Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[NoorNoor]

My point is, it inverts cause and effect.

Oversimplification can be misleading but You have to ask two questions. First, what came to existence first? The puddle or the depression. Second, is the puddle very particular about what it needs or it can be simply any where and wouldn't make any difference?

If the depression existed first, and the puddle is extremely particular about what it needs, then the depression would be a specific design to accommodate the particular puddle.

A specific hotel is well suited for a specific guest. a specific guest is well suited for a specific hotel but the hotel didn't create the guest. The architect designed the specific hotel to accommodate the specific guest.

 

[NoorNoor]

Of course. What anything requires is very particular. What's required to bake a cake or manufacture brake fluid is very particular.

Are you implying that these examples are more complex than life, that's why it's very particular about what it requires but life is not?

 

[Sapiens]

Are you implying that these examples are more complex than life, that's why it's very particular about what it requires but life is not?

Likely on a par, it's the recipe, not the ingredients.

 

[Valjean]

Oversimplification can be misleading but You have to ask two questions. First, what came to existence first? The puddle or the depression. Second, is the puddle very particular about what it needs or it can be simply any where and wouldn't make any difference?

If the depression existed first, and the puddle is extremely particular about what it needs, then the depression would be a specific design to accommodate the particular puddle.

A specific hotel is well suited for a specific guest. a specific guest is well suited for a specific hotel but the hotel didn't create the guest. The architect designed the specific hotel to accommodate the specific guest.

You're confusing cause and effect.
The depression wasn't created to accommodate the puddle, and the universe wasn't created to accommodate our particular version of life. The puddle mindlessly conformed to the already existing depression, according to the laws of physics, just as life, or rocks or black holes are mindless manifestations of the physical laws of our particular universe.
If the universe were created with slightly different laws, some other version of life, rocks or black holes might exist.

The intentional universe argument is bunk. It's circular, it confuses cause and effect. It puts the cart before the horse.
The chance of any particular rock existing in its exact position and location in my yard is maybe a quintillion to one, but I don't call the rock a miraculous manifestation of an intentional God. The odds of anything are a quintillion to one. Just because we're here to contemplate it doesn't raise it from the status of pure chance.

If I tossed a hundred dice onto a table, the chance of the particular configuration that came up would be extremely small, but any configuration that came up would be equally small. Given the fact of a throw, the chance that some particular, vanishingly small configuration would come up, is 100%.

 

[NoorNoor]

You're confusing cause and effect. The depression wasn't created to accommodate the puddle, and the universe wasn't created to accommodate our particular version of life. The puddle mindlessly conformed to the already existing depression,

You didn't get it. If fundamental physical constants were not extremely fine tuned. Neither the puddle nor the depression would have existed. Their would be nothing for the puddle to conform to.

according to the laws of physics, just as life, or rocks or black holes are mindless manifestations of the physical laws of our particular universe

Correct, physical elements are controled by physical laws. But the question is, what controls the physical laws itself? We know the physical constants have specific values but why? What gave the constants these precise values? We understand the physical laws controls physical elements but we don't know how these laws were put to effect/calibrated in a very precise way to allow the universe itself/life to exist.

If the universe were created with slightly different laws, some other version of life, rocks or black holes might exist

Again you didn't get it, If the physical laws were slightly different, then the stars and galaxies wouldn't have formed. No environment to accommodate live would have existed.

The intentional universe argument is bunk. It's circular, it confuses cause and effect. It puts the cart before the horse.

Don't you agree that life needs an environment to accommodate it. If the universe itself wasn't possible, then life wouldn't be possible. Let alone the very precise processes that brought to existence the specific criteria required for our live. If we drop life out of the equation, would that make it easier for you to see how the laws of physics were calibrated to allow for the existence of the universe itself?

The chance of any particular rock existing in its exact position and location in my yard is maybe a quintillion to one, but I don't call the rock a miraculous manifestation of an intentional God. The odds of anything are a quintillion to one. Just because we're here to contemplate it doesn't raise it from th

I am not sure how did you make this assumption but do you understand what you said?? Quintillion to one means, 100 quintillion%. a 100% chance is not a chance any more, it's a confirmation. How about 100 quintillion%? Can you call that a chance?? this percentage is way beyond the realm of odds and chances.

If I tossed a hundred dice onto a table, the chance of the particular configuration that came up would be extremely small, but any configuration that came up would be equally small. Given the fact of a throw, the chance that some particular, vanishingly small configuration would come up, is 100%.

If you have a quintillion dice, let's assume you need all the dice to show number 5 to win. A single wrong number and you loose every thing. You tossed the dice and all the quintillion dice showed number 5. Can that be a chance? Similarly the big bang was calibrated to an extreme accuracy that allowed the universe and life to exist. One to a quintillion change/error and neither the universe nor live would have existed. The puddle could neither exist nor found any depression.

 

[metis]

Is the creator unexpected? Can you expect it? For some reason, when to comes to the creator, we tend to deny our own observations and our own logic.

In science, we simply cannot "expect" that there's a "creator" without some solid evidence of this. If it was so logical, then the vast majority of cosmologists would be strongly theistic, and yet the have the lowest rate of theism amongst the scientific disciplines.

 

[Etritonakin]

In science, we simply cannot "expect" that there's a "creator" without some solid evidence of this. If it was so logical, then the vast majority of cosmologists would be strongly theistic, and yet the have the lowest rate of theism amongst the scientific disciplines.

I think that may be due to the ridiculous ideas that have been associated with the idea of a creator -along with a focus on primarily that which now exists -rather than actually working the problem or doing the math, as they say.

As "theism" includes a bunch of contradictory wild ideas which do not match available evidence, it is no wonder that it is rejected.

However.... In a broad sense, it must be acknowledged that our universe was "created" -inasmuch as it once did not exist, and then did exist.
It has been said that the "singularity" has been called such because we really don't know much about it -much less what might have preceded it.

Science really isn't considering what might have preceded the singularity -or caused the singularity -partly because it simply is not, and partly because it presently can not. It does not see a necessity for a creator after the singularity -but it isn't really looking for evidence of creative activity after the singularity. Evidence of evolution has disproved certain ideas about creation -but we, ourselves, are evidence that both evolution and direct creation happen. Our activities also show that direct creation mingled with evolution and natural cosmic processes would make it difficult to distinguish between them.

What science does know is that something became arranged as our universe -and our universe continues to change somewhat.
Not much focus is on what was required to bring about the state of the singularity, but that is where the greatest evidence of a creative intelligence -or lack thereof -would lie.

We know enough about the present arrangement of things to know that certain further rearrangements require intelligence, creativity, self-awareness, etc., but we do not know enough -or consider enough -the nature of that which existed before our universe to determine whether or not its arrangement (or the further rearrangement of that which existed prior) required intelligence, creativity, self-awareness, etc.

However, as that which now exists is based on that which existed previously, it may be possible to determine scientifically.

 

[metis]

I think that may be due to the ridiculous ideas that have been associated with the idea of a creator -along with a focus on primarily that which now exists -rather than actually working the problem or doing the math, as they say.

As "theism" includes a bunch of contradictory wild ideas which do not match available evidence, it is no wonder that it is rejected.

However.... In a broad sense, it must be acknowledged that our universe was "created" -inasmuch as it once did not exist, and then did exist.
It has been said that the "singularity" has been called such because we really don't know much about it -much less what might have preceded it.

Science really isn't considering what might have preceded the singularity -or caused the singularity -partly because it simply is not, and partly because it presently can not. It does not see a necessity for a creator after the singularity -but it isn't really looking for evidence of creative activity after the singularity. Evidence of evolution has disproved certain ideas about creation -but we, ourselves, are evidence that both evolution and direct creation happen. Our activities also show that direct creation mingled with evolution and natural cosmic processes would make it difficult to distinguish between them.

What science does know is that something became arranged as our universe -and our universe continues to change somewhat.
Not much focus is on what was required to bring about the state of the singularity, but that is where the greatest evidence of a creative intelligence -or lack thereof -would lie.

We know enough about the present arrangement of things to know that certain further rearrangements require intelligence, creativity, self-awareness, etc., but we do not know enough -or consider enough -the nature of that which existed before our universe to determine whether or not its arrangement (or the further rearrangement of that which existed prior) required intelligence, creativity, self-awareness, etc.

However, as that which now exists is based on that which existed previously, it may be possible to determine scientifically.

First of all, well said.

Secondly, there are a fair number of hypotheses dealing with what may have led to the expansion of singularity, plus what might have led to singularity in the first place, so I can't really agree with that part of the above.

Finally, you might want to check out my signature, which is a position that I can live with.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You didn't get it. If fundamental physical constants were not extremely fine tuned. Neither the puddle nor the depression would have existed. Their would be nothing for the puddle to conform to.

Not a claim you can make. You don't have another universe with different physical laws to compare this one to.

If you have a quintillion dice, let's assume you need all the dice to show number 5 to win. A single wrong number and you loose every thing. You tossed the dice and all the quintillion dice showed number 5. Can that be a chance? Similarly the big bang was calibrated to an extreme accuracy that allowed the universe and life to exist. One to a quintillion change/error and neither the universe nor live would have existed. The puddle could neither exist nor found any depression.

What's stopping the universe from rethrowing the dice until it finally gets it?

 

[Sapiens]

...
However.... In a broad sense, it must be acknowledged that our universe was "created" -inasmuch as it once did not exist, and then did exist.
It has been said that the "singularity" has been called such because we really don't know much about it -much less what might have preceded it.

Why is that? All possible theories wind up stuck in the "and were did that come from?" regression. So let's go with ontological parsimony (and thus line up , in a shameless show of actual authority, on the side of rationality and simplicity along with Aristotle, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Proculus, John Duns Scotus, Robert Grosseteste, Maimonides, Aristotle, Newton, Aquinas, Madhva, Ockham, Russell, Punch, Solomonoff, Sagan and others).

Science really isn't considering what might have preceded the singularity -or caused the singularity -partly because it simply is not, and partly because it presently can not. It does not see a necessity for a creator after the singularity -but it isn't really looking for evidence of creative activity after the singularity.

I would dispute your claim that science, "isn't really looking for evidence of creative activity after the singularity." Science has failed to detect any semblance of, "creative activity after the singularity," and so has all but abandoned that search as the highly improbable search for something that is highly unlikely to exist outside of atavistic belief systems.

Evidence of evolution has disproved certain ideas about creation -but we, ourselves, are evidence that both evolution and direct creation happen. Our activities also show that direct creation mingled with evolution and natural cosmic processes would make it difficult to distinguish between them.

How are we, "evidence that ... direct creation happen"? I ask for evidence, that does not include a "so-god-did-it" argument from ignorance, that supports your suggestion that "Our activities also show that direct creation mingled with evolution and natural cosmic processes would make it difficult to distinguish between them."

What science does know is that something became arranged as our universe -and our universe continues to change somewhat.
Not much focus is on what was required to bring about the state of the singularity, but that is where the greatest evidence of a creative intelligence -or lack thereof -would lie.

Fancy words for, "an invisible, undetectable, timeless" creative entity did it. In more precise terms, the classic argument from ignorance that, at best, leaves you with stuck in the "and were did that come from?" regression, as I noted in my opening paragraph.

We know enough about the present arrangement of things to know that certain further rearrangements require intelligence, creativity, self-awareness, etc., ...

That is an unsupported claim that assumes things that are not and are unlikely to be in evidence.

... but we do not know enough -or consider enough -the nature of that which existed before our universe to determine whether or not its arrangement (or the further rearrangement of that which existed prior) required intelligence, creativity, self-awareness, etc.

Ditto, you might as well say the that Flying Spagetti Monster did it with his noodly appendage.

However, as that which now exists is based on that which existed previously, it may be possible to determine scientifically.[/QUOTE]

 

[Valjean]

You didn't get it. If fundamental physical constants were not extremely fine tuned. Neither the puddle nor the depression would have existed. Their would be nothing for the puddle to conform to.

The constants are what they are. If they were different there would be some other example of 'fine tuning'.

Correct, physical elements are controled by physical laws. But the question is, what controls the physical laws itself? We know the physical constants have specific values but why? What gave the constants these precise values? We understand the physical laws controls physical elements but we don't know how these laws were put to effect/calibrated in a very precise way to allow the universe itself/life to exist.

The laws just are. It's a roll of the dice. Something must come up, and anything that comes up is equally improbable.
Why this need to assign an intentional controller?

Again you didn't get it, If the physical laws were slightly different, then the stars and galaxies wouldn't have formed. No environment to accommodate live would have existed.

So? Why do you read intent into this? Who knows how many times a different set of laws resulted in no stars or galaxies.
The odds of a royal flush are very small, but they do happen -- and without any intention or magical manipulation.

Don't you agree that life needs an environment to accommodate it. If the universe itself wasn't possible, then life wouldn't be possible. Let alone the very precise processes that brought to existence the specific criteria required for our live. If we drop life out of the equation, would that make it easier for you to see how the laws of physics were calibrated to allow for the existence of the universe itself?

You're putting the cart before the horse again. No, I don't see it. There's no logical reason to believe our universe isn't just a lucky roll of the dice.

I am not sure how did you make this assumption but do you understand what you said?? Quintillion to one means, 100 quintillion%. a 100% chance is not a chance any more, it's a confirmation. How about 100 quintillion%? Can you call that a chance?? this percentage is way beyond the realm of odds and chances.

I took "quintillion" from the video you linked to in post #280. I thought it was a bit overblown, but it was your example, so I went with it. It could be any large number.
If you won the lottery, would you attribute it to some cosmic intentionality or divine intervention? Who knows how many times the cosmic dice have been thrown? If the fundamental constants had come up snake-eyes, no-one would be here to discuss it.

If you have a quintillion dice, let's assume you need all the dice to show number 5 to win. A single wrong number and you loose every thing. You tossed the dice and all the quintillion dice showed number 5. Can that be a chance? Similarly the big bang was calibrated to an extreme accuracy that allowed the universe and life to exist. One to a quintillion change/error and neither the universe nor live would have existed. The puddle could neither exist nor found any depression.

Certainly it could be chance. The statistical chance of a quintillion 5s is exactly the same as the chance of any other configuration. Roll the dice a second time and the chance of a quintillion 5s is the same as the first roll.
Given a roll, something must comes up. If the fundamental constants are right, some sentient intelligence is generated to argue it was all pre-planned, if the constants are wrong, no sentient apologists, and no record of the event.

 

[OurCreed]

Yes. Time flow is an illusion, at least if relavity is true. The past is stll existing and the furure exists already. The Universe, as a whole, is unchanging. The good news is that I will exist forever. The bad news is that I am already dead



I am not sure. If our current knwoledge of phyisics is correct, you cannot possibly add or remove information in the Universe. The simple act of me writing this post, and all the physical effects that it produces, could in principle be deduced by the physical state of the Universe, say, one billion years ago.

You might disagree, but this come at the cost of throwing current physics in the garbage bin of history. I think paying this price in order to salvage something as nebulous (and a bit egocentric) as free-will is very bad business.

Ciao

- viole

I'll tell you why I disagree with you when you say that you writing this simple post was deduced from the physical state of the universe billions of years ago.

If let's say, we humans, were not autonomous and did not have free choice, and did not have the ability to reflect and think, then it would be safe to say that we are a direct product from the universe, and every action of ours is something we can determine if we understood how the universe was designed and how it functions, and we could probably end up predicting how the future will turn out.

But I do not believe this is the case. I believe that we, as humans, aside from our physical bodies, we have a spiritual body, and this spiritual body, or essence, is not a product of this universe. This deeper existence of our being is what determines our desires, our actions, and our current states. While our bodies continue to obey the laws of the universe, our spiritual bodies do not. We may desire to eat healthy food, so when we eat healthy, our physical bodies will change in accordance with the natural laws for our bodies that when we eat healthy, we'll get sick less often and may end up living a longer life. If we choose to do drugs, then our bodies will fall into the pathway of destruction, as that is how the universe created our physical bodies, we cannot stand intoxication or poison.

We are not defined by our bodies, we are defined by something more. Now you may ask, where is the evidence for our spiritual bodies. The answer to everything, whether it is the soul, or anything else, always starts with God, or the creator of the universe. We cannot begin to understand anything regarding a spiritual body, nor a heaven, or anything else, if we do not first understand the source of all of these ideas and concepts, and that source is the ultimate idea of there being a creator of the universe.

That's my humble input.

 

[NoorNoor]

Not a claim you can make.

Correct, not a claim I can make but cosmologists can. This is a broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists.

You don't have another universe with different physical law to compare this one to.

Why do we need another universe to compare to?? Its irrelevant in this case. This notion is about physical laws that we already know and we know how it affects our own universe. If these specific laws worked very slightly different, then nothing around us would have been possible. No need for comparison with some other universe. Again, this is not my claim.

What's stopping the universe from rethrowing the dice until it finally gets it?

The cosmological constant is tuned to 120 decimal places, scientists agree that this value can't be accidental. Even if we assume this value is accidental, then we have to consider that this is not the only fine tuned constant. How all these constants were calibrated to that extreme accuracy? The chance that all these fundamental physical constants to be all fine tuned at the same time and all work together for a common purpose would be very slim or impossible. Without this fine tuning, neither the universe nor life would have existed.

 

[Etritonakin]

First of all, well said.

Secondly, there are a fair number of hypotheses dealing with what may have led to the expansion of singularity, plus what might have led to singularity in the first place, so I can't really agree with that part of the above.

Finally, you might want to check out my signature, which is a position that I can live with.

I'll have to check those out -have never heard any.

I like the signature -but I have a whole lot of time to consider the matter. I can't say I know any more than I did, but it is great mental exercise. I have been considering what biblical scripture allows for in terms of the origin of God -or lack thereof.

I have been wondering what would be necessary for all that existed before the universe to be or become a self-aware self. The idea of God always existing as a very complex creator doesn't make sense to my mind -but I know I have a very limited perspective. God being everything and becoming increasingly complex -from the most simple yet complex-enough initial state -makes more sense to me. That may be due to considering myself saying "I AM". That statement was true before I could speak it -before I became more complex -and means something different constantly. I can't express it well yet, but it seems to me that a self-awareness must have been responsible for the universe -that an overall self-awareness must have preceded our environment -from which was produced -or reproduced from the original -many selves.

 

[Valjean]

The cosmological constant is tuned to 120 decimal places, scientists agree that this value can't be accidental. Even if we assume this value is accidental, then we have to consider that this is not the only fine tuned constant. How all these constants were calibrated to that extreme accuracy? The chance that all these fundamental physical constants to be all fine tuned at the same time and all work together for a common purpose would be very slim or impossible. Without this fine tuning, neither the universe nor life would have existed.

No they don't, and statisticians agree that any configuration has an equal chance of coming up.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Correct, not a claim I can make but cosmologists can. This is a broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists.

Source? And I mean a real pier-reviewed source, not pop-science from Nat-Geo.

Why do we need another universe to compare to??

Because you're claiming a universe with different physical laws can't support life, even though you have no example of a universe with different physical laws.

The chance that all these fundamental physical constants to be all fine tuned at the same time and all work together for a common purpose would be very slim or impossible..

How do you know the chance is very small? Have you calculated it? And with what referent? We don't know the chance at all. We just know the laws exist and that's it.

 

[NoorNoor]

In science, we simply cannot "expect" that there's a "creator"

When it comes to the creator, then we can not expect the unexpected. This is actually very "expected"

without some solid evidence of this

The evidence for intelligent design/creation do exist and can also be overwhelming but it depends on how you individually want to see it. Regardless of the evidence, it doesn't create a fact on its own, in isolation from you. Maybe a clue. You look at it, then you create your own relative fact, however you want it to be. Nothing is absolute. The absolute fact only exists beyond the realm of our desires and interpretations in a zone that could be beyond our reach.

If it was so logical, then the vast majority of cosmologists would be strongly theistic, and yet the have the lowest rate of theism amongst the scientific disciplines.

I am not aware whether a survey was conducted to specifically verify cosmologists beliefs but regardless, the reference in this case is their knowledge independent from their beliefs. Why cosmologists or people in general, believe in one way or another, this is a separate subject. Your own belief shouldn't be dependent on other peoples beliefs. They made their choice, you do yours. Utilize the knowledge and do your judgment.

 

[NoorNoor]

No they don't, and statisticians agree that any configuration has an equal chance of coming up.

I am not making this claim but regardless, After the bing bang, the entire universe was precisely controlled by several invisible forces (that we call physical laws). These forces collectively worked in a very precise fashion to force the existence of the universe. the configuration after the beginning was not any random configuration but on the contrary, it was one specific configuration out of "infinite" number of other possible configurations. would the probability in this case be in favor of random chance or an intelligent design? If the chance is one to infinity, then mathematically, this chance would be a """zero chance""" (number/infinity =0). In another words, these configurations would mathematically have "0" chance to appear randomly.

Laws of physics describe the effects of invisible forces that we can only recognize through these (regulated) specific effects. We can observe only the effects, not the force itself. For thousands of years, people were not aware of an extremely obvious force "gravity" till finally Newton was able to realize its existence through its effects.

Dark energy, gravity, magnetism are examples of invisible forces that exist in our world. The specific behavior of the physical elements under the specific influence of these invisible forces make us believe with no doubt that these forces do exist.

Similarly, if we observe another influence (external) on these invisible forces itself that regulates its behavior, then it would be an evidence for the existence of another unknown force that controls/regulates all these invisible forces in our physical world, in a very similar fashion to the control exerted by the individual forces (physical law) over the physical elements. Simply a force of a higher level that controls/regulates the behavior of all these mysterious physical forces in our universe. Another force that can't be seen but yet can be recognized through its effects.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not making this claim but regardless, After the bing bang, the entire universe was precisely controlled by several invisible forces (that we call physical laws). These forces collectively worked in a very precise fashion to force the existence of the universe. the configuration after the beginning was not any random configuration but on the contrary, it was one specific configuration out of "infinite" number of other possible configurations. would the probability in this case be in favor of random chance or an intelligent design? If the chance is one to infinity, then mathematically, this chance would be a """zero chance""" (number/infinity =0). In another words, these configurations would mathematically have "0" chance to appear randomly.

This is just pure nonsense. It is almost inanely easy to see why this supposed calculation of yours is meaningless:

Let's say we have a pebble in a stream. For the sake the simplicity, we will say this pebble contains 100 atoms (this would actually make the pebble significantly smaller than a grain of sand, but we're aiming for simplicity for this analogy). In order to form this pebble, therefore, 100 atoms needs to be placed in a very specific configuration. The chance of the first atom being placed in the first specific location is obvious 1/100. The chance of the next atom being place in the next specific location is 1/99. Therefore, the odds of successfully placing the first two atoms in their specific locations is 1/9900. The chance of getting all 100 atoms in all specific locations is 1/1x10^157. So, this pebble, despite being so incredibly simple, cannot possibly exist, right?

Except "chance" didn't shape the pebble, nor lead to its formation. Pebbles are shaped by physical forces. They are the result of physical laws acting upon matter, not "randomness". Stop thinking about life as the purpose of the Universe, and instead merely start of the Universe as the home of life. Life developed because of specific conditions, specific conditions didn't exist because they needed to produce life. You have no basis on which to make any of the claims that you do above - particularly the ones about how this Universe could have been one of an "infinite" number. That's utterly baseless, because we only have ONE example of a Universe from which we can draw our data, and for all we know this could be the only possible formation a Universe could take. Do not force your presuppositions on to the Universe.

 

[metis]

I'll have to check those out -have never heard any.

I like the signature -but I have a whole lot of time to consider the matter. I can't say I know any more than I did, but it is great mental exercise. I have been considering what biblical scripture allows for in terms of the origin of God -or lack thereof.

I have been wondering what would be necessary for all that existed before the universe to be or become a self-aware self. The idea of God always existing as a very complex creator doesn't make sense to my mind -but I know I have a very limited perspective. God being everything and becoming increasingly complex -from the most simple yet complex-enough initial state -makes more sense to me. That may be due to considering myself saying "I AM". That statement was true before I could speak it -before I became more complex -and means something different constantly. I can't express it well yet, but it seems to me that a self-awareness must have been responsible for the universe -that an overall self-awareness must have preceded our environment -from which was produced -or reproduced from the original -many selves.

Good questions, but I have no answers to them. However, neither do I lose any sleep over it. To me, whatever was, was; and whatever is, is.