Questions for Evolution-Deniers

[Mystic_Banana]

i believe it was chance. a possibility could be micro organisms living on Earths intense heat but over time as Earth developed, these micro organisms evolved to the bigger better enviroment (darwinism)

but i have a question if anyone would like to respond, the bible talks about the creation of earth in the first chapter, so that was what around 4.8~ billion years ago. now if our universe has been guessed to be at 14-15~ billion years old, what was before? Was there others? With around 10 x10^22 to 10 x10^24 stars in the Universe, there has to be a chance that something else was before our time right? maybe even during

Some time in the 90’s, I remember (mainstream) science proclaiming life ludicrously improbable to occur on other planets, since it’s ludicrously improbable to occur at all, Evolutionarily speaking. Recently, in opposition to the intelligent design theory (the “it’s too unlikely to happen by chance evolutionarily speaking” one I’ll happily espouse on request), I’ve seen some cheerfully disembodied statements that “Scientists think life on other planets may be more likely than previously thought”.

Of course, if you’re inclined towards cynicism about science, you may suspect that the ‘very unlikely!’ hypothesis comes directly to oppose the UFO sighters and believers that became popular during the 90’s, and the ‘may be more likely!’ one may come to oppose the ‘well, probably intelligent design!’ hypothesis I mentioned before…

WHAAAAAAAAAT? Science develop theories to fight off threats to it’s self-proclaimed absolute authority to explain reality to the rest of us?!? Naaaah… couldn’t be :whacky:

Since God bypasses all this by being omnipotent, assuming he exists, who knows? Although I’d suspect more in the multiverse theory for this. I don’t see why life on other planets is especially problematic Biblically, however, really

Personally I think that the possibilities/probabilities are too absurdly low for anyone other than completely irrational zealots to believe in evolution by chance

Regarding your other question, actually, I saw something the other day arguing that Genesis is referring to the remaking of the Earth… although along with everything else, you can interpret the ‘remaking of Earth’ in a whole swamp of different ways… as with Genesis…

Anyway, to give a more orthodox answer, God. Just God. Probably

 

[StAnastasia]

i believe it was chance. a possibility could be micro organisms living on Earths intense heat but over time as Earth developed, these micro organisms evolved to the bigger better enviroment (darwinism)

but i have a question if anyone would like to respond, the bible talks about the creation of earth in the first chapter, so that was what around 4.8~ billion years ago. now if our universe has been guessed to be at 14-15~ billion years old, what was before? Was there others? With around 10 x10^22 to 10 x10^24 stars in the Universe, there has to be a chance that something else was before our time right? maybe even during

Yes-- our Sun is a second generation star. The first generation of stars to form after the Big Bang had no planets; they “cooked” the heavier elements through a process called nucleosyntheis. They then exploded in supernovas, spewing their elements thought the galaxy, which accumulated into accretion discs. When sufficient mass was reached to collapse balls of hydrogen gravitationally into new stars, with heavier elements in the accretion discs collapsing to form planets, you have the birth of solar systems. Our solar system is thus composed of a second generation star surrounded by eight planets formed of the dust of exploded previous stars.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

“Terrestrial timetable?” I think the better question to think about is God’s timetable. Which has nothing to do with our theories of cosmic expansion. If a new “settled science” theory came to be that showed that the universe was eternal, would that put God’s plans to a halt?

I don’t see how a theory could claim to know that the universe is eternal. The cosmologists I know don’t speak with any certainty beyond the next four or five billion years. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think the current increase in the rate of expansion will itself accelerate.

 

[wanstronian]

I did not say science had all the answers, I said, answers.

Okay then. In that case, science does have answers.

Theists, I assume you mean here, Christians, don’t generally claim to have all the answers, especially not in the ‘science’ field. The unprovable/unproven Deity as an answer must be equally as valid an answer to a truly objective atheist as any other hypotheses.

True - it’s as valid as any other arbitrary, evidenceless answer. I don’t deny that.

One is an atheist by belief.

No, by definition this is wrong. An atheist, by definition, is one who fails to believe in God. It’s an absence of belief, not a belief. One might argue that an atheist chooses to believe that there is no evidence for God, but this is a semantic argument only. An atheist rejects the ‘evidence’ for God’s existence provided by theists, on the completely correct basis that such ‘evidence’ is deeply flawed, and can be categorically shown to be so.

One may also not believe in multiple universes and then later find oneself proven woefully wrong. There *are *multiple universes, dog-gone-it.

Indeed. This would also be an absence of belief in multiple universes, due to a lack of evidence.

However, as I have said in a previous post in another thread, I’m happy to concede that regardless of the true definition of atheism, I personally *actively *believe that there is no God. This seems a perfectly logical belief in the absence of evidence - I also believe there is no Santa, no celestial teapot etc.

I do not see any reason why one should exclude as an hypotheses either a Force which created all things in the universe as we see them or a Force which created all things in the universe as we see them. They are both the same, equally valid ideas - which may equally turn out to be true.

Yep. Some event, or force, or series of both/either, must have created the universe unless, as seems unlikely given what we do know about it, it’s existed forever. However, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the creating event was a sentient, intelligent entity which purposely created the universe for some reason. The fact is, we don’t know. But whereas an atheist or scientist can accept that we don’t know, the theist for some reason can’t, and has to postulate God as an answer. Why? Why can’t the theist accept that we don’t know, can’t know? Why invent a supernatural deity unless it’s to satisfy a personal need to feel that he (the theist) exists for a reason. But surely, this is just arrogance? “There must be a reason for my existence - I’m too important for there not to be?”

It’s telling that on several occasions on these forums, theists have baldly asserted that (to paraphrase), “without God, the atheist’s life must be empty and desolate.” I think this says far more about the theist’s reason for belief than any of the ‘evidence’ that is put forward for God’s existence.

 

[Thing]

wanstronian:

Yep. Some event, or force, or series of both/either, must have created the universe unless, as seems unlikely given what we do know about it, it’s existed forever. However, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the creating event was a sentient, intelligent entity which purposely created the universe for some reason. The fact is, we don’t know. But whereas an atheist or scientist can accept that we don’t know, the theist for some reason can’t, and has to postulate God as an answer. Why? Why can’t the theist accept that we don’t know, can’t know? Why invent a supernatural deity unless it’s to satisfy a personal need to feel that he (the theist) exists for a reason. But surely, this is just arrogance? “There must be a reason for my existence - I’m too important for there not to be?”

It’s telling that on several occasions on these forums, theists have baldly asserted that (to paraphrase), “without God, the atheist’s life must be empty and desolate.” I think this says far more about the theist’s reason for belief than any of the ‘evidence’ that is put forward for God’s existence.

You see, now you are agreeing with me. Where we disagree is when you postulate that the force which led to your intelligence was esentially stupid. A stupid force.
Whilst I might say the Force which allowed your intelligence was an intelligent force.

 

[wanstronian]

You see, now you are agreeing with me.

You make it sound like I’ve changed my mind, that you’ve persuaded me of something that I previously rejected.

Where we disagree is when you postulate that the force which led to your intelligence was esentially stupid. A stupid force.

Not a stupid one - that implies sentience. An unintelligent one. A non-sentient one. An unconscious one. Because there’s no evidence that is was conscious, sentient, intelligent. And I prefer ‘event’ to force, to avoid any insinuation of intent.

Whilst I might say the Force which allowed your intelligence was an intelligent force.

I would disagree; saying that this unknown force (event) ‘allowed’ anything at all implies it had a conscious choice. There’s no evidence this is the case. The event allowed the evolutionary development of intelligence in the same way that gravity ‘allows’ things to whistle as they fall through the air, or bounce when they hit the ground. (although knowing my luck, you’re an advocate of IF and my analogy is wasted!

 

[Thing]

You make it sound like I’ve changed my mind, that you’ve persuaded me of something that I previously rejected.Not a stupid one - that implies sentience. An unintelligent one. A non-sentient one. An unconscious one. Because there’s no evidence that is was conscious, sentient, intelligent. And I prefer ‘event’ to force, to avoid any insinuation of intent.I would disagree; saying that this unknown force (event) ‘allowed’ anything at all implies it had a conscious choice. There’s no evidence this is the case. The event allowed the evolutionary development of intelligence in the same way that gravity ‘allows’ things to whistle as they fall through the air, or bounce when they hit the ground. (although knowing my luck, you’re an advocate of IF and my analogy is wasted!

You see, I am thinking about this scientifically.
If I punch you in the nose you bleed and scream. Simple cause and effect.
If nothing existed at all, and then, something popped into existance with the quality ‘gravity’, I would have to conclude that whatever force popped the something into existance already possessed the essence of the quality ‘gravity’. Some thing does not just pop into existance and then decide that gravity might be a good idea. For this universe, gravity *always *existed even before it was created, in a wierd way like a thought exists in your vast intelligence before you act on it and make it a real thing.
The very same with intelligence in the universe; matter does not pop into existance and then decide intelligence might be a good idea. Intelligence was always a possibility in this created reality. Or should I say, created reality allows the possibility of intelligence. When our reality popped into existance it already had the thought of intelligence contained within it. And the Force which popped it into being was intelligent, to allow for the thought of intelligence as a possibility in this reality to become real.
Simplicity itself…:coffeeread:

 

[wanstronian]

You see, I am thinking about this scientifically.
If I punch you in the nose you bleed and scream. Simple cause and effect.
If nothing existed at all, and then, something popped into existance with the quality ‘gravity’, I would have to conclude that whatever force popped the something into existance already possessed the essence of the quality ‘gravity’. Some thing does not just pop into existance and then decide that gravity might be a good idea. For this universe, gravity *always *existed even before it was created, in a wierd way like a thought exists in your vast intelligence before you act on it and make it a real thing.
The very same with intelligence in the universe; matter does not pop into existance and then decide intelligence might be a good idea. Intelligence was always a possibility in this created reality. Or should I say, created reality allows the possibility of intelligence. When our reality popped into existance it already had the thought of intelligence contained within it. And the Force which popped it into being was intelligent, to allow for the thought of intelligence as a possibility in this reality to become real.
Simplicity itself…:coffeeread:

This is a classic example of your conclusion guiding your thoughts.

Disregarding the unnecessary implied agression in your example of cause and effect, you have it wrong. You are inferring an effect. The actual effect will be that your fist will contact my nose with a certain amount of force, and that force will then be distributed throughout my body and, to a lesser extent, yours, in keeping with known laws of physics. What happens after that is anybody’s guess (I don’t like being punched in the nose), but it depends on a whole load more factors than your single physical action.

I think that your reasoning is very jumbled. You claim that “gravity *always *existed even before it was created” which you cannot prove, and which goes against the generally accepted conclusion that ‘before’ the universe existed, there was no gravity, no time etc. So you have that wrong for a start.

Then you make several other assertions for which you can have no possible knowledge or proof.

Yours is a version of the argument from contingency which, of course, does not stand up to scrutiny. To be fair, you haven’t gone quite as far as baldly asserting the the first cause is God, but you have made it quite clear that you think this is the case.

Your whole argument is fabricated to arrive at your previously held conviction that an intelligent force created the universe. For an argument to stand up to scrutiny, the conclusion should be reached from the evidence, not the other way around.

 

[Thing]

This is a classic example of your conclusion guiding your thoughts.

Disregarding the unnecessary implied agression in your example of cause and effect, you have it wrong. You are inferring an effect. The actual effect will be that your fist will contact my nose with a certain amount of force, and that force will then be distributed throughout my body and, to a lesser extent, yours, in keeping with known laws of physics. What happens after that is anybody’s guess (I don’t like being punched in the nose), but it depends on a whole load more factors than your single physical action.

I think that your reasoning is very jumbled. You claim that “gravity *always *existed even before it was created” which you cannot prove, and which goes against the generally accepted conclusion that ‘before’ the universe existed, there was no gravity, no time etc. So you have that wrong for a start.

Then you make several other assertions for which you can have no possible knowledge or proof.

Yours is a version of the argument from contingency which, of course, does not stand up to scrutiny. To be fair, you haven’t gone quite as far as baldly asserting the the first cause is God, but you have made it quite clear that you think this is the case.

Your whole argument is fabricated to arrive at your previously held conviction that an intelligent force created the universe. For an argument to stand up to scrutiny, the conclusion should be reached from the evidence, not the other way around.

You look at the effects and conclude no cause. I look at the effects and conclude a cause.
There is intelligence because intelligence is a possibility, and its only a possibility because there is an intelligence before there was matter created. But you look at intelligence, it seems, and say it was not a possibility and it occurred against possibility, and it was never a possibility. Yes, before gravity was created gravity was. Difficult for you because before gravity was there was nothing, yet gravity came from nothing.

 

[wanstronian]

You look at the effects and conclude no cause. I look at the effects and conclude a cause.

Wrong again. I look at the effects and understand that I do not and cannot know the cause. You look at the effects and think, “God did it” because you already believe in God. You manufacture a chain of causality, paying no attention to correct logic on the way, to arrive at your already-held conclusion.

There is intelligence because intelligence is a possibility, and its only a possibility because there is an intelligence before there was matter created.

Bare assertion. You can’t prove it, you don’t know it. It’s your opinion only.

But you look at intelligence, it seems, and say it was not a possibility and it occurred against possibility, and it was never a possibility.

I never said that - now you’re misrepresenting me. I said that there’s no evidence that the event that caused the creation of universe had an intelligent intent behind it. If you can’t see the difference maybe you should go play on another forum.

Yes, before gravity was created gravity was. Difficult for you because before gravity was there was nothing, yet gravity came from nothing.

Another bare assertion. You’re good at them, aren’t you!

 

[Thing]

Wrong again. I look at the effects and understand that I do not and cannot know the cause. You look at the effects and think, “God did it” because you already believe in God. You manufacture a chain of causality, paying no attention to correct logic on the way, to arrive at your already-held conclusion.Bare assertion. You can’t prove it, you don’t know it. It’s your opinion only.I never said that - now you’re misrepresenting me. I said that there’s no evidence that the event that caused the creation of universe had an intelligent intent behind it. If you can’t see the difference maybe you should go play on another forum.Another bare assertion. You’re good at them, aren’t you!

You have noticed that you are saying nothing.
I might say for example that, I am here - therefore I came from somewhere.
You say you have no evidence that I came from somewhere, its an assertion.
I say - but here I am, I must have arrived here from somewhere else.
You say theres no reason for you to think that.

Stop me if I am misrepresenting you again, I just want to make this simple so I understand what you think.

 

[ricmat]

“Terrestrial timetable?” I think the better question to think about is God’s timetable. Which has nothing to do with our theories of cosmic expansion. If a new “settled science” theory came to be that showed that the universe was eternal, would that put God’s plans to a halt?

I don’t see how a theory could claim to know that the universe is eternal. The cosmologists I know don’t speak with any certainty beyond the next four or five billion years. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think the current increase in the rate of expansion will itself accelerate.

As usual, you avoid giving a direct answer.

My question was " If a new “settled science” theory came to be that showed that the universe was eternal, would that put God’s plans to a halt?"

Use your imagination. And then answer yes or no.

Actually, now that I think about it, you have answered the question. You need to wait and see what Science says about the matter first. Only then, will you be able to say that God’s plans are halted or not.

 

[StAnastasia]

My question was " If a new “settled science” theory came to be that showed that the universe was eternal, would that put God’s plans to a halt?" .

What is a “settled science” theory? I’m not familiar with “settled science.”

 

[buffalo]

Actually, now that I think about it, you have answered the question. You need to wait and see what Science says about the matter first. Only then, will you be able to say that God’s plans are halted or not.

That’s the StA we all know and love.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is intelligence because intelligence is a possibility, and its only a possibility because there is an intelligence before there was matter created.

Thing, do you not see the circularity in your reasoning?

 

[StAnastasia]

Actually, now that I think about it, you have answered the question. You need to wait and see what Science says about the matter first. Only then, will you be able to say that God’s plans are halted or not.

Not at all. I’m waiting for a coherent question that includes an explanation of what “settled science” means.

 

[Thing]

Thing, do you not see the circularity in your reasoning?

Nope

 

[StAnastasia]

Nope

Your argument is circular, and therefore useless:

“Intelligence exists because it is a possibility, and it is only a possibility because it existed before there was matter created.”

 

[Thing]

Your argument is circular, and therefore useless:

Why?

If it were an impossibility or even an improbability it would not exist, for all the elements in the universe are needed to produce an intelligence, an improbable occurance becomes the possible no longer improbable. The possible occurance now becomes the end of a probable and the function of the actual, which becomes the end of the beginning, making the beginning or source responsible and real and seen through its creation of the possible or impossible, depending on your viewpoint…

 

[StAnastasia]

, for all the elements in the universe are needed to produce an intelligence,

Not really. Intelligence as we know it requires Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, some other elements, and electricity. It probably does not need Plutonium, Gold, Americium, or Fox News (intelligence is probably incompatible with the latter).