Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
First off it is 10x10^123 - start writing zeroes now. We will time you.

The very first sentence of this section is:

How special was the big bang? (perhaps the folks at SZ or Quora missed it)

Then:

This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.

He is looking at the probabilities of ending up with our universe if done randomly. The search space is so huge the Creator;s aim had to be very precise.

He goes on to say:

“The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth’s history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question — so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!”
Click to expand...
In the first instance, the number you are quoting represents 10 followed by 10,123 zeroes. It is a big number. But what you say you have quoted Penrose saying is that it would take forever to write out those zeros. Not the number as in 1, 2, 3 etc. To write out 10,123 zeroes would take about an hour and a half.

Now either one of the greatest mathematical physists wrong in what he wrote or has been misquoted. Either way, you seem not to understand
 
Secondly, the whole quote is about entropy and has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. You are using big figures by a recognised elser statesman of physics in a hope that people will assume that it is relevant to evolution.

And in any case, as you have posted above, the figures COULD be used have been used to suggest that we exist at some special time but…‘This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun…’.

Not only has it no relevance to evolution, it doesn’t even mean what you think it means.

You need to correct that page. It is completely irrelevant. Can we expect an apology for misleading your (ahem) readers?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Secondly, the whole quote is about entropy
Click to expand...
Yes. Initial starting conditions and 2nd law.

I will let this pass for now and circle back to it when I deem appropriate.
Click to expand...
That will mean never. Penrose’s comments have zero connection with evolution. You know that. I’d say that you knew that when you posted them on your page explaining what you think (ahem) idvolution is. You just thought no-one would check. Nice big figures look impressive, eh?

I guess they impress you. Even when you don’t understand them.

You mention anything about your web page again and I’ll be sure to let all and sundry know about why you need to misrepresent the very definition of this risible ‘idvolution’.
 
edwest211 said:
A conspiracy.
Click to expand...
It is a conspiracy. The idea that the scientific community including the leaders of the church are conspiring to give validity and permission to an idea that is scientifically and theologically false.

Of course, there is a minute possibility that it could all be true, but it doesn’t stop it from looking like the substance of a paranoid delusion.
 
IWantGod said:
Whats the point of genetics, and our genetic similarities with other organisms, if evolution is not true?

Genetics brings us a wealth of information that shows us how evolution is actually possible.
Click to expand...
Aloysium said:
I don’t see it any more possible than would be a flat earth, even though when we walk from place to place, it seems undoubtably true.
Click to expand...
In other-words you don’t have an answer. You just prefer the intelligent design explanation no matter how erroneous it looks.
 
Last edited:
PhiriTalk said:
The earth isn’t flat though. That’s a non-sequitur.

Evolution only deals with generic change over successive generations. That’s literally it. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

It sounds like you accept evolution, you’re just conflating hypotheses about the origin of life with the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia, the idea that people believed the earth was flat “was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.” It was known to be spherical since ancient Greek times, by those who gave it any thought. It is even more odd to me that people should believe in evolution, when it is just so superficial and to me so blatantly wrong. This is not to say that Evolutionary Theory, like other false beliefs, is not internally logically consistant. If one buys into the assumptions, it logically follows. However, they lack validity; evolution is an illusion, because although the underlying science brings us to an understanding of how things work, the story in which they are framed is incorrect.

As stated earlier, your definition is not what I am agruing against; at issue is that which is being taught in the schools and promoted in the media, claiming that it is science, when it is merely a modern day creation myth, resting on materialistic and utilitarian philosophical foundations to justify today’s secular mores.

As a scientific theory, evolution adheres to methodological naturalism; that is, it presupposes the nonexistence of supernatural causation. Any explanation that is not materialistically based, will automatically be relegated to the bin of pseudoscience. In other words, to be considered scientific, one must adhere to the prinicple that everything, including life, is the result of purely undirected material processes. The belief that God created the first life forms, is unscientific, in modern terms, although entirely valid.

The creation of the first life form(s) is no more impossible to explain utilizing empirical science that is that of each successive step in the hierarchy of complexity that we find in life. It’s all the same thing - God’s creation of different kinds of being, from light to we ourselves, as persons.
 
Aloysium said:
The belief that God created the first life forms, is unscientific, in modern terms, although entirely valid.
Click to expand...
The problem is that if we find out how He did it, you will deny that as well. Beats me why. We know how He creates stars and planets and mountains and seas. If you’re a science denier why exclude so much of His creation? Well, unless you think it was all created in 6 days.

Why not just admit your beliefs are those of a fundamentalist? Why the reluctance to do that? Does the word carry too much baggage for you to accept?

Have the courage of your convictions, Al. Get it off your chest. We’re all here for you.
 
Aloysium said:
The belief that God created the first life forms, is unscientific, in modern terms, although entirely valid.
Click to expand...
The belief that God created the first life forms, is untheological as well. The “first life” was not created because the “first life” is God, and God is uncreated.

God can have created the second, third, fourth etc. life, but not the first.
 
None of that is peer reviewed though, nor does it promote or endorse intelligent design.
 
What about the theory of evolution is poorly reasoned or improperly investigated?
 
PhiriTalk said:
None of that is peer reviewed though, nor does it promote or endorse intelligent design.
Click to expand...
I am glad you read them to see where this is heading. Quite of few of these speakers have published peer reviewed papers.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?​

YES, URGENTLY — Kevin Laland and colleagues

NO, ALL IS WELL — Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Supplementary https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.20356.1412604225!/suppinfoFile/514164a_s1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Can I see those papers? Do any of them promote or endorse intelligent design?

You claim that all this peer reviewed research exists which supports your position, but I have yet to see a single shred of evidence showing that intelligent design is valid.
 
None of those say anything about intelligent design and the first one even includes counterpoints to the authors.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Can I see those papers? Do any of them promote or endorse intelligent design?
Click to expand...
One step at a time. I am currently showing you (which you doubted) that big changes and new information is happening and the top evo’s are trying to digest it.
 
PhiriTalk said:
None of those say anything about intelligent design and the first one even includes counterpoints to the authors.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is good to evaluate both sides. Correct?

You did indicate you trust nature mag.
 
Last edited:
That’s how science works though. Science is a process of improving understanding. None of those papers say that evolution is wrong or isn’t happening, they just aren’t satisfied with the current incomplete explanation. None of this gives any validity to intelligent design whatsoever.
 
It is wrong to treat fringe hypotheses with the same regard as those coming from trained professionals.

I do trust Nature. None of the links you’ve provided from Nature say anything about intelligent design.
 
PhiriTalk said:
It is wrong to treat fringe hypotheses with the same regard as those coming from trained professionals.

I do trust Nature. None of the links you’ve provided from Nature say anything about intelligent design.
Click to expand...
How many of the talks did you listen to? Perhaps we can focus on one or two?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top