How can evolution be responsible for a universe of complexity?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Chronoshock

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
4,860
1
81
Originally posted by: Zeeky Boogy Doog
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Originally posted by: Zeeky Boogy Doog
First, I'd like to address one issue, I'm surprised someone else didn't mention this earlier, or maybe I missed it? Natural Selection and Evolution have no relation on how life started, just how it changed since it got here, there are numerous possibilities being explored that address how life started, but the validity of any of those has no impact on the validity of evolution, it is an observable fact.

I mentioned Abiogenesis and two possible theories :p

Touche Chronoshock :beer:

I had forgotten about that, I think I still would have mentioned it though, simply because many times, unless explicitly stated, those that do not understand what evolution is assume that evolution explains the origin of life, not the origin of species (Abiogenesis = evolution). That's what finally made it all make sense to me, when I was able to make that distinction. Until about 9th or 10th grade I couldn't figure out how evolution explained how nothing equaled something, then I finally had a teacher that could teach, and fortunately he taught bio and it clicked. I went back and forth while reading trying to decide if the OP knew, but never made up my mind, so I had to make sure.

Yeah, they are certainly disconnected phenomena, although they both share the common link of being "random" processes through which seeming "order" arises. It's definitely important to make the distinction since there is far less evidence and observations to corroborate any theory about the origin of life. The questions the OP asked in the post I replied too (how did life arise, how did it get to be the way it is, and why aren't there signs of life elsewhere) are all very different yet interconnected.
For the OP's purposes though, he would be best investigating them one at a time, since his search for an answer will not reveal one that answers all of them at once (and going by his line of reasoning and that used by others defending ID, if the answer doesn't satisfy all of his questions, it's insufficient).
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

There was a mention of disease earlier. I know of a mental disease that billions of people have that is seemingly incurable.

Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Originally posted by: Arkitech
What disturbs me even more about evolutionary theory is that there is no concrete evidence of life currently evolving that can be studied or used as a reference.

http://www.newscientist.com/ch...-shift-in-the-lab.html


Bad choice of words on my part. I should'nt have said there is no evidence of life evolving, but no evidence of one form of life changing into one entirely different. There has been some comments in this thread that would argue this.
 

Chronoshock

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
4,860
1
81
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

There was a mention of disease earlier. I know of a mental disease that billions of people have that is seemingly incurable.

Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

Science and religion are not incompatible belief systems and it's disappointing for you to think so. There are a number of religious people at my school (MIT) and they both believe in God and in scientific theory. As someone mentioned, science is the explanation for how and for some, God is the explanation of why. For atheists such as myself, there is no reason why. This universe exists. If it didn't exist then we wouldn't be here to question it; that is, if the question was "why does it exist when it could just as well not exist?" the answer is that if it didn't, you couldn't ask the question. The same reasoning can be applied to this galaxy, the earth, and human life. To rephrase "why did life appear on Earth instead of on X?" because if it didn't, then you couldn't ask that. The question is meaningless. The "why" behind your questions is meaningless as any answer suffices, and thus everyone is perfectly free to assign their own value to it. The confusion arises when one takes the reason behind the "why" and applies it to the "how."

To put this in more of a religious light, God wishes to hide his presence through scientific explanations. If he were to make His presence known plainly, there would be no need for faith and without that religion breaks down. So He uses phenomena as a way of convincing the unbelievers there is nothing more, and the true believer enjoys salvation or whatever it is religious people are supposed to get for being faithful.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Not really. In early human history (this is debateable if you don't believe in the bible) the lifespan for people were much longer than what it is today. This changed obviously over time and the lifespan for people was much shorter due to lack of knowledge in medicine and science.

As far as illnesses go again this is a point that can be argued since many diseases in centuries past were undocumented. However with such a large population of people on the planet right now, one can logically assume that the breeding ground for new and unusual diseases is fertile. Also since people can easily move from one part of the earth to another it's easier to spread infections than ever before.

While I have no problem with religion, be careful about turning to texts that are thousands of years old for your scientific data. The human lifespan was not "much longer than what it is today" at any point in recorded history. Why on Earth would the human lifespan start long then drop off unexpectedly, then rise again as we learned more about medicine?

Your point about diseases is accurate; diseases have gone from being a local phenomenon (the black plague was confined to Europe) to a global one (HIV is everywhere). As our societies interact and become increasingly global, diseases will have far more opportunities to spread. Fortunately, our grasp of medicine is better than it's ever been.


Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

There was a mention of disease earlier. I know of a mental disease that billions of people have that is seemingly incurable.

Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

1. The Earth was formed as matter, expelled in the Big Bang, began to bond together to create larger celestial bodies. This is how the stars, the planets, the moons, meteors, comets, asteroids, etc., were all formed. I think your question would better be asked as "Where did life come from?" That's the great stumbling block in any theory about life, as the origins of life remain a mystery.

2. No. The matter that makes up the Earth and the Universe has always existed, as matter cannot be created or destroyed, but the Earth itself has only been here for roughly 4.5 billion years.

3. The matter that comprises everything in the Universe was all contained within a singularity before the Big Bang sent it flying off in all directions. This matter coalesced and became everything that can be found in the Universe today.

Now let me ask you a question. Suppose God created everything: Where did God come from? Was he (for lack of a better pronoun) created by something else? Did he always exist? The same questions that you ask about the origins of the Universe apply to the origins of God. The simple answer is that we will probably never know in either case. You are absolutely correct; we should not ridicule others because of different beliefs, unless those beliefs are obviously false (I'm not implying that your belief is wrong, but be fair, if someone said they personally created the Universe, wouldn't you ridicule them?).
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,582
4
81
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' " - Douglas Adams

Also, read this

im glad someone posted it early, i came in here to do the same.

/im not going through the thread to see if the OP reads it, however
 

imported_Baloo

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2006
1,782
0
0
Evolution does not take millions of years. Where did you get that idea from? There is plenty of readily available evidence of evolution spanning times of days to less than a century. Bacteria evolve to become more resistant to anitbiotics. A horse breed(can't recall the names) on an island in South Carolina evolved and became better able to survice in a hot humid, watery environment - they thrive in it now. Insects evolve to become more resistant to pesticides. Insects have been selectively bred, a process which speeds up evolution, to enhance certain characteristics. Look at all the dog breeds, all of them the result of selective breeding to speed up evolution and enhance certain characteristics. If you think that just enhaces existing qualities, you'd be right. Those that survive dramatic change in the environment do so because of an existing characteristic they possess, while others do not, environmental change merely hastens the development of traits beneficial to survival in the changing environment.

I got to point this out, but some may flame me for doing so. The reason people say they don't see how evolution could be truth say so because they can't see how evolution could be truth- they don't have the mental capacity to understand it. That said, there is no point in trying to teach it to them - they don't have the inteligence to understand you.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

There was a mention of disease earlier. I know of a mental disease that billions of people have that is seemingly incurable.

Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

Science and religion are not incompatible belief systems and it's disappointing for you to think so. There are a number of religious people at my school (MIT) and they both believe in God and in scientific theory. As someone mentioned, science is the explanation for how and for some, God is the explanation of why. For atheists such as myself, there is no reason why. This universe exists. If it didn't exist then we wouldn't be here to question it; that is, if the question was "why does it exist when it could just as well not exist?" the answer is that if it didn't, you couldn't ask the question. The same reasoning can be applied to this galaxy, the earth, and human life. To rephrase "why did life appear on Earth instead of on X?" because if it didn't, then you couldn't ask that. The question is meaningless. The "why" behind your questions is meaningless as any answer suffices, and thus everyone is perfectly free to assign their own value to it. The confusion arises when one takes the reason behind the "why" and applies it to the "how."

To put this in more of a religious light, God wishes to hide his presence through scientific explanations. If he were to make His presence known plainly, there would be no need for faith and without that religion breaks down. So He uses phenomena as a way of convincing the unbelievers there is nothing more, and the true believer enjoys salvation or whatever it is religious people are supposed to get for being faithful.

I think you might have misunderstood the intent of that statement. I was'nt slamming people who believe in science, I believe in science myself. My point of contention is basically with the big bang theory, I believe that God created Earth and its inhabitants. And while I don't entirely discount evolution (life is proven to change and adapt) I just don't support the notion that one form of life morphs and changes into another type.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Chronoshock
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

There was a mention of disease earlier. I know of a mental disease that billions of people have that is seemingly incurable.

Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

Science and religion are not incompatible belief systems and it's disappointing for you to think so. There are a number of religious people at my school (MIT) and they both believe in God and in scientific theory. As someone mentioned, science is the explanation for how and for some, God is the explanation of why. For atheists such as myself, there is no reason why. This universe exists. If it didn't exist then we wouldn't be here to question it; that is, if the question was "why does it exist when it could just as well not exist?" the answer is that if it didn't, you couldn't ask the question. The same reasoning can be applied to this galaxy, the earth, and human life. To rephrase "why did life appear on Earth instead of on X?" because if it didn't, then you couldn't ask that. The question is meaningless. The "why" behind your questions is meaningless as any answer suffices, and thus everyone is perfectly free to assign their own value to it. The confusion arises when one takes the reason behind the "why" and applies it to the "how."

To put this in more of a religious light, God wishes to hide his presence through scientific explanations. If he were to make His presence known plainly, there would be no need for faith and without that religion breaks down. So He uses phenomena as a way of convincing the unbelievers there is nothing more, and the true believer enjoys salvation or whatever it is religious people are supposed to get for being faithful.

I think you might have misunderstood the intent of that statement. I was'nt slamming people who believe in science, I believe in science myself. My point of contention is basically with the big bang theory, I believe that God created Earth and its inhabitants. And while I don't entirely discount evolution (life is proven to change and adapt) I just don't support the notion that one form of life morphs and changes into another type.

Theres boatloads of evidence that the big bang happened.

1. Everything is moving away from each other, and when you plot their movements, they all converge on a single point.

2.The cosmic microwave background radiation graph. Basically, it measures the amount of background radiation there is around us. Scientists predicted what the chart would look like in modern times if the big bang happened billions of years ago. The observational and theoretical data was almost exactly the same. For me, this proves that the Big Bang happened.

And why don't you accept the fact that species can change into other species? We're not talking about a raptor turning into a koala. At some point, speciation occurred, which started the separation of evolution into different types of animals. The first primates then became ore advanced bi pedal organisms, which became us. The first water organism became more comples and turned into a fish. There were common ancestors which shared some characteristics with the species. Species don't change to become a completely different animal in 3 generations.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can't be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

Science has always encountered things it can't answer right away. Light, sound, gravity, fire - all were once not understood, and the perception at the time was that they were simply impossible to understand. There is "faith" in science to explain the unknown because it has a very good track record of doing so. Observe something happening, and then figure out why it does it.
"We accepted the products of science; we rejected its methods." - Carl Sagan


Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
1. The Earth was formed as matter, expelled in the Big Bang, began to bond together to create larger celestial bodies. This is how the stars, the planets, the moons, meteors, comets, asteroids, etc., were all formed. I think your question would better be asked as "Where did life come from?" That's the great stumbling block in any theory about life, as the origins of life remain a mystery.

2. No. The matter that makes up the Earth and the Universe has always existed, as matter cannot be created or destroyed, but the Earth itself has only been here for roughly 4.5 billion years.

3. The matter that comprises everything in the Universe was all contained within a singularity before the Big Bang sent it flying off in all directions. This matter coalesced and became everything that can be found in the Universe today.
Sorry to complicate things needlessly,:) but technically matter and energy can be changed back and forth. :p
It was all originally energy in the instant after the initial eruption, but quickly cooled and condensed into matter.



Finally, I posted this in another thread:

Another reason we see order is because of our short lifespans. We often don't see extreme disorder by that nature. The place is freaking chaotic, but does obey some certain rules, which are simply inherent to this realm. There is no "why" - they simply are that way. If they were some other way, we'd still be asking the same question, "Why is the Universe like this?" And if those laws didn't permit the formation of matter in the first place, intelligent life wouldn't come to exist in the first place, thus no one around to ask "Why didn't life ever develop here?"
5 billion years ago, this region was a big cloud of gas and dust, with a dense region that was slowly accumulating matter. Soon it was massive enough to start a fusion reaction in the center. Suddenly the region is bathed in electromagnetic radiation, and the solar wind began stirring things up.
Small lumps of matter coalesced into planets and asteroids. Bodies were flying all over the place. Eventually something about the size of Mars slammed into Earth, and the result was a satellite, our Moon.

In time, various molecules by chance acquired the property of self-replication by way of interactions with other molecules, among a vast ocean warmed by sunlight, and stirred by turbulence. With the abundance of energy, both radiant and chemical, these molecules increased their complexity over time, giving rise to primitive bacteria. Bacteria begin working together, and soon you have multi-cellular life forms, all of which constantly adapt to changing environmental conditions. Those that don't adapt die off, erasing their genes from existence, in a place that no longer needs them.


From a chaotic cloud of dust to a ball of metal and rock orbiting a giant ball of plasma. And on that tiny ball is a thin film of self-replicating, self-sustaining reactions, some of which are able to say, "Where the heck did all this come from?"





Originally posted by: tenshodo13
2.The cosmic microwave background radiation graph. Basically, it measures the amount of background radiation there is around us. Scientists predicted what the chart would look like in modern times if the big bang happened billions of years ago. The observational and theoretical data was almost exactly the same. For me, this proves that the Big Bang happened.
I've heard this called one of the greatest scientific triumphs of the modern era. The matchup between theory and observation was just unbelievably close.
Theory: Here's what it should look like if the Universe was once a tiny point, which then erupted into the bubble of space, time, and energy we see today.
Observation: Exactly like the theory said.
You make the conclusion. :)
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


Now let me ask you a question. Suppose God created everything: Where did God come from? Was he (for lack of a better pronoun) created by something else? Did he always exist? The same questions that you ask about the origins of the Universe apply to the origins of God. The simple answer is that we will probably never know in either case. You are absolutely correct; we should not ridicule others because of different beliefs, unless those beliefs are obviously false (I'm not implying that your belief is wrong, but be fair, if someone said they personally created the Universe, wouldn't you ridicule them?).

That's a fair question. From my studies of the bible (I know a lot of people here believe its a work of fiction) God is described as alpha and omega. I clearly don't have any physical evidence that supports or refutes this which is why faith is needed when it comes to religion. However like I mentioned before a certain amount of faith is needed when considering the big bang theory, so there are some similarities in the two.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
I cant believe in 2008 people actually still believe that there is a man in the sky that controls things. It is holding us back as a race.
 

antyler

Golden Member
Aug 7, 2005
1,745
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


Now let me ask you a question. Suppose God created everything: Where did God come from? Was he (for lack of a better pronoun) created by something else? Did he always exist? The same questions that you ask about the origins of the Universe apply to the origins of God. The simple answer is that we will probably never know in either case. You are absolutely correct; we should not ridicule others because of different beliefs, unless those beliefs are obviously false (I'm not implying that your belief is wrong, but be fair, if someone said they personally created the Universe, wouldn't you ridicule them?).

That's a fair question. From my studies of the bible (I know a lot of people here believe its a work of fiction) God is described as alpha and omega. I clearly don't have any physical evidence that supports or refutes this which is why faith is needed when it comes to religion. However like I mentioned before a certain amount of faith is needed when considering the big bang theory, so there are some similarities in the two.

what you say is logical. Consider this though. I personally believe the Bible to be the written word of God. IE basically God telling people what to write, and they wrote it for him. (very basic way to say that). We do still need faith to believe in the things that are written about in the Bible of course, and to believe in God himself requires faith.

Where though, did the Big Bang theory come from? Can it be traced back to a human, coming up with the entire thing? It may be easier for someone to believe in the Big Bang theory, but i personally choose to believe the Word of God for the account of creation.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
Originally posted by: ducci
Originally posted by: DosadiX
The theory that sold me on evolution had to do with RNA being the foundation of life. Because nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen are highly reactive, there was a good change that they would combine. In this combination a strand of RNA happened to form. I could look up the probabilities of these reactions occurring, but in the scheme of things, it?s fairly probably. Anyway, RNA has both structural and chemical properties that can catalyze self replication. That?s where the evolution starts. Colonies of RNA will form, mutate and migrated. Different colonies will have different sequences and will starts "competing" for hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. Its not true competition, but they are still trying to react with the available materials to replicate.

Over the course of their mutations, they started catalyzing the creations of new substances, amino acids that can and will form proteins. However, the RNA can also shape the proteins both physically and chemically. From there the RNA and proteins messed up on an RNA synthesis and catalyzed a different sugar which created an inert form of RNA called DNA.

I could go into how cell membranes and organelles formed, however it?s essentially the same process. Simple, favorable chemical reactions that are catalyzed by structure (RNA, DNA and proteins) that happen to self replicate. Furthermore, if there is no self replication, there is not possibility of a system growing in complexity. But with self replication, the systems becomes a stable control system that attempts to maintain a steady state and error can propagate the system and either send it into an unstable region (it dies) or into a new stable state (essentially evolution). Ok, now I'm jumping well beyond of the scope of this discussion and boring everyone.

See, this is the problem with evolution - it's too complicated for the common person to understand. I mean, I get the gist, but it's not tangible - it's not a basic concept you can simply wrap your head around.

Intelligent design is simple, tangible, and precise - and that is why I think it will remain a prominent concept for the foreseeable future.

ID isn't "simple" at all. It's just a way to simply ignore the question. If the ID supporter really began to think about it, they'd be just as overwhelmed with wrapping their head around it.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Originally posted by: antyler
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


Now let me ask you a question. Suppose God created everything: Where did God come from? Was he (for lack of a better pronoun) created by something else? Did he always exist? The same questions that you ask about the origins of the Universe apply to the origins of God. The simple answer is that we will probably never know in either case. You are absolutely correct; we should not ridicule others because of different beliefs, unless those beliefs are obviously false (I'm not implying that your belief is wrong, but be fair, if someone said they personally created the Universe, wouldn't you ridicule them?).

That's a fair question. From my studies of the bible (I know a lot of people here believe its a work of fiction) God is described as alpha and omega. I clearly don't have any physical evidence that supports or refutes this which is why faith is needed when it comes to religion. However like I mentioned before a certain amount of faith is needed when considering the big bang theory, so there are some similarities in the two.

what you say is logical. Consider this though. I personally believe the Bible to be the written word of God. IE basically God telling people what to write, and they wrote it for him. (very basic way to say that). We do still need faith to believe in the things that are written about in the Bible of course, and to believe in God himself requires faith.

Where though, did the Big Bang theory come from? Can it be traced back to a human, coming up with the entire thing? It may be easier for someone to believe in the Big Bang theory, but i personally choose to believe the Word of God for the account of creation.

Someone looked at the data concerning the Universe, realized that everything converged at one point if they ran the universe backwards, and voila, the Big Bang

ID isn't "simple" at all. It's just a way to simply ignore the question. If the ID supporter really began to think about it, they'd be just as overwhelmed with wrapping their head around it.

Which is the reason why Occam's razor was invented. It doesn't just say the simplest is true. It says the reject the theory that is the most complex. God is inherently the most complex thing that can exist, and so, should be rejected from scientific experiements
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,606
785
136
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Not really. In early human history (this is debateable if you don't believe in the bible) the lifespan for people were much longer than what it is today. This changed obviously over time and the lifespan for people was much shorter due to lack of knowledge in medicine and science.

Now that's the problem...

What we loosely refer to as science is really the scientific thought process that seeks to provide the best possible (and simplest) explanation of the physical facts that we have in front of us. The best explanation often changes as new facts are discovered. It doesn't matter to "science" what we would like to be true or how we think reality should work (just ask Einstien about quantum physics!). The scientific explanation does NOT have to pass any religious litmus test or win a popular vote. It is what it is -- the currently best possible "scientific" explanation of what happened and how it happened.

There's no convincing physical evidence that the ages given in the Old Testiment are accurate (sorry Eric Hovind). Biblical "truth" (not supported by independent phyical facts) can't be added to the physical facts if you want to the resulting explanation to be "science". Belief in the bible is hardly debateable to the true believers.

If you prefer to believe in creation or "intelligent design" based on the bible or on your inner sense of what's "right", you're welcome to do so. Know, however, that your choice to do so is a religious or philosphical one. It is NOT the "scientific" choice.
 

KingGheedora

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2006
3,248
1
81
Originally posted by: Arkitech
From time to time I read some of the threads here on evolution and in those numerous posts I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to how complex life can evolve from simple life. What disturbs me even more about evolutionary theory is that there is no concrete evidence of life currently evolving that can be studied or used as a reference. I've mentioned this before in previous discussions and the common answer is that it takes millions of years for changes to take place. But this always bugged me because if it takes that amount of time to evolve or adapt to an environment then life would perish before it had a chance to acclimate to its current surroundings.

Another interesting thought is how tightly integrated the planet and its occupants are. Think about the animal and plant relationship. Plants give off life sustaining oxygen, they provide food, nutrients and vitamins which help sustain the animal life. In turn animals breathe out carbon dioxide which the plants need, animal waste also nourishes the soil which plants use for survival. It's hard to believe that this complex relationship came into existence by chance or evolution. There are probably thousands or even millions of similar relationships of this type that exist that scientists and researchers are not even aware of, how can evolution explain these things? Did all life on Earth evolve at the same time? Did all current mammals living today evolve from the same source? What about insects, reptiles, trees, bacteria, etc..? There is a staggering amount of unique life forms on the Earth, did they all come into existence by sheer chance?

I'm not creating this post for the intent of flaming anyone's personal beliefs, but I enjoy discussions of all type and that's what I'm looking for now. Just an intelligent discussion on what you've learned and what you believe.

I recommend you read a book called "Programming the Universe" to learn about information, and complexity arising out of simplicity.
 

ghostman

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2000
1,819
1
76
Originally posted by: Arkitech
That's a fair question. From my studies of the bible (I know a lot of people here believe its a work of fiction) God is described as alpha and omega. I clearly don't have any physical evidence that supports or refutes this which is why faith is needed when it comes to religion. However like I mentioned before a certain amount of faith is needed when considering the big bang theory, so there are some similarities in the two.

You realize that your explanation of "Where did God come from?" actually did not answer the question at all. You just leaned back on "faith". The difference between what you consider faith and what you label as "faith" in science is quite significant. Not all questions have been answered by science (yet) and for the gaps, scientists make hypothesis. Some scientists are quite adamant that the existing evidence points to one particular hypothesis, but all scientists are willing to abandon that hypothesis when confronted with opposing evidence. Would a religious man ever abandon his faith when certain believed truths are disproved? Of course not, else that man has little faith.

I can accept that others believe in God. I can even accept that religion might be necessary to some to help fill in the unexplained or to give people hope. But I can't accept religion standing in opposition to science.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: Arkitech

That's a fair question. From my studies of the bible (I know a lot of people here believe its a work of fiction) God is described as alpha and omega. I clearly don't have any physical evidence that supports or refutes this which is why faith is needed when it comes to religion. However like I mentioned before a certain amount of faith is needed when considering the big bang theory, so there are some similarities in the two.
The Bible presents a logical paradox.

"This book is the word of God.
It says so right in the book."



If I handed in a test that said, "These answers are entirely correct, and this statement is valid. -God," I doubt that I'd get an instant passing grade.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Arkitech

That's a fair question. From my studies of the bible (I know a lot of people here believe its a work of fiction) God is described as alpha and omega. I clearly don't have any physical evidence that supports or refutes this which is why faith is needed when it comes to religion. However like I mentioned before a certain amount of faith is needed when considering the big bang theory, so there are some similarities in the two.
The Bible presents a logical paradox.

"This book is the word of God.
It says so right in the book."



If I handed in a test that said, "These answers are entirely correct, and this statement is valid. -God," I doubt that I'd get an instant passing grade.
Exactly. Saying that God has always existed because the Bible says so is not a satisfying answer, at least not to me.
 

shocksyde

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2001
5,539
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkitech

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

The bolded statement is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

We can prove, through the scientific method, many, MANY things. Religion is based on absolutely no proof. None at all. My mind doesn't see faith as a viable option. I need proof, and I need lots of it.

Answer to question 1: The Earth was created from the remnants of the big bang, after it had expanded considerably and cooled. Clouds of "space dust" eventually gathered and formed solid masses, which attracted each other and eventually created the earth we know today. Or we could go with the religious version: "Poof, there it is!"

And to answer questions 2 & 3: Would it be so bad to accept the answer "nobody knows?" It's entirely possible that we'll never have those answers.
 

Chronoshock

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
4,860
1
81
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: Arkitech

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

The bolded statement is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

We can prove, through the scientific method, many, MANY things. Religion is based on absolutely no proof. None at all. My mind doesn't see faith as a viable option. I need proof, and I need lots of it.

Answer to question 1: The Earth was created from the remnants of the big bang, after it had expanded considerably and cooled. Clouds of "space dust" eventually gathered and formed solid masses, which attracted each other and eventually created the earth we know today. Or we could go with the religious version: "Poof, there it is!"

And to answer questions 2 & 3: Would it be so bad to accept the answer "nobody knows?" It's entirely possible that we'll never have those answers.

Indeed, the very essence of the scientific method is to evaluate the facts, and if it conflicts with your beliefs/mental model of the world, then correct your beliefs since they were wrong.
This seems to be the very opposite of what happens when ID proponents are confronted with evidence. Instead of learning the facts and modifying their views, they deflect them with more questions. Scientists openly admit that they don't know many things, that's the whole driving force behind research. ID proponents take lack of knowledge as a weakness, thinking it disproves scientific conclusions.
People in this thread so far have argued for evolution using a scientific approach. Sadly this approach is not effective with these types of people (which is why I tried a religious slant to one of my previous arguments, interestingly the OP commented on the first sentence which he felt was incorrect thereby invalidating my entire post; I doubt he ever read the rest of it).