteristics of the universe will somehow not allow the kind of space travel that can tranverse the incredible distances.
3) There are aliens but our world is off limits for now. (maybe I've been watching too much Picard)
4) There are aliens but they are in a different dimension or are so vastly different than us that we cannot interact.
5) We are in a world or virtual reality set up by the aliens.

What do you think?


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 03-06-2009 9:24 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 65 (501591)
03-06-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by alaninnont
03-06-2009 8:50 PM


Wiki's not bad for an introduction to the issue, and broadly speaking I don't really disagree with what you quoted. The problem with trying to categorize creationists/IDers is that there aren't really any hard and fast distinctions. For example, even among creationists, there are also YECs and OECs. My impression is that, with a very few exceptions, most creo/IDers don't really know what they think, or why, they just don't like "evilution."

quote:
That was my original intent but I got shuffled into this forum.

Well, this particular thread got put into Great Debate because it's really much too broad for general participation. Threads are usually closed after about 300 posts, and with multiple people making multiple entries, it's impossible to discuss all the issues you raised in your OP in that short span. If you wanted to start another thread discussing one of the topics you raised, that would have a better chance for general participation. However, most of the things you discussed already have threads relating to them, so you might be better off looking into one of those.

quote:
If you prefer, we could postpone while I do some digging around.

That would suit me fine. There's really no rush, this thread will stay here for quite some time. On the other hand, there's no reason we can't continue this while you look into other things as well, if you like. I really have no preference.

quote:
Try to take this with a stiff upper lip but my scheme is to use and abuse you, bounce ideas off of you, sqeeze some new ones out and then discard you like an old toy when we're done. Sorry but I thought you should know at the start. (tic)

Thanks for the heads up, forewarned is forearmed.

quote:
I don't think I'm going to agree with you on this one. My time in research demonstarted to me that there are many who incorporate fudge factors and even questionable experimental methods to continue their publication parade. My time on a university biology board was a shock. There are many agendas and some shockingly trivial among scientists.

I was speaking about scientists as a whole, and didn't mean to suggest that all scientists are interested only in accuracy. In fact, I suspect individual scientists are no more immune from dishonesty or incompetence than any other professional group. However, science as an institution has developed the process of peer review, which functions quite well (although not perfectly) in weeding out the kinds of problems you talk about, as well as simple carelessness and honest self-deception. That's why you will frequently see posters here disparage and disregard creationist and ID works, which almost universally do not use the peer review process.

quote:
I'd like to know what you think about the virtual reality option.

There's no evidence suggesting that we are in a virtual reality, so entertaining the option violates the rule of parsimony. In essence, that means don't add additional assumptions to any theory unless it's necessary to account for the evidence, and the fewer assumptions needed for any theory, the better.

As far as lack of alien contact, there's really nothing to explain. We are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence by looking for non-naturally occurring radio waves. Our planet hasn't been producing such radio waves for much more than 100 years. Thus, it's likely that any alien civilization would have to be within 100 light years of our planet to even be aware that there's any intelligence here. While I agree with what I take to be your general assumption that there's a high likelihood of other intelligence in the universe, I think the likelihood that any of them would have any reason for coming to our planet is very low. Thus, there's nothing to explain.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by alaninnont, posted 03-06-2009 8:50 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 13 of 65 (501639)
03-07-2009 7:59 AM


I'd like to continue here if you don't mind. I am very much enjoying this although my significant other gives me message-laden looks occasionally when I sit here too long. The open forums are less focused.

My impression, and it's only an impression, is that the large majority of IDers accept evolution but believe that there was a creator of some sort involved at some time. (not necessarily during the evolutionary procecss)

There's no evidence suggesting that we are in a virtual reality, so entertaining the option violates the rule of parsimony. In essence, that means don't add additional assumptions to any theory unless it's necessary to account for the evidence, and the fewer assumptions needed for any theory, the better.

Let me try and pin you down one more time. I'm not trying to argue one side or the other on this. I don't think this alien idea lends credibility to either side although I might have to think about that some more. Which of the five choices I listed do you think is the most probable and why? Are there any I missed? In the current model of the big bang timeline, there was a very brief period called the inflationary epoch during which matter expanded faster than the speed of light. It follows then that this is a possiblity and there may be some parts of our electronic transmissions that are moving faster than light. Given our current technological advancements, does it not seem logical that we would be able to detect and visit other life forms within a few thousand years? Where are the aliens?


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 03-07-2009 11:21 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 14 of 65 (501665)
03-07-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by alaninnont
03-07-2009 7:59 AM


quote:
My impression, and it's only an impression, is that the large majority of IDers accept evolution but believe that there was a creator of some sort involved at some time. (not necessarily during the evolutionary procecss)

Well, if you're talking about the leading names among ID "experts," I think you are correct. I'm not sure what you mean by "not neccessarily during the evolutionary process." IDers generally postulate that designer intervention is necessary to account for certain steps in the evolutionary process. Exactly which steps depend on which IDer you're talking about. Behe tries to identify organisms or parts of organisms that are Irreducibly Complex, that cannot have arisen through a series of small steps. Dembski, on the other hand, argues that certain steps in the evolutionary process are so improbable that they couldn't have happened without the influence of an intelligent agent.

quote:
Which of the five choices I listed do you think is the most probable and why? Are there any I missed?

The possibility that you missed is that they are out there but we just haven't met yet.

quote:
In the current model of the big bang timeline, there was a very brief period called the inflationary epoch during which matter expanded faster than the speed of light. It follows then that this is a possiblity and there may be some parts of our electronic transmissions that are moving faster than light.

I believe your understanding of cosmic inflation is flawed. This is far outside my area of expertise, but my understanding is that it was the fabric of space that expanded, not matter itself. Matter cannot move through space faster than the speed of light, but space itself is not subject to that limitation. I do not believe that it's possible for our electronic transmissions to move faster than light. If you have an authority that says otherwise, I'd be curious to look at it.

quote:
Given our current technological advancements, does it not seem logical that we would be able to detect and visit other life forms within a few thousand years?

I'm no futurist, but if I had to guess I'd guess we'll reach that stage, probably sooner than a few thousand years.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by alaninnont, posted 03-07-2009 7:59 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 15 of 65 (501861)
03-08-2009 8:59 AM


But first, let me tell you as to what would happen if at some instant, the universe did expand faster than the speed of light. In this case, as you have pointed out, the horizon distance will be the point at which the expansion was just at the speed of light; what you have called as the "end of our horizon".

So, if the universe never expanded faster than the speed of light, then we could see to the Big Bang, where it not for the CMB which blocks off light before that epoch. But, if at some point it DID expand faster than the speed of light, we will see to the "end of our horizon".

This is from Curious about Astronomy" but I've seen several references to it.

The possibility that you missed is that they are out there but we just haven't met yet.

D'oh!! Of course. That's why you're here, to keep me on track.

I've been thinking further down the "alien" path. A possiblility is that an alien or alien race is the creator. I could be that, for entertainment, curiousity, competition or reasons incomprehensible aliens took the planet and seeded it with the necessities for life and possibly experimented along the way. It would answer a number of questions like; where did all of the stuffs neccesary for life come from, how this world seems so perfectly prepared for life, how the improbability of random chance came up with the world we have. I'm not saying it's probable but I'm trying to explore all the possiblilities. It's the same thing we do with bacteria. We provide all the neccesities of life in nutrient agar and plate them onto a petri dish to let them grow and so we can find out things about them. The earth has some similarities to the petri dish. The growth curves are virtually identical. We have all the things we need to live here on this planet. The bacteria die, not becausse they run out of resources but because they are poisoned by their own wastes which seems to be where we are headed. (Go Green) Maybe we are some aliens petri dish.

So, what have we got so far? There are a number of options for how the universe initially came into existence. Science doesn't really help us because the event is not reproducible or testable. Logic tells us that some of the possibilities are more probable than others and that one of them could be (there may be others we haven't thought of yet) the truth. You think the Big Loop theory is the most logical way to explain the observable data and I think the existence of a creator is most logical way to explain the observable data. All options come back to the conumdrun of what started it off? How could something be made of nothing or how could something have existed forever.

I'd like to move on to my second point unless there are other things you want to bring up here.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 03-08-2009 12:43 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017