intelligent design

[Yeshe Dawa]

if I was a scientist, I would want my thoughts and ideas to come across as verbose and coherent as Carl Sagan's had.

Hi DinChild!

I totally agree with you. Carl Sagan was a master at explaining science to regular people like me. He made people feel awe and wonder about astronomy. I loved his Cosmos series.

I understand what you're saying about not assuming that god or something like god exists. I'm just not satisified with the scientific community's current answer, which seems to be - the odds against life happening by chance are astronomical, but any other answer is unacceptable to us, so if we hypothesize an infinite number of planets over a mind-bogglingly vast amount of time, then our theory is till plausible. I just feel that overcoming impossible odds by invoking infinity isn't much better than hypothesizing a creator.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[DinChild]

Hi DinChild!

I totally agree with you. Carl Sagan was a master at explaining science to regular people like me. He made people feel awe and wonder about astronomy. I loved his Cosmos series.

I understand what you're saying about not assuming that god or something like god exists. I'm just not satisified with the scientific community's current answer, which seems to be - the odds against life happening by chance are astronomical, but any other answer is unacceptable to us, so if we hypothesize an infinite number of planets over a mind-bogglingly vast amount of time, then our theory is till plausible. I just feel that overcoming impossible odds by invoking infinity isn't much better than hypothesizing a creator.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

First of all, the scientific community's current answer is EXACTLY that; current. It's ever-changing. That's one of the most beautiful things about science, it doesn't rely or beg acceptance upon age-old doctrine to stay relative. Change, if anything, is the more natural force.

And sure, the chances of life JUST HAPPENING are astronomical. That's why, and the theory stipulates, we're one of very few in this quadrant of the galaxy...or the universe, with life consciousness. Water, and therefore the possibility of life was discovered on Mars, true. A very primitive form. Something that may dictate a past that some millions of years ago held more advanced forms of life...not necessarily consciousness. Fact is, our planet was the Goldilocks of the Cosmos. It was just right. It's not a miracle. It wasn't by choice. It's the game of odds. We, as humans with no full understanding, simply place significance on it.

The only time infinity comes in to play for scientists is in the very small, the very large, or the one theory of the recurring big bangs. Time isn't relative. But if you'd like to look at time, one might consider the 3 million year old Australopithecus fossil of Lucy. Now...this is obviously up to you to believe or not, but consider the time involved if you do. In 3 million years, Australopithecus evolved into us. 65 million years ago, which is how long Australopithecus would take to evolve into YOU and ME 21+ times, brought us the dinosaurs. Proto-amphibians (fish) appeared some 500+ million years ago. All of this, still a FAR cry from 1 billion years. And the earth has supposedly been around for 4.5 billion. You speak of an infinite amount of time. Life doesn't need it to evolve. We've only been involved in heavy industry for a little over 200 years. Who knows where our understanding will extend to with 10,000 more?

 

[crocusj]

Hi DinChild!

I totally agree with you. Carl Sagan was a master at explaining science to regular people like me. He made people feel awe and wonder about astronomy. I loved his Cosmos series.

I understand what you're saying about not assuming that god or something like god exists. I'm just not satisified with the scientific community's current answer, which seems to be - the odds against life happening by chance are astronomical, but any other answer is unacceptable to us, so if we hypothesize an infinite number of planets over a mind-bogglingly vast amount of time, then our theory is till plausible. I just feel that overcoming impossible odds by invoking infinity isn't much better than hypothesizing a creator.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

Perhaps it just depends on which angle you come at these things. Horse before the cart and all that. If we assume that the universe had to be "just so" for life to exist then wow! if life was the purpose of the universe, what are the odds? On the other hand, the universe is just how it is and therefore the odds on life not happening are zero.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

First of all, the scientific community's current answer is EXACTLY that; current. It's ever-changing. That's one of the most beautiful things about science, it doesn't rely or beg acceptance upon age-old doctrine to stay relative. Change, if anything, is the more natural force.

And sure, the chances of life JUST HAPPENING are astronomical. That's why, and the theory stipulates, we're one of very few in this quadrant of the galaxy...or the universe, with life consciousness. Water, and therefore the possibility of life was discovered on Mars, true. A very primitive form. Something that may dictate a past that some millions of years ago held more advanced forms of life...not necessarily consciousness. Fact is, our planet was the Goldilocks of the Cosmos. It was just right. It's not a miracle. It wasn't by choice. It's the game of odds. We, as humans with no full understanding, simply place significance on it.

The only time infinity comes in to play for scientists is in the very small, the very large, or the one theory of the recurring big bangs. Time isn't relative. But if you'd like to look at time, one might consider the 3 million year old Australopithecus fossil of Lucy. Now...this is obviously up to you to believe or not, but consider the time involved if you do. In 3 million years, Australopithecus evolved into us. 65 million years ago, which is how long Australopithecus would take to evolve into YOU and ME 21+ times, brought us the dinosaurs. Proto-amphibians (fish) appeared some 500+ million years ago. All of this, still a FAR cry from 1 billion years. And the earth has supposedly been around for 4.5 billion. You speak of an infinite amount of time. Life doesn't need it to evolve. We've only been involved in heavy industry for a little over 200 years. Who knows where our understanding will extend to with 10,000 more?

Hi DinChild!

You're absolutely right, our view of how the universe works is constantly changing as we make new discoveries. It's getting hard to keep up with all the new theories!

I'm totally ok with us descending from Lucy. Those are basically small morphological changes involving a very small percentage of our DNA. It's easy to see how changes in the environment could have brought that about.

I have a question about your statement on infinity. You said that it only comes into play when considering the very small or very large. It seems that it also comes into play in macroevolution as well. As I asked in another post about complex, interrelated systems, like the circulatory system, these seem to require everything already present in order to work. If these systems arose through random mutation and natural selection it seems like the infinity argument needs to be invoked here as well, because for every world (like ours) where all the necessary components for the circulatory system evolved perfectly (by total chance) then in order for this to be plausible there must be countless worlds full of organisms with circulatory systems that didn't evolve correctly.

Of course, the counter argument would be that somehow a more primitive system evolved, but at some point there are a few basic components that have to be in place. To keep using the circulatory system as an example, there has to be a pump and tubes, as well as an interface with the respiratory and digestive systems, as well as a system that produces whatever is being used for blood. It seems to me this still begs credulity for all these items to appear in an organism at once.

These are just questions that come to my mind when I try to consider evolution. I agree with you, the fossil record certainly seems to indicate that over time organisms became more complex. I don't believe in a personal Creator deity (I personally wouldn't want to meet a being who would purposely create a world where suffering and death are the norm). I just think that the current scientific answer of "we won the evolution lottery" raises some hard questions to answer, at least for me.

Of course, I welcome any comments that could clear up my confusion.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Perhaps it just depends on which angle you come at these things. Horse before the cart and all that. If we assume that the universe had to be "just so" for life to exist then wow! if life was the purpose of the universe, what are the odds? On the other hand, the universe is just how it is and therefore the odds on life not happening are zero.

Hi Crocusj!

I agree - if you postulate that the current situation could arise by chance and there are an infinite number of chances, you could definitely argue that we must be here because we are one of the few times it worked.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Skwim]

I am a scientist and with every year I learn more about the natural world around me the more unbelievable it is that there is no creator. More so, this creator is an artist and operated above functionality. He loves athsetics, intricate detail, diversity.

Welcome to the forum and the discussion. Out of curiosity, in what field of science did you earn your degree(s)?

Thanks.

 

[crocusj]

Hi Crocusj!

I agree - if you postulate that the current situation could arise by chance and there are an infinite number of chances, you could definitely argue that we must be here because we are one of the few times it worked.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

Hi. That is not what I am saying. Excuse my clumsiness. I am saying that if the universe happens only once there is still no reason to suppose that the odds of life occurring are necessarily high unless the purpose of the universe is specifically for our lives to occur. We may well be here by chance, a by-product of a forming universe and one that if the universe were to form a million times you might not get again but the odds are still meaningless. We are here because conditions are right for us (life)to be here. So what? I am sure there are many unique phenomena in the universe. The odds of us not existing are only important if we are important and I see no reason to suppose that is true.

 

[outhouse]

I am a scientist and with every year I learn more about the natural world around me the more unbelievable it is that there is no creator. More so, this creator is an artist and operated above functionality. He loves athsetics, intricate detail, diversity.

I've heard the scientific arguments that supposedly contradict the bible and none of them hold water. They are normally born out of a bad knowledge of both Science and Scripture.

Evolution is quite obviously the means by which God brought forth his creation. There are enough bones and obvious links to show that. But when we say evolution what do we mean?

Evolution definitely happened but it explains only a fraction of the natural world. It is the best model we have so far but is far from a best model.

Staticians have done various simulations using conservative probability spectrums to simulate evolutionary theory. Based on the link between animals which were supposed to have involved from oneanother and the given time difference between the age of the bones it was shown mathematically that that evolution advances way to fast to be sourced from random events and selective pruning.

I.e. It has been mathematically proven that evolution happened but at the same time it has been proven that it is impossible to have happened at the rate the bones indicate.

One conclusion, an intelligent designer used evolution but guided it so that it was not driven by merely random mutations and natural selection.

Utterly false

 

[outhouse]

Firstly let me state that I am a Christian I and do believe that evolution is a shallow model of something far more complex driven by the intelligent design of God the Father and Jesus the Son who together with the holy spirit form the authority in heaven and earth.

Again, I agree with you. Some macro evolutionary systems seem to have come into existance in such a short space of time yet are so complex and hard to explain in the scope of a "one mutation leads to another" path of logic.

Regarding mankind as being not as evolved as other natural organisms:
I would disagree. Firstly from an evolutionary perspective you have to define what is better, complexity or survival. In both cases humans are better at surviving and more complex. The human brain alone is vastly more complex than any micro or macro system in nature.

First of all, evolution is not up for debate and its basic idea hasnt changed in a 150 years. Nor will it ever.

Living things evolve. End of story.

There is ZERO evidence of a sky daddy having his hand in the mix.

The only problem I see with you is that your sticking god in the gaps of your knowledge.


As far as homo sapiens are concerned, there is a clear evolutionary path from a common primate ancestor. Is it complete?, no. Is the picture crystal clear? Yes it is. Can more work be done to add to the total picture? yes it can but it doesnt change the fact we evolved.


There is no evidence anywhere that a sky daddy lifted so much as a finger in any part of life on this planet.

 

[outhouse]

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Hi. That is not what I am saying. Excuse my clumsiness. I am saying that if the universe happens only once there is still no reason to suppose that the odds of life occurring are necessarily high unless the purpose of the universe is specifically for our lives to occur. We may well be here by chance, a by-product of a forming universe and one that if the universe were to form a million times you might not get again but the odds are still meaningless. We are here because conditions are right for us (life)to be here. So what? I am sure there are many unique phenomena in the universe. The odds of us not existing are only important if we are important and I see no reason to suppose that is true.

Hi Crocusj!

Sorry I misunderstood. Let me give it another go. I believe that reality can be looked on at many levels, for example a forest - you can see the forest as an object, or single out one of the trees as an object, or one of the tree's cells, etc. Looking at the universe objectively as a whole, I can understand your point. What does the universe care whether humans evolve? You're right, taken on a purely physical level, we are all just jumbles of atoms and does it really matter what pattern the atoms happen to fall into? Is that what you mean by the odds of us not existing are not important? If so, I guess I can agree if I look at the universe as a whole, on a purely physical level.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[McBell]

I am a scientist and with every year I learn more about the natural world around me the more unbelievable it is that there is no creator. More so, this creator is an artist and operated above functionality. He loves athsetics, intricate detail, diversity.

I've heard the scientific arguments that supposedly contradict the bible and none of them hold water. They are normally born out of a bad knowledge of both Science and Scripture.

Evolution is quite obviously the means by which God brought forth his creation. There are enough bones and obvious links to show that. But when we say evolution what do we mean?

Evolution definitely happened but it explains only a fraction of the natural world. It is the best model we have so far but is far from a best model.

Staticians have done various simulations using conservative probability spectrums to simulate evolutionary theory. Based on the link between animals which were supposed to have involved from oneanother and the given time difference between the age of the bones it was shown mathematically that that evolution advances way to fast to be sourced from random events and selective pruning.

I.e. It has been mathematically proven that evolution happened but at the same time it has been proven that it is impossible to have happened at the rate the bones indicate.

One conclusion, an intelligent designer used evolution but guided it so that it was not driven by merely random mutations and natural selection.

So basicaly you are saying that because the probability of life as we know it coming about without intervention of god is so high, god did it?

Please be so kind as to show your work.

And let us not forget the probability of god doing it.
Please show your work for that number as well.

 

[zemelo.franky]

So basicaly you are saying that because the probability of life as we is no it coming about without intervention of god is so high, god did it?

Please be so kind as to show your work.

And let us not forget the probability of god doing it.
Please show your work for that number as well.

I stole his workbook:

Answer = [ ]

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there anything for Creationism other than the appeal that comes with being a specific form of appeal to miracles?

 

[crocusj]

Hi Crocusj!

Sorry I misunderstood. Let me give it another go. I believe that reality can be looked on at many levels, for example a forest - you can see the forest as an object, or single out one of the trees as an object, or one of the tree's cells, etc. Looking at the universe objectively as a whole, I can understand your point. What does the universe care whether humans evolve? You're right, taken on a purely physical level, we are all just jumbles of atoms and does it really matter what pattern the atoms happen to fall into? Is that what you mean by the odds of us not existing are not important? If so, I guess I can agree if I look at the universe as a whole, on a purely physical level.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

I can see it no other way. And if some large asteroid swings by and wipes us off this planet I'm not sure all the odds would matter a jot. Just the universe doing what the universe does, I suppose.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I can see it no other way. And if some large asteroid swings by and wipes us off this planet I'm not sure all the odds would matter a jot. Just the universe doing what the universe does, I suppose.

Perhaps left on its own an asteroid might, but the universe according to Scripture does God's will for us.

Earth is permanent to last forever.

[Ecc 1v4 B; Psalm 78v69 B; 104v5; 96v10; Isaiah 45v18; 1st Chron 16v30]

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps left on its own an asteroid might, but the universe according to Scripture does God's will for us.

Earth is permanent to last forever.

[Ecc 1v4 B; Psalm 78v69 B; 104v5; 96v10; Isaiah 45v18; 1st Chron 16v30]

The Sun will die, and take Earth with it.

 

[victormeldrew]

The Sun will die, and take Earth with it.

Or worse. We are long overdue for a supernova in this sector of the galaxy. Massive radiation.

Be happy!

Victor

 

[crocusj]

Perhaps left on its own an asteroid might, but the universe according to Scripture does God's will for us.

Earth is permanent to last forever.

[Ecc 1v4 B; Psalm 78v69 B; 104v5; 96v10; Isaiah 45v18; 1st Chron 16v30]

Since the earth had a beginning it can hardly be described as infinite. Even if this god of yours can juggle as well as you say, what is his plan for the Sun's inevitable demise? More platitudes?

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Since the earth had a beginning it can hardly be described as infinite. Even if this god of yours can juggle as well as you say, what is his plan for the Sun's inevitable demise? More platitudes?

Hi Crocusj!

I think most fundamentalist Christians believe that God will create a new heaven and a new earth. I've never met one who was worried about the sun burning out (in 5 billion years, is it? - not sure) because they all plan on the apocalypse happening way before then.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2: