Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 12:32 AM
26 online now:
DrJones*, glowby, PaulK, subbie (4 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,883 Year: 8,919/19,786 Month: 1,341/2,119 Week: 101/576 Day: 2/99 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 286 of 300 (427120)
10-09-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by bernerbits
10-09-2007 7:51 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
Welcome to the fray, bernerbits.

Certainly there's middle ground?

Yeah, it's called agnosis: asserting that some or all things cannot be known beyond reasonable doubt but may or may not be true nonetheless. Atheists who claim this stance (wrt God) are called "weak atheists", though few atheists would claim to know with certainty there is/are no god(s).

If you are going to include atheists on one side of agnostics then you should also include theists that also say these things cannot be known beyond reasonable doubt.

But I don't think it's a matter of being a "middle ground" so much as it is a matter of being dedicated to the search for truth, for reality, without having any preconceptions of what that reality may turn out to be. This could be common to agnostics, your "weak atheists" and my "weak theists" while strict atheists could be just as hampered by denial as strong theists.

Enjoy.

ps -- as you are new

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Edited by RAZD, : ps


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by bernerbits, posted 10-09-2007 7:51 PM bernerbits has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by bernerbits, posted 10-10-2007 7:53 AM RAZD has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 287 of 300 (427132)
10-09-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Topic Summary Statement
Getting back to the original topic in time for closing ...

Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, ...
Also, if one supports an atheistic view of evolution (Primordial soup, single-celled organisms, slight successive variation, without a God, etc etc), is it given that they also support the Big Bang?

I trust we have sorted out as best as possible the differences between cosmology (including the big bang theory), abiogenesis and evolution, and their relation to atheism, theism and the pursuit of a true representation of reality. Some people may not take these differences to heart, being under some delusion or other, but their disaffection will not alter the course of reality.

The Big Bang may or may not have been the erstwhile beginning of our universe, however it's main period of expansion was long over before the solar system was formed. Whether it is true or whether an infinite existing universe is true, the formation of the solar system, and of the planets would not be affected in their progress. To put a fine point on it, the Big Bang can be falsified by new evidence and cosmologists turned to a new theory, yet the science of abiogenesis and evolution will be totally unaffected.

In the science of abiogenesis we have several theories for how life started on this one planet -- the total sample we are aware to date of one where life exists -- but we have no direct evidence for the period when the change from lifeless to life holding occurred. The oldest known sample of sedimentary rock yields fossils of life that is remarkably similar to the cyanobacteria that exists today. All older rock has been either metamorphosed or subducted out of sight ... or waits to be uncovered. The process of metamorphosis destroys such delicate fossils as the first forms of life would likely have if they occurred naturally, or whether they were planted somehow. The only rational answer at this point is that we don't know how life began on this earth, but we also know life did begin on earth: the planet was formed from stellar debris and the most we have detected in space are prebiotic compounds, so at some point there was a transition from prebiotic to biotic. This fact is unaffected by the validity of the big bang theory of cosmology.

We can study possibilities for a natural beginning, theorize on possibilities, and we may even be able to reproduce some possibilities soon, but at this point we just don't know. Whether such formation of life is true or whether life was planted is true, the evolution of life on earth would not be affected in its progress. Again, to put a fine point on it, all current theories of abiogenesis can all be falsified by new evidence and scientists turned to entirely new theories, yet the science of evolution will be totally unaffected.

When we turn to the study of evolution we see that there is little doubt in a rational view that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will occur: hereditary traits do change in all species from one generation to the next. There may be some disagreement on the various mechanisms involved and the degree they operate from time to time, and there may be some disagreement that this degree of change from generation to generation can account for the diversity of life as we know it -- both from the variety living today, from historical records and from fossil records -- but the fact remains that evolution has occurred, is occurring and will occur, and this fact is unaffected by the validity of the big bang or the validity of abiogenesis.

Thus we see three branches of science that can be studied in an independent manner, each one unaffected by facts found or theories invalidated in each of the other branches. The only element that is critical is the pursuit of truth, unblemished by preconception, and of trying to determine the nature of reality.

And we see that science is not atheistic but necessarily agnostic: we cannot know that there is no god, no supernatural force or forces, but that we are unable to study them, reproduce their effect as we, certainly, are not gods. All we can use are the laws of nature that are provided, whether they are provided by chance, inevitable in a universe like ours or the result of supernatural creation, it is only the effect and behavior of those natural laws that we can study with science. Whether there are supernatural truths or not is irrelevant to the study of nature and the process of behavior of everything from subatomic particles to black holes according to the laws of nature. This includes the cosmology of a big bang, the possibilities of abiogenesis and the facts and theories of evolution.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4108 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 288 of 300 (427172)
10-10-2007 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by RAZD
10-09-2007 10:25 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
Hey RAZD, thanks for the welcome. Really this is OT and the thread looks to be wrapping up but I'll linger in this rabbit hole just enough to respond.

That description of agnosis/agnosticism (search for truth or reality without preconceptions) really pretty much sums up my views nicely. And you're right, I should have included weak theists in my definition as well, though I felt clarifying atheism more important in context. I think it's tough to be "strong agnostic" and not have a leaning towards either theism or atheism anyway and as such most agnostics fall under the umbrellas of either "weak theist" or "weak atheist".

Maybe it's not a middle ground, but a higher ground? ;-) But saying that just seems so arrogant.

Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2007 10:25 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 4162 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 289 of 300 (430090)
10-23-2007 11:27 AM


The bitter simple question
This is not to convince people there is a God
Neither does it confuse them with a circular argument.
This does not argue with biblical ideas, but with a simple question of a very simple

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM with "No Creator Creation"
The simple question is...

If No God exists then how did the raw existence of matter come about?

NATURAL LAW OF MATTER:
Matter exists physically and exists as energy
Matter is what EVERYTHING is made out of...
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed...
The amount of matter in the Universe has been the same ever since the matter came about.

This means matter must already be SOMEWHERE for SOMETHING to happen
This means even before ANY CREATION THEORY(Big bang, Evolution)...there must have been

matter in order for something else to be created or happen

The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old because that would mean that matter has been

here forever
But where did that matter come from, since it cannot be created.
Did it just appear out of nothing!?!?
Others say everything that is now, is from the big bang
But then what caused the big bang?
The Big bang could not happen without something there(hydrogen or something), and if that

something is there, matter is there
But again this leads me to HOW WAS THIS MATTER MADE!
How, since you cannot make SOMETHING from NOTHING, is this possible

This leads to two conclusions, one being logical:

1)Here we have matter, we know matter and its properties, we know it's laws
Yet we say...
The first "Anything(atom,quark,matter)" came out of nothing, therefore, matter can not only

be made, but also can be made out of nothing.

2)He we have a God a "Matter Creator", we don't know Gods properties, we don't know his laws
And we say...
There is a Being or Something who is outside all boundaries of LAWS and NATURE and TIME, and

created all we know and do not know.

Tell me how is this argument wrong?


Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by jar, posted 10-23-2007 11:30 AM TyberiusMax has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Chiroptera, posted 10-23-2007 12:41 PM TyberiusMax has responded
 Message 296 by Force, posted 11-01-2007 5:16 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 290 of 300 (430091)
10-23-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 11:27 AM


Re: The bitter simple question
Spamming the same message in multiple threads is kinda frowned on around here.

Tell me how is this argument wrong?

Because what is might well have always existed, or always exited in some other form, or ...


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 11:27 AM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6617
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 291 of 300 (430110)
10-23-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 11:27 AM


Re: The bitter simple question
Hi, TyberiusMax, and welcome to EvC.

As jar/TrueChristian points out, it is kind of rude to post the exact same message in different threads at the same time. If nothing else, it makes you seem a bit obsessive -- obsessive in the mental illness sense.

--

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed...

Well, to be more precise, the amount of matter/energy is the same at all points in time. "Before" the universe there was no time -- in fact, I put "before" in quotes because there was no "before" the universe. There was no space, no time -- since our physical laws take space and time for granted, we really cannot describe in any meaningful way (or even conceptualize) "before the universe existed".

The way I look at it, the universe and space and time and matter and energy simply exist.

-

The amount of matter in the Universe has been the same ever since the matter came about.

As far as we know. But if the history of sience is any guide, then we can expect some surprises as we learn more about the universe, and this might be one of them.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 11:27 AM TyberiusMax has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 1:05 PM Chiroptera has responded

TyberiusMax
Member (Idle past 4162 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-23-2007


Message 292 of 300 (430120)
10-23-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Chiroptera
10-23-2007 12:41 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
But you ignore the simple truth...

it is a LAW: something cannot come from "pure nothing"
(please tell me you believe this)

Going all the way back to the beginning of time, space, and everything. what happened to make something out of nothing.

The smallest you could say is that there were two particles of anti-matter and matter.

but then you ignore the simplicity again, how were those made.

not even a quark(or smaller!) could be made with out something making it.

It cannot be said that something was there to begin it all. It is impossible. Because anything that is there is existence and therefore had to be made at sometime.

The only logical reasoning is that something is outside of existence(Matter,Anti-Matter, Laws,Time,Everything) and created existance. Anything else goes against logic

Edited by TyberiusMax, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Chiroptera, posted 10-23-2007 12:41 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ringo, posted 10-23-2007 1:49 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Chiroptera, posted 10-23-2007 2:21 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16621
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 293 of 300 (430136)
10-23-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 1:05 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
TyberiusMax writes:

The only logical reasoning is that something is outside of existence(Matter,Anti-Matter, Laws,Time,Everything) and created existance.

What you're saying is that a Creator/God doesn't "exist".


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 1:05 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 294 of 300 (430143)
10-23-2007 2:04 PM


Since this thread is swiftly approaching closure, perhaps we should carry on here, where we're debating exactly the same post by TiberiusMax.
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6617
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 295 of 300 (430146)
10-23-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 1:05 PM


Re: The bitter simple question
it is a LAW: something cannot come from "pure nothing"

Let me tell you what a "law" is: a "law of physics" is just a description of what people have observed so far. So far, no one has observed the total amount of energy in a closed system changing. But no one has been able to observe every single place in the universe, at every single time, in every conceivable situation. So when scientists speak of "the law of conservation of energy", what they are talking about is the fact that energy has always been conserved in the situations where it was checked.

-

what happened to make something out of nothing.

What does this even mean? By "nothing", we are even talking about a situation where time and space and even existence itself has no meaning. The words and concepts that we use are useless in describing this situation. Phrases like "creation of the universe" or even "the beginning of the universe" don't even have any real meaning.

That is why I say that the universe, and everything contained in it, simply exist. This avoids the problems of trying to use language and concepts that are based on experiences in space and time and the present universe to speak of something that we have no way of even describing.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 1:05 PM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 300 (431710)
11-01-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by TyberiusMax
10-23-2007 11:27 AM


Re: The bitter simple question
TyberiusMax,

Science understands life the best it can with the tools it currently has to understand it. Eventually, Science may understand God but for now it will not understand God. Your point is good, matter has always existed all the way back to the begining of time. The Big Bang is the begining of time as we know it. What was there before the Big Bang? My faith tells me God/Heaven but one day we will know through Science if that is true. Have faith in Science it is a good tool but ofcourse not the only tool in the toolbox.


Thank you
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-23-2007 11:27 AM TyberiusMax has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2353 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 297 of 300 (431856)
11-02-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jon
10-01-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
When you don't have a blind faith in a God, your mind is open.

How is it possible that only after limiting your mind to 'not have a blind faith...' can you suddenly say that your mind is then unlimited?

it sure can, by not being limited to one point of view and the openness allows the person to later accept dissenting views if they are more logical than the current views.

For example at this time I accept the Big bang, abiogenesis & evolution because the is no more logical alternative. If one is found I would change my views to the better model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:49 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1761 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 298 of 300 (431964)
11-03-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Last Call
Welcome to EvC, Buckets, and congratulations. Your thread appears to be going the distance.

It would be interesting, before it closes, to hear from you once more. How do you feel about the discussion you launched? What aspects of your topic have gone unaddressed, perhaps, in a way that we may be able to tackle in a new thread?


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 299 of 300 (432936)
11-09-2007 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by bernerbits
10-09-2007 7:51 PM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome bernerbits,

Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.

Our threads are closed at 300 posts, give or take a post or two. So this thread has reached its limit. I look forward to seeing you in other threads.

As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.

In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.

Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread.

Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple


Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals

    Helpful links for New Members: Forum Guidelines, Short Questions,
    Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, and Practice Makes Perfect


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 284 by bernerbits, posted 10-09-2007 7:51 PM bernerbits has not yet responded

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 300 of 300 (432937)
    11-09-2007 5:32 AM


    End of Thread
    300's the limit
    Stow the prose,
    No more discussion
    It's time to close.

    Finis

    See you in another thread. Magic Wand


    RewPrev1
    ...
    1516171819
    20
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019