- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi t8
Quote All of these answers (what did something come from) are so radical that it is hard to believe any of them. But one of them is correct. All things have their origin in nothing, something (non-living), or someone (living).
You say nothing.
No I don’t. Why do you persist with this lie?Quote But that is just as radical as something or someone when you think about it. But you rule out someone, with no proof. You are not a true scientist.
If you put up the falsifiable, predictive theory then we can look for evidence of its predictions. As it stands there is no theory of god or creation so there is nothing to rule out! I could not be a truer scientist than that.My dismissal of god is not scientific because god is not scientific, but as a working philosophy atheism is completely consistent with the universe as we know it, although perhaps not as you think you know it.
Stuart
Quote As we have discussed already, opinions that lack evidence are just opinions and they demonstrate nothing. It is unfortunate for David Deutsch that he is quoted in the creationist manner (out of context) in a way that suggests he is endorsing a design point of view. This link demonstrates that he is an atheist and would do nothing of the sort (you will also find Stephen Hawking’s name on the list, and that of Steven Weinberg, who goes a bit further than ‘agnostic’):
Well who cares what their beliefs on God are? As you said, “opinions that lack evidence are just opinions.” What I do care about is what they seem to know–the laws of nature, math, etc.
They aren't considered experts on God or the Bible or even on the existence of God. What they know better than most is the science. And that's what I was trying to get them to show.Many documentaries have labelled stephen hawking the closest thing we have today to einstein. He hold's einsten's old seat at cambridge I believe. He is the pop-star of science. No, he's not a biologist, but his words demand a little attention.
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.
The SEEM to be VERY FINELY ADJUSTED to make life possible. Sometimes things are as they seem.
Going on: “Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.“At the very least, it's an extremely improbably odd thing that the universe exists and that life exists as it does. No, that doesn't mean a creator is responsible for it. All we can say is that it only very much SEEMS that way.
Hi David
Quote Well who cares what their beliefs on God are? As you said, “opinions that lack evidence are just opinions.”
Yes, but what I am objecting to is that creationist liars, or those of the design delusion quote scientists out of context to make it seem as if they are skeptical of the scientific view, which they are not.Quote What I do care about is what they seem to know–the laws of nature, math, etc.
They aren't considered experts on God or the Bible or even on the existence of God. What they know better than most is the science. And that's what I was trying to get them to show.
Wouldn’t you have to be very suspicious about anyone who claimed to be an expert on god? I can’t see why theology is treated seriously. I would have more time for those who are experts on the fairies at the bottom of my garden. Science produces very good explanations. None of them so far has used a creator because there is no explanation to be provided by doing so, and there is no evidence for the existence of such a thing.Quote Many documentaries have labelled stephen hawking the closest thing we have today to einstein. He hold's einsten's old seat at cambridge I believe. He is the pop-star of science. No, he's not a biologist, but his words demand a little attention. … At the very least, it's an extremely improbably odd thing that the universe exists and that life exists as it does. No, that doesn't mean a creator is responsible for it. All we can say is that it only very much SEEMS that way.
It doesn’t ‘seem’ that way to me at all. It doesn’t seem that way to Stephen Hawking, either. Neither of us disproves a creator, but neither has set out to. It is you conflating the views of a cosmologist with religious mythology, I didn’t start it!I know we have travelled widely in this thread, but just for the record you also might like to tell us what the anthropic principle has to do with evolutionary theory.
Stuart
Quote How long do you expect it to “go on”? 400 years ago at Eton College it was compulsory for the students to smoke. You could say it took nearly 400 years for science to ‘get that right’. The point you would be missing is that there was not much evidence or experimental technique back then to discover what we now know about smoking. The same is true for Piltdown. Today, modern techniques would demonstrate the fraud very quickly. Yes, I don't doubt such frauds are discovered more quickly. The quickness of how quick we discover frauds today is not in question. It's quicker…agreed.
My question had nothing to do with that. There were things that were clearly visibly wrong with piltdown man. Things that should have been obvious, and as I said, this wasn't something little, that was meaningless. Considering all that was needed was eyes (not advanced technology) and some truly scientific minded people….well, they did come along, but 45 years later.
I'm not wanting excuses about technology. I'm wanting you to do actually question why no one saw the obvious. So far you have not done that.Quote The fact that you look different is not Evolution. Strawman 1.
Um… perhaps you didn't read the sentence you were responding to. Yes, the basic meaning of “evolution” is slow change. The meaning of revolution, is fast change. That's what those words mean. You keep saying “evolution” is fact. I agree. Things slowly change.
But what I was trying to clarify is that when we use the word “evolution” here, we are talking about the theory that one species slowly changes into another. So, yes, evolution is a fact. The world is evolving. Everything is evolving, slowly changing. But that is wholey different than what we're discussing. To connect the two would be wrong.Quote No, evolution refers to the variety and complexity, not the original formation of cells. Strawman 2.
But me having different color hair than my brother is variety. It is not evolution. Evolution is slow change and in this matter, from one species to another, without superhuman intervention. And the conclusion one must reach if these species came about by themselves, is, how did they originate on the cellular level? It's a question you understandably want to distance yourself from. Yes, you shout: “Evolution is a fact.” So is revolution. Give me a break.Quote Well that’s fine. No conspiracy then. Just incompetence. Are you willing to turn that analysis on the writing of the gospels? That is unverified data that has lasted just over 1900 years. The Catholics only took 300 years to forgive Galileo. So who is slow with fact checking here?
Um.. “The catholics,” are and they are guilty of much worse than slow fact checking. They're guilty of forbiding to marry, commanding to abstain from certain foods [[(meat on fridays)…can't remember if that's still in effect]] JUST AS FORTOLD.1 TIMOTHY 4:1-3
“However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.”So, back to the question you were trying to divert us from. Your answer apparently was INCOMPETENCE. I don't think that's what it was. I think THEY SAW WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE, and further more, I think scientists are human. That's right, they're human. They have this tendancy to see what they want to see. And those scientists wanted to see evidence for evolution. And so they did. Even though none was there.
Quote Quote
If it could happen with this amazing case, how much more so with the smaller things.
It seems that if I was digging in the dirt for years, I'd WANT to find meaning in there and I might just see connections and patterns that simply weren't there. Essentially, I”m saying that all humans (scientists included) are guilty of seeing what they believe to be true, of seeing what they expect, of seeing what they want.Judging by your posts on the Genesis mythology, your accusation is hypocritical.
This is unbelievable. I said “all humans are” guilty of doing this and you again try to bend it back to me. Can't you just once admit that scientists sometimes have agendas? That they see what they want to, sometimes…because we know they do. Piltdown man. We know they do and we know it does and can happen.
Quote I am objecting to is that creationist liars, or those of the design delusion quote scientists out of context to make it seem as if they are skeptical of the scientific view, which they are not. Quote It doesn’t seem that way to Stephen Hawking, either. Neither of us disproves a creator, Yes, stu, I realize that stephen wasn't trying to disprove a creator. I never said he was. He was merely commenting on …why don't I go get the book. …ok, I own way too many books and they're not very organized.
I was simply commenting on somthing that Stephen considered to be a fact:
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.Yes, no mention of God. No mention of no God. I understand and get that he wasnt discussing God. He was discussing the REMARKABLE FACT that the constants in physics seem to be pre-set, or as he says “FINELY ADJUSTED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE.” They “seem” this way, but aren't necessarily so.
Quote Neither of us disproves a creator, but neither has set out to.
Well good, for a TRUE scientist would never SET OUT to disprove something but would set out to find the truth, whether it is proved or disproved is irrelavent to an unbiased scientist.
The fact that he hasn't set out to disprove a creator doesn't in any way mean I can't use what he considers facts.Quote I know we have travelled widely in this thread, but just for the record you also might like to tell us what the anthropic principle has to do with evolutionary theory. Tell you what….you tell me the first species where the evolution theory begins and molecular biology ends and I'll tell you what one has to do with the other.
Isn't this just the “pile of sand” paradox. Is one grain of sand a pile of sand? Anyway, the two are connected.The reason of course why it is brought up so much is that “evolution is a fact.” Things slowly change. Yes. But do they change from one species to another? Do they change from cells into species. Even further, do they change from non-living matter into living matter?
When you start looking at all that had to take place, the astronomical numbers of what had to happen and in the right sequence, quotes like this:
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.
will start to look tame.david
Hi David
Quote There were things that were clearly visibly wrong with piltdown man. Things that should have been obvious, and as I said, this wasn't something little, that was meaningless. Considering all that was needed was eyes (not advanced technology) and some truly scientific minded people….well, they did come along, but 45 years later. I'm not wanting excuses about technology. I'm wanting you to do actually question why no one saw the obvious. So far you have not done that.
Well I was not there, and maybe if I had been things would have been different, or maybe not. I am not going to make excuses for people who were not competent to spot a fraud. Actually many people did question it because the consequence of Piltdown man would have been to do serious damage to, if not overturn evolutionary theory. Perhaps we should acknowledge as a virtue the fact that people took it seriously at first, and suspended judgement. It certainly puts lie to the claim that science dismisses out of hand the objections raised by fraudsters like creationists.Quote Stu: The fact that you look different is not Evolution. Strawman 1. Um… perhaps you didn't read the sentence you were responding to. Yes, the basic meaning of “evolution” is slow change. The meaning of revolution, is fast change. That's what those words mean. You keep saying “evolution” is fact. I agree. Things slowly change.
But what I was trying to clarify is that when we use the word “evolution” here, we are talking about the theory that one species slowly changes into another. So, yes, evolution is a fact. The world is evolving. Everything is evolving, slowly changing. But that is wholey different than what we're discussing. To connect the two would be wrong.
From my reading I thought you had either accidentally or intentionally set out to compare the changes you see in the mirror with evolution. I am glad you have made it clear that you don’t, and the two are not related.Quote Stu: No, evolution refers to the variety and complexity, not the original formation of cells. Strawman 2. But me having different color hair than my brother is variety. It is not evolution.
It most certainly is part of evolution by natural selection. That difference could easily be a point of difference for selection. How did we get alleles that code for fair hair except by mutation and selection in those who gained advantage from it?Quote Evolution is slow change and in this matter, from one species to another, without superhuman intervention. And the conclusion one must reach if these species came about by themselves, is, how did they originate on the cellular level? It's a question you understandably want to distance yourself from. Yes, you shout: “Evolution is a fact.” So is revolution. Give me a break.
Now you are muddying the waters. That is dishonest in my opinion. You have persisted with your strawman. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is poorly understood, for very good reason, but does not impact whatsoever on the truth of evolutionary theory.Quote So, back to the question you were trying to divert us from. Your answer apparently was INCOMPETENCE. I don't think that's what it was. I think THEY SAW WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE, and further more, I think scientists are human. That's right, they're human. They have this tendancy to see what they want to see. And those scientists wanted to see evidence for evolution. And so they did. Even though none was there.
We are going back over old ground now. If you had not posted great tracts about how natural and cosmological history can be interpreted to show that genesis is a reasonable account, then you might have some credibility here, but since you have, I reflect the claim back on you. Who is investigating the truth no matter what it might be and who is seeing what they want to (absolutely must) see?Quote Can't you just once admit that scientists sometimes have agendas? That they see what they want to, sometimes…because we know they do. Piltdown man. We know they do and we know it does and can happen.
OK, so all humans including christian fundamentalists have agendas. The difference is that the scientist has to face the cold realities of the discovered evidence and the process of peer review, imperfect though it may be. The fundamentalist can make up whatever he wants, reality is flexible as long as the book is demonstrated true.Stuart
Hi again David
Stu: Neither of us disproves a creator, but neither has set out to.
Quote Well good, for a TRUE scientist would never SET OUT to disprove something but would set out to find the truth, whether it is proved or disproved is irrelavent to an unbiased scientist.
The fact that he (Stephen Hawking) hasn't set out to disprove a creator doesn't in any way mean I can't use what he considers facts.
Sure, but you have not said what conclusion you can definitely make from what he said. By posting the list you did you are still committing the deception of misquoting people by omission to make them appear to be supporting some unstated conclusion. There is such a thing as reading between the lines and the deception is designed to exploit this. What did Hawking, or Weinberg, or Deutsch say NEXT?Quote Tell you what….you tell me the first species where the evolution theory begins and molecular biology ends and I'll tell you what one has to do with the other.
The fossil record does not give information about the ‘first species’. Things without hard parts don’t fossilise very well. There are fossils of single-celled organisms from 3.7 billion years ago. That’s pretty remarkable in itself. I suppose you will demand more, even though you are unwilling to describe the evidence for the Theory of Divine Creation. When did molecular biology end? As far as I am aware it is very much in full swing.Quote Isn't this just the “pile of sand” paradox. Is one grain of sand a pile of sand? Anyway, the two are connected.
Maybe, but how? The thread is about evolution. Why do the goal posts have to be moved? Is evolution so well demonstrated to be true that we need to move away quickly?Quote The reason of course why it is brought up so much is that “evolution is a fact.” Things slowly change. Yes. But do they change from one species to another?
Yes. See Wikipedia on ring species then apply the idea backwards through time.Quote Do they change from cells into species. Even further, do they change from non-living matter into living matter?
It has always been true that most of the organisms on the planet are single-celled. Tell me what the difference is between non-living matter and living matter? (The question was settled in 1828 when ammonium isocyanate was converted by heating into urea).Quote When you start looking at all that had to take place, the astronomical numbers of what had to happen and in the right sequence, quotes like this:
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.
will start to look tame.
If you wave your arms any wider there is a danger they will fly right off.Stuart
But what is the cause? If there is nothing, then there is nothing to 'cause' something to happen.
The static universe model was generally accepted until the last century, when someone figured out that the beginning words of the Bible were correct and general belief was wrong. The universe had a beginning.
That the universe had a beginning means that the cosmos was brought into being out of nothing, that is, that it was created. If a created thing exists (which did not exist beforehand), then it certainly should have a Creator.
Being from non-being is something inconceivable by the human mind.
Being from non-being is very different from bringing objects together to form a new object (such as works of art or technological inventions).
Those magicians that show you an empty box and then suddenly, a girl. We all know the girl didn't materialize from nothingness. She existed before. Things do not appear from nothing. And if they did, there would have to be something (or someone) to “cause” it.
Quote Why do the goal posts have to be moved? Is evolution so well demonstrated to be true that we need to move away quickly?
No, it's not that. If a guy comes up to you and says: “I'm the king of france, and I can fly” chances are both are wrong. But it's just so much easier to say to him: “Ok, fly.”
You avoid it for the same reason we tend to focus on it. It's extraordinarily hard for us to consider “everything from nothing.”
Right now, until someone can make something pop into existence from nothing that idea will remain a strange and impossible one.Quote Sure, but you have not said what conclusion you can definitely make from what he said. By posting the list you did you are still committing the deception of misquoting people by omission to make them appear to be supporting some unstated conclusion. Fine, from now on, I'll try to remember to preface such quotes by saying: “This science guy believes in evolution, but he gives some pretty good reasons not to, and here they are…”
Can't you just once admit that scientists sometimes have agendas?–me
In response:
OK, so all humans … have agendas.THANKYOU. Now that we have actually verbalized that obvious thought, let's move on.
Hi David
Quote But what is the cause? If there is nothing, then there is nothing to 'cause' something to happen.
Not you as well, I thought you had a brain.Quote The static universe model was generally accepted until the last century, when someone figured out that the beginning words of the Bible were correct and general belief was wrong. The universe had a beginning.
The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with scripture. You can read whatever you want into the OT but it does not discuss the separation of matter and antimatter, in fact it reflects exactly the human views of the time and gives no special insight. That does not exclude possible divine inspiration but you cannot make a case for it on what is written there. Not a single new scientific concept is introduced in Genesis (amongst all the mistakes), even though later on there are prophecies that are presumably included to impress on readers that the ‘author’ has special knowledge, but that’s another thread.Quote That the universe had a beginning means that the cosmos was brought into being out of nothing, that is, that it was created. If a created thing exists (which did not exist beforehand), then it certainly should have a Creator.
You can make up whatever fantasy story you want about what existed or didn’t before the big bang. Can you tell me what the words ‘nothing’ and ‘something’ mean? They are vexatious for the quantum physicist and the deist alike.Quote Being from non-being is something inconceivable by the human mind.
I don’t think it necessarily is, although Richard Feynman famously said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”Being from non-being is very different from bringing objects together to form a new object (such as works of art or technological inventions). Those magicians that show you an empty box and then suddenly, a girl. We all know the girl didn't materialize from nothingness. She existed before. Things do not appear from nothing. And if they did, there would have to be something (or someone) to “cause” it.
you have not really addressed the issue of whether you really think the matter that makes up living tissue is a different kind from that which doesn't. I also think you are jumping to conclusions about existence that you can’t support.Stu: Why do the goal posts have to be moved? Is evolution so well demonstrated to be true that we need to move away quickly?
Quote No, it's not that. If a guy comes up to you and says: “I'm the king of france, and I can fly” chances are both are wrong. But it's just so much easier to say to him: “Ok, fly.” You avoid it for the same reason we tend to focus on it. It's extraordinarily hard for us to consider “everything from nothing.” Right now, until someone can make something pop into existence from nothing that idea will remain a strange and impossible one.
I don’t think you have answered the question. Why have we stopped discussing the subject of the thread? Have contributors here realised that no one has made a case against Evolution by Natural Selection? Can you tell me what ‘something from nothing’ has to do with biological evolution? Can we not treat these issues as the vastly different subjects that they are, or do the religious make the mistake of simply lumping everthing in science that contradicts their Genesis account into the 'that's evolution – it's obviously wrong' basket?Stu: Sure, but you have not said what conclusion you can definitely make from what he said. By posting the list you did you are still committing the deception of misquoting people by omission to make them appear to be supporting some unstated conclusion.
Quote Fine, from now on, I'll try to remember to preface such quotes by saying: “This science guy believes in evolution, but he gives some pretty good reasons not to, and here they are…”
No, you know that the deception is the quoting out of context. You lie by omission because you don’t quote the next sentence in each case. “It seems impossible that an eye could arise by pure chance (creationist cuts here) BUT that is not how evolution works, and the proposed stages in the evolution of eyes are actually present in the animal kingdom today in all their various forms”.Quote Can't you just once admit that scientists sometimes have agendas?–me In response:
OK, so all humans … have agendas.THANKYOU. Now that we have actually verbalized that obvious thought, let's move on.
Well you got your cherished soundbite that you now quote out of context (as usual).Stuart
Hi Stu,
How does your theory of evolution explain the complexity of the human eye? Can it? By no means. Surely it did not come about by chance.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2008,23:01) Hi t8 Quote All of these answers (what did something come from) are so radical that it is hard to believe any of them. But one of them is correct. All things have their origin in nothing, something (non-living), or someone (living).
You say nothing.
No I don’t. Why do you persist with this lie?Stuart
Stu did you realise that everything coming from nothing is ridiculous after this discussion or before it?
If we cross out “nothing” and I know that you do not believe in “someone”, so that only leaves “something”.
Please explain more about this eternal something that has been transforming for all eternity and is now currently the cosmos?
I eagerly await your answer.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 10 2008,09:15) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2008,23:01) Hi t8 Quote All of these answers (what did something come from) are so radical that it is hard to believe any of them. But one of them is correct. All things have their origin in nothing, something (non-living), or someone (living).
You say nothing.
No I don’t. Why do you persist with this lie?Stuart
Stu did you realise that everything coming from nothing is ridiculous after this discussion or before it? If we cross out “nothing” and I know that you do not believe in “someone”, so that only leaves “something”.
Please explain more about this eternal something that has been transforming for all eternity and is now currently the cosmos?
I eagerly await your answer.
t8 please can you post this in an appropriate thread. I think you will have to make a new one. A boring one it will be, too.Stuart
Quote (acertainchap @ Jan. 10 2008,02:26) Hi Stu, How does your theory of evolution explain the complexity of the human eye? Can it? By no means. Surely it did not come about by chance.
Hi Stu,You still haven't responded.
Quote (acertainchap @ Jan. 10 2008,12:49) Quote (acertainchap @ Jan. 10 2008,02:26) Hi Stu, How does your theory of evolution explain the complexity of the human eye? Can it? By no means. Surely it did not come about by chance.
Hi Stu,You still haven't responded.
I thought I had. Anyway, you are right, it did not come about by chance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Jan. 10 2008,19:03) Stu, Given any thought to Christian Science and what those folks have to offer? Just curious.
They believe the material world is a spiritual illusion; I believe it is reality; they don't use modern medicine; if I stopped taking mine I would be dead within weeks; they believe that people who think in an ungodly way suffer; I don't believe I suffer for that.George Bernard Shaw described them being “neither Christian nor scientific.”
You can draw your own conclusion about what I think about them!
Stuart
Stu.
Just a simple A, B, or C will do.
A) Nothing
B) Something
C) Someone.I wonder if we will get an answer?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 10 2008,20:11) Quote (Not3in1 @ Jan. 10 2008,19:03) Stu, Given any thought to Christian Science and what those folks have to offer? Just curious.
They believe the material world is a spiritual illusion; I believe it is reality; they don't use modern medicine; if I stopped taking mine I would be dead within weeks; they believe that people who think in an ungodly way suffer; I don't believe I suffer for that.George Bernard Shaw described them being “neither Christian nor scientific.”
You can draw your own conclusion about what I think about them!
Stuart
Thanks, Stu. I've appreciated your candor on many issues.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
