This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#141  Postby Wortfish » Aug 24, 2017 7:51 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Besides which, that's not what I'm talking about. When creationists publish their "research" ( :rofl: ), do they typically have it reviewed by established experts in the relevant fields? For instance, when Stephen Meyer claimed in "Darwin's Doubt" that the Cambrian Explosion required the sudden evolution of thousands of new protein-coding genes, who was the developmental biologist he ran that by to make sure he was correct regarding current understanding of the genetic basis of alteration in body plans?

He presumably read the literature. The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#142  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 24, 2017 8:15 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Besides which, that's not what I'm talking about. When creationists publish their "research" ( :rofl: ), do they typically have it reviewed by established experts in the relevant fields? For instance, when Stephen Meyer claimed in "Darwin's Doubt" that the Cambrian Explosion required the sudden evolution of thousands of new protein-coding genes, who was the developmental biologist he ran that by to make sure he was correct regarding current understanding of the genetic basis of alteration in body plans?

He presumably read the literature.

He didn't though. Or options B or C; he didn't understand it, or he misrepresents it.

Wortfish wrote: The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.

They really don't.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31073
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#143  Postby Shrunk » Aug 25, 2017 3:24 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Besides which, that's not what I'm talking about. When creationists publish their "research" ( :rofl: ), do they typically have it reviewed by established experts in the relevant fields? For instance, when Stephen Meyer claimed in "Darwin's Doubt" that the Cambrian Explosion required the sudden evolution of thousands of new protein-coding genes, who was the developmental biologist he ran that by to make sure he was correct regarding current understanding of the genetic basis of alteration in body plans?

He presumably read the literature.


Why would you presume that? If he had read it, he would know that his claim was contradicted by the current literature. So, I think we can presume he did not read it, nor did he avail himself of the expertise of someone who would be familiar with that literature. That's the sort of thing a competent and ethical scholar should do as a matter of course. It's the sort of thing creationists can be counted upon to not do.

(There is the additional option, of course, as raised by Thomas Eshuis, that Meyer did know this and deliberately withheld that information from his readers. This would be consistent with his documented history of such mendacity, but in this instance I think simple ignorance is an adequate explanation.)


The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You really live in a dream world, don't you?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#144  Postby laklak » Aug 25, 2017 3:36 pm

Creationist lies, video at 11.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20874
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#145  Postby bert » Aug 25, 2017 4:33 pm

Dear wortfish, in a previous life (well, it has been a while) I was a biochemist and I'd LOVE to have shown Darwin wrong. It would have made me incredibly famous. Every scientist not only dreams of such a feat, but actively tries to achieve such a goal. And the desire for such a breakthrough is not unique for myself, I guess. Which means that oh so many other scientists have attempted to show Darwin wrong (something they might have achieved with DNA evidence when sequencing DNA became possible), but guess what, the only thing they could find was that Darwin was wrong about was that some species had been misplaced in the tree of evolution (but for understandable reasons). In short, Darwin was right.

Now, on the other hand we have people who have a religion, accept it using blind faith (which is a sin of Sloth, because all the believers of other religions suffer from the same laziness) and declare their views correct (sin of Pride). Scientists are OPEN to the possibility of being wrong, which is why they check a lot. And they don't like to be shown wrong by someone else. You don't want to be cited for being wrong. And that is another motivation factor for scientists to strive to be honest. Theists think the way to do that is to misrepresent, apply sloppy logic, deny facts, and flat out lie. I don't believe in a god, but from a moral point of view, I'd say scientists are better than theists. But then, the threshold for (his own) moral behavior doesn't appear to be very high, according to the bible.

Yes, scientists are humans, and among them, there are who have committed fraud and also honest mistakes have been made. But when it comes to being inept, all theists apply confirmation bias and at best make honest mistakes when it comes to reviewing their religious opinions. It is no contest.

Man, you should read the bible. It contains stuff that could make you a better person. The story about the splinter in the eye of the other person and not seeing the beam in your own eye comes to mind. (mind you, we don't deny that fraud exists, and mistakes are made. We see that splinter in our own eye).

....
PS To learn about confirmation bias, read Judges 1:19. The bible is perfect for teaching this concept.
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#146  Postby Just A Theory » Aug 28, 2017 12:17 am

Wortfish wrote:
He presumably read the literature. The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.


I'm interested to find out what you believe are the "big outstanding problems" with evolution. I really, really want to know because I suspect it will reveal more about your understanding of the theory than any actual difficulties within the scientific framework.

There are some interesting and unresolved points regarding ring species, neutral gene mutation and sympatric speciation. Calilasseia's favourite cichlid superflock in Lake Victoria is an excellent example of an area where ongoing research is active but, for the most part, evolutionary researchers have outlined the broad framework and are now looking at detailed mechanisms for which evidence is difficult to find.

So, I'm interested, what are the "big problems"?

:coffee:
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1403
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#147  Postby proudfootz » Aug 28, 2017 1:46 am

The biggest problem with evolution is that there wasn't some all-knowing, all-seeing person who observed every step from day one up to now to tell us all about it.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10969

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#148  Postby Rumraket » Aug 28, 2017 8:42 am

Just A Theory wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
He presumably read the literature. The fact is, though, that creationist objections do induce evolutionary biologists to try and solve the big outstanding problems with their theory.


I'm interested to find out what you believe are the "big outstanding problems" with evolution. I really, really want to know because I suspect it will reveal more about your understanding of the theory than any actual difficulties within the scientific framework.

There are some interesting and unresolved points regarding ring species, neutral gene mutation and sympatric speciation. Calilasseia's favourite cichlid superflock in Lake Victoria is an excellent example of an area where ongoing research is active but, for the most part, evolutionary researchers have outlined the broad framework and are now looking at detailed mechanisms for which evidence is difficult to find.

So, I'm interested, what are the "big problems"?

:coffee:

Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#149  Postby Shrunk » Aug 28, 2017 10:48 am

<duplicate post deleted>
Last edited by Shrunk on Aug 28, 2017 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#150  Postby Shrunk » Aug 28, 2017 10:53 am

The more pertinent question, if Wortfish is at all interested in demonstrating that he is not lying, is this: Were any of these "problems" unknown to scientists until creationist "research" uncovered them?

I'm reminded, for instance, of Micheal Behe's "irreducible complexity", about which he was so excited he went out and wrote an entire book about it. As in my earlier example involving Stephen Meyer, however, Behe neglected to search the literature to find that this "problem" had already been identified and resolved 50 years earlier.

The most revealing thing is that creationists still bring this up as "evidence."
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#151  Postby Just A Theory » Aug 28, 2017 10:56 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.


The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1403
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#152  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 28, 2017 11:41 pm

Just A Theory wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.


The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31073
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#153  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 29, 2017 9:46 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.


The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:
Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise). Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#154  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 29, 2017 11:08 am

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Yeah one of the big issues with creationists is that they confuse how-questions with whether-questions.

There are many unsolved how-questions in biology. How did the translation system evolve? RNA-worlds vs metabolism or proteins-first? How did the first proteins and protein domains evolve? How did all the different eukaryotic features like organelles, the nucleus, endosymbionts and so on evolve? How did sex evolve? Multicellularity? etc. etc.

All of these are questions for which no hard consensus has emerged yet. Creationists think this means that evolution cannot answer these questions. So they take them as whether-questions. They think the question is whether the translation system evolved? Whether the first protein domains evolved? Whether eukaryotes evolved?

The issue isn't that evolution can't explain these different entities, at least in principle, the issue is the kind of data we have does not allow us to make strong conclusions on the matter. We need more data and more experiments. There is actually little doubt THAT they evolved, the question is HOW. What were the selective pressures? What were the ancestral states like? What came first, A or B? And so on.

There is enough data to show beyond rational doubt THAT they evolved (there are so many shared commonalities that their gradual evolution and shared ancestry through descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion), but there isn't enough data to show all of the interesting details.


The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter.

False, creationists do this. Not I.

DavidMcC wrote: Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:

I don't give a fuck since it isn't my position, nor has Dawkins position any bearing on mine.


DavidMcC wrote:
Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything.

That might be obvious to you, it isn't to creationists.

DavidMcC wrote:However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).

You need to actually demonstrate, not just assert this.
Your appeals to your own Dunning Kruger don't carry weight.

DavidMcC wrote:Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd.

Again, demonstrate, don't just assert.

DavidMcC wrote:This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).

My field lies barren.
Let's start by you demonstrating that an eternal universe and the Big Bang theory are both absurd and impossible.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31073
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#155  Postby Just A Theory » Aug 30, 2017 1:54 am

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:


The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).


I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).


You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others :)
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1403
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#156  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 01, 2017 3:19 pm

Just A Theory wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:


The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).


I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).


You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others :)

Actually, far from "at least as little" there is actually more reason to accept my cosmology over others, because they fail to make sense of any of the experimental evidence about the universe. The stand-alone universe simply can't be correct - it's an irrational model.
Last edited by DavidMcC on Sep 02, 2017 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#157  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 01, 2017 3:20 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:


The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).


I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).


You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others :)

Actually, far from "at least as little" there is actualy more reason to accept my cosmology over others, because they fail to make sense of any of the experimental evidence about the universe. The stand-alone universe simply can't be correct - it's an irrational model, that's no better than goddidit!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#158  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 01, 2017 3:49 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:


The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).


I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).


You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others :)

Actually, far from "at least as little" there is actualy more reason to accept my cosmology over others, because they fail to make sense of any of the experimental evidence about the universe. The stand-alone universe simply can't be correct - it's an irrational model.

Demonstrate, don't assert.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31073
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#159  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 02, 2017 9:17 am

Thomas, In demonstrated it on pages 6 and 7 of the LQG thread, years ago, OK. You obviously didn't bother to read it, in spite of the many occasions that I have linked to it.
(Late edit for spelling)
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#160  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 02, 2017 9:30 am

Just A Theory wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
The other thing is that the "how" questions are actually "how could" and not "how did". It's impossible to definitively know how life did evolve on this planet without having a time machine to go back and observe. Even if we somehow did manage to make life in a laboratory, that says nothing about how life on our planet did evolve but everything about how it could have evolved.

Unfortunately, creationists want the answer to "how did" because religious doctrine only deals in certainties. The answer to "how could" is not interesting to them because it's not a certainty, just one likely possibility. That's why you get them so hung up on requiring absolute proof and so concerned with even the most tiny flaws in a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.

A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him. :dunno:


The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.

It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).

Nonsense. The use of the word does not assume that there is an answer, only a question (that may or may not have an answer).
At some point it's OK to say "I don't know" or "We don't know yet". In scientific circles, this is seen as a virtue and a spur for further research. In creationist circles, those statements are an increasingly small place within which to shoehorn their god.

Obviously, the universe isn't "for" anything. However, it is scientificlly absurd to argue that it always existed (a mistake that some astronomers continue to turn a blind eye to, perhaps because they mistakenly think that it would involve a god to be otherwise).


I heartily recommend you read the book "The Arrow of Time" by Sean Carroll which addresses precisely the statement that you have made above. In the book, a possible solution is to examine the postulated heat death of the universe which bears striking similarities to a vast Boltzmann gas. Given sufficient time, an ideal gas can assume highly implausible configurations and a static, unchanging universe certainly has that time. That is, the universe we observe could possibly be a statistical aberration in an otherwise unchanging low energy state.

Worth a thought anyway.

Others think that it was a case of something from nothing when it was created in a "big bang", which is equally absurd. This is why I prefer my own cosmology, in which the "big bang" was from the collapse of a massive body (almost certainly one of many) within the "mother universe" (itself formed in a "very big bang", but directly from the proposed hyperspace continuum, under the law of quatum gravity.
The reason our own universe cannot have formed that way is the lack of synmetry in the laws of physics, as well as various other factors, discussed in the LQG thread (pp 6 & 7).


You are, of course, welcome to propose any cosmology you prefer. There's at least as little evidence for yours as there is for any others :)

(Already dealt with, in post #159.)
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest