• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Not to be offensive but this is an appeal to ignorance and lazy thinking. You may not understand it but others do.

No one understands the origin of Big Bang/ Evolution, though. It's still theory... that is my point.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I am not good at explaining stuff, but I will try...

For instance, if you had a juicer and you were like "dang, how can it extract the juice and leave the rest of the fruit ready for disposal?" I recently brought one and am amazed by that.

Anyway, the first thing we normally think about is the person or people who designed/built the thing and give them credit for their ingenuity. We don't know how to make one of those, but we do give them credit.

Likewise, I am fascinated with outer-space, personally. And when I look deeply into it, I wonder who organized that stuff out there. I know we (humans) didn't, but I know someone did. I mean, it's just too organized (our solar system) for me to write it off as a result of nuclear chaos.

That's just how I come to conclusions...
There is a huge amount of coincidence in the universe to make life possible, even comfortable. We don't yet know to what degree that is observer bias - we have significant knowledge of only one solar system, and even that's spotty. If we explore many solar systems and find the same order, regularity, and suitability for life, and the same general kind of life, then we can conclude the universe is designed. But even that is not a safe conclusion; we'll still be able to perceive only one universe, with no way of knowing if there are an infinite number of random universes and we just happen to be in one that encourages life as we know it.

I don't think we're really meant to know for sure. I think we're meant to simply feel G-d, feel the order. You either have faith that you are not the supreme accomplishment of the universe and are therefore a a product on something higher, or you are filled with rage at that thought, or you fall somewhere in between.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,804
8,253
146
No one understands the origin of Big Bang/ Evolution, though. It's still theory... that is my point.
Then you are impatient. Just because no one understand the first fractions of a nanosecond of the big bang doesn't mean that one day somebody won't.

If you wish to assume an answer understand that your assumption is almost certainly wrong no matter how right it feels.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
No one understands the origin of Big Bang/ Evolution, though. It's still theory... that is my point.
Some people like to pretend they understand it. Especially high school professors.

P: In the beginning, all the energy and mass in the universe was a singularity.
S: Where did it come from?
P: Nowhere, it's always been there.
S: Well it must have come from somewhere.
P: NO, it's just always been there, forever and ever. Then it exploded.
S: WTF? If it's just always been there, forever and ever, and nothing else exists, then why would it explode?
P: SHUT UP!
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I wonder about space all the time as well. But why does it have to have been "put there" by anyone?
Well, it basically depends upon your personal perception. I mean, everything you use today HAD to be designed by someone for some reason. I know you readily accept that.

When we look at our planet, it serves a purpose unique just to us... and that's so we can live on it. Other planets can "potentially" and "theoretically" sustain terrestrial life, but that's a crap-shoot at best and probably impossible.

I think that we have this planet on purpose, simply because of it's uniqueness.

You have complex systems all around you that developed over time and were not put into place as part of any grand design. So why find it so hard to accept?
I can agree. However, I don't think adaptability is tantamount to evolution.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
There is a huge amount of coincidence in the universe to make life possible, even comfortable. We don't yet know to what degree that is observer bias - we have significant knowledge of only one solar system, and even that's spotty. If we explore many solar systems and find the same order, regularity, and suitability for life, and the same general kind of life, then we can conclude the universe is designed. But even that is not a safe conclusion; we'll still be able to perceive only one universe, with no way of knowing if there are an infinite number of random universes and we just happen to be in one that encourages life as we know it.

I don't think we're really meant to know for sure. I think we're meant to simply feel G-d, feel the order. You either have faith that you are not the supreme accomplishment of the universe and are therefore a a product on something higher, or you are filled with rage at that thought, or you fall somewhere in between.
I feel you.

I would love to see if there is any life beyond where we live. Maybe you're right.. for instance, Pluto is 20 flipping years away. No man can make a 40-year round trip and live.

Our nearest star to Earth is what?... some 85,000 years away? What the?

We just don't have the time to know for sure. We don't live long enough and we need a successor to pick up where we left off... uhg..
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Then you are impatient. Just because no one understand the first fractions of a nanosecond of the big bang doesn't mean that one day somebody won't.

If you wish to assume an answer understand that your assumption is almost certainly wrong no matter how right it feels.
How long have humans been around?

I don't think there is an answer for it because I don't think its true. However, I will take an wait and see approach, despite that.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Why do I have to identify it? It seems to me sufficient to say that we don't know right now.
Saying you don't know is a sufficient answer I suppose. But, the fact that you display "faith" that it will one day be discovered is very telling I think.

A man who lived 500 years ago would have no idea how a spacecraft could take off, orbit the earth and communicate with people on the surface. But that doesn't mean that those things were not possible. Just that the understanding wasn't there yet.
The ancients weren't as naive as you believe. Mankind has been envisioning aircraft in one form or another for centuries, or even thousands of years.

Sorry, but you really don't know that.
I can't say for certain that no such natural force or law exists. But I can say that there is no KNOWN natural force which would allow lifeless matter to self organize itself into far more complex and orderly structures and then gain consciousness.

Also, circumstantial evidence is on my side. Life forms are very distinct from regular inorganic matter.

Why does that distinction exist? Surely if there was a natural force capable of such feats, then it would affect inorganic matter much more readily as it wouldn't discriminate, since natural forces act upon both organic and inorganic matter alike.

What I find fascinating is that you consider this beyond the realm of possibility, but you have no problem accepting an even more complex supernatural life form that came from... nowhere? Just magically popped into being?
Nothing material comes from nowhere. Everything in material existence has a source. On the other hand, if there is a Divine Creator, then It has always existed.

It would be the Immaterial Primal Cause from which all Existence originated, and thus would by necessity be beyond causality.

How can I say this? Because infinite regression is logically unsound and ridiculous. Questions like who or what created God, and who or what created that God and so on and so forth into oblivion is nonsensical..

I never said they would. I said we don't currently know.
At least you can admit it. :)
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
The Earth is a lot older than 10 million years.

Current thinking is that life in one form or another has existed on Earth for 3.7 billion years; that's a far cry from 10 million years.
Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? It was a period in geological history that has been estimated to have lasted anywhere from 5 to 40 million years, in which there was a very rapid and startling increase the diversity and complexity of living creatures.

So apparently, life does not need billions of years to evolve and diversify into more complex forms..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
I know I just looked at this thread but you've got a be trolling.

Actually if you really believe this.... ROLFLMAO!
Thats pretty weak. Rather than refute any of my assertions, you accuse me of trolling and then do the obligatory "ROLFLMAO!"

You didn't even get the "ROFLMAO" correctly :D

I can back up everything I say, but can you?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
No one understands the origin of Big Bang/ Evolution, though. It's still theory... that is my point.
The theories of the Big Bang and Evolution are separate, they don't concern the same subject. The Theory of Evolution is around 100 years older than the Big Bang theory. Before I could read the scientific world was reeling from the idea that the universe was not a solid state (it just came into being & never changed) to the idea that the universe is expanding and has been for quite a while (13.75 billion years.)

I've heard a hypothesis (or maybe it's a theory) concerning the possible multi-verses that if you think of each possible universe and ours as each existing in their own "bubble" (and all existing in a bigger bubble) that what caused the Big Bang was one of the other bubbles touching ours, releasing energy in our bubble that we call the Big Bang.

Evolution could only begin it's processes after life was present on Earth (currently estimated as 3.54 billion year.)
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? It was a period in geological history that has been estimated to have lasted anywhere from 5 to 40 million years, in which there was a very rapid and startling increase the diversity and complexity of living creatures.

So apparently, life does not need billions of years to evolve and diversify into more complex forms..
Yes I have heard of it. 35 million years is a huge amount of time. I don't find it at all odd that once you have a life forms of a given nature and maturity that through evolution you could over 35 million years have a vast array of living creatures.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Yes I have heard of it. 35 million years is a huge amount of time. I don't find it at all odd that once you have a life forms of a given nature and maturity that through evolution you could over 35 million years have a vast array of living creatures.
35 million years is a huge amount of time, but given the reliance of evolution on "minute, slight, successive changes" caused by random mutation, is it enough time?

Believe me, mathematical models have been done on the probability of such things occurring, and they are always lacking.

Where as intelligent design advocates believe in an Intelligent Creator to beat the odds, neo darwinian evolutions must rely on Time..

Also, while mutation can conceivably cause speciation, it has never been shown to cause an increase in information that would be necessary to create an entirely new life form.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
But, the fact that you display "faith" that it will one day be discovered is very telling I think.
Again, I never expressed such a faith. There are some things that we do not know and will probably never know.

The ancients weren't as naive as you believe. Mankind has been envisioning aircraft in one form or another for centuries, or even thousands of years.
It was an example. Substitute an airplane with an iPhone or an artificial heart or a space station.

I can't say for certain that no such natural force or law exists. But I can say that there is no KNOWN natural force which would allow lifeless matter to self organize itself into far more complex and orderly structures and then gain consciousness.
Depends on what you mean by "known", and how far back you want to go. For that matter, it depends on what you mean by "consciousness". Looking at the animal kingdom, for example, where do you draw the line between consciousness and its lack?

Why does that distinction exist? Surely if there was a natural force capable of such feats, then it would affect inorganic matter much more readily as it wouldn't discriminate, since natural forces act upon both organic and inorganic matter alike.
Don't get what you're getting at here.

Nothing material comes from nowhere. Everything in material existence has a source. On the other hand, if there is a Divine Creator, then It has always existed.
You do understand that you just contradicted yourself, right? You can't say that nothing comes from nowhere, oh, except for this one thing that is the most complex and powerful thing to ever exist. It just doesn't make any sense.

How can I say this? Because infinite regression is logically unsound and ridiculous. Questions like who or what created God, and who or what created that God and so on and so forth into oblivion is nonsensical..
I still don't get this type of thinking. How is what you call "infinite regression" any more logically unsound or ridiculous than an ominpotent, eternal being with no causal explanation?

People ask who created God not because they are trying to be nonsensical, but to demonstrate that your notion of God is the very logically unsound and ridiculous infinite regression you want to avoid!

At least you can admit it. :)
Being willing to recognize and admit what we don't know is an important part of rationality.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
35 million years is a huge amount of time, but given the reliance of evolution on "minute, slight, successive changes" caused by random mutation, is it enough time?

Believe me, mathematical models have been done on the probability of such things occurring, and they are always lacking.

Where as intelligent design advocates believe in an Intelligent Creator to beat the odds, neo darwinian evolutions must rely on Time..

Also, while mutation can conceivably cause speciation, it has never been shown to cause an increase in information that would be necessary to create an entirely new life form.
Also, per the Wiki entry on Cambrian explosion; "Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

The fossil record is incomplete, we don't know all of the transitional stages of a given life form. Also the Wiki entry gives a much longer period of time for the start/finish of the Cambrian explosion, 70 million years.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
What natural process? You first have to identify the natural process that you think is responsible for the things I listed..

But there is no natural process capable of such things, and for obvious reasons.

If you take some aluminum, steel, rubber, oil, glass etc and place them in a pile together and leave it for a 10 million years, will you get a car or an airplane?

Of course not, but thats essentially what you're saying in a way, except with living creatures it's far worse because they are a million times more complex than any machine humans have made..

That lifeless matter can spontaneously self organize into far more complex structures and become living creatures endowed with consciousness is even more absurd than the example I listed above with the pile of aluminum, steel, rubber etc turning into a car or an airplane after 10 million years..

It's also apparent that you have "faith" that Science will eventually find a natural process capable of creating such amazing and complex structures.
Those materials DONT SELF REPLICATE!

FFS.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Again, I never expressed such a faith. There are some things that we do not know and will probably never know.
And what are your thoughts concerning a Creator?

Depends on what you mean by "known", and how far back you want to go. For that matter, it depends on what you mean by "consciousness". Looking at the animal kingdom, for example, where do you draw the line between consciousness and its lack?
By known, I mean known to the Scientific community. And as far as Consciousness, every living thing has Consciousness. Consciousness is central to what defines a life form, and enables them to both perceive and experience reality.

Of course, there are degrees of consciousness. Lower life forms like ants are conscious, but not to the degree that human beings are. They are not as Self "aware" as we are.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least though that there are other life forms in the Universe that are above us the way we are above ants, and have a much higher level of Consciousness than we do.

Don't get what you're getting at here.
It's simple. If a natural force is capable of orchestrating such an amazing feats, we should see it's effects much more evenly in the World around us, rather than just in life forms.

Because remember, the atheist/darwinist position denies the presence of a Creator or Intelligent Force behind Life, and must rely on an unintelligent natural force that is inherently creative.

For example, ever see or heard of a mountain range that over time became a Castle? No, of course not. Or to use my earlier example of the pile of metal, rubber, glass etc becoming something more complex after 10 million years.

These whimsical assertions defy all the known laws of physics and chemistry..

You do understand that you just contradicted yourself, right? You can't say that nothing comes from nowhere, oh, except for this one thing that is the most complex and powerful thing to ever exist. It just doesn't make any sense.
I did not contradict myself. I stated that nothing MATERIAL comes from nowhere.

If God exists, then It would by necessity be IMMATERIAL, and so beyond causality.

I still don't get this type of thinking. How is what you call "infinite regression" any more logically unsound or ridiculous than an ominpotent, eternal being with no causal explanation?
There is no immediate way to know the nature of the Creator, and whether It is omnipotent or eternal.

We humans ascribe those qualities to the Creator, because we can't imagine how something like the Universe and Life could come into being without an UNIMAGINABLY powerful, creative and intelligent force behind it.

How can any mere human comprehend Omnipotence, Eternity or Infinity? These are just words you understand..

And infinite regression is ridiculous, because it requires an infinite amount of Time and Time itself is not infinite. Also, like I told Cerptin Taxt, if we are to consider infinite regression seriously, we would have to accept that one could never make any rational statements regarding causation of any sort.

The causal event would always be pushed back....infinitely.

People ask who created God not because they are trying to be nonsensical, but to demonstrate that your notion of God is the very logically unsound and ridiculous infinite regression you want to avoid!
God is only illogical if you believe God is material, like Creation. But if God is to be God, then God would by necessity have to be beyond Creation itself, and thus "immaterial."

Being willing to recognize and admit what we don't know is an important part of rationality.
I agree wholeheartedly.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Also, per the Wiki entry on Cambrian explosion; "Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

The fossil record is incomplete, we don't know all of the transitional stages of a given life form. Also the Wiki entry gives a much longer period of time for the start/finish of the Cambrian explosion, 70 million years.
Even if it's 70 million years, thats still a rather short amount of time geologically speaking.

At any rate, Time is only relevent if you believe that the actual natural forces behind the evolution of life (mutation and natural selection) can accomplish these amazing feats to begin with.

Like I stated earlier, mutation has never been shown to result in a completely different life form. For example, while dolphins and dogs are both mammals, one is adapted for life in the Ocean and the other for life on dry land, and those adaptations are very numerous and specific in scope.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Even if it's 70 million years, thats still a rather short amount of time geologically speaking.

At any rate, Time is only relevent if you believe that the actual natural forces behind the evolution of life (mutation and natural selection) can accomplish these amazing feats to begin with.

Like I stated earlier, mutation has never been shown to result in a completely different life form. For example, while dolphins and dogs are both mammals, one is adapted for life in the Ocean and the other for life on dry land, and those adaptations are very numerous and specific in scope.
I like you. You got your sheit straight.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
And yet DNA and RNA are based on inorganic matter ie phosphorus, carbon, nitrogen that don't replicate either..
This is an excellent point if your opponent believed that we consist of matter rather than holy dust that god keeps together.

It's a real good point, it's a thread ender.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? It was a period in geological history that has been estimated to have lasted anywhere from 5 to 40 million years, in which there was a very rapid and startling increase the diversity and complexity of living creatures.

So apparently, life does not need billions of years to evolve and diversify into more complex forms..
It is the huge leaps in the Cambrian era, along with the huge gaps in the fossile record, which finally forced evolution to accept forms of saltation and punctuated equlibrium. Rather than continue to say "oh, those fossils actually existed, but we will never find them, so just use faith and agree they existed" they came up with mechanisms to actually match the fossil record. This change turned the theory of evolution from a laughable display of idiocy into something which very well might explain what happened over the millenia.

This is good, for we should use the least amount of faith in science as possible. We can never get rid of all of it (assumptions are needed), but we should minimize its use.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
It is the huge leaps in the Cambrian era, along with the huge gaps in the fossile record, which finally forced evolution to accept forms of saltation and punctuated equlibrium. Rather than continue to say "oh, those fossils actually existed, but we will never find them, so just use faith and agree they existed" they came up with mechanisms to actually match the fossil record. This change turned the theory of evolution from a laughable display of idiocy into something which very well might explain what happened over the millenia.

This is good, for we should use the least amount of faith in science as possible. We can never get rid of all of it (assumptions are needed), but we should minimize its use.
Although there are a few contemporary scientists that allow for the possibility of saltation, saltation does not fit into contemporary evolutionary theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY