Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Tiberius]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

That's not the question.

The question is: Where is the evidence to support such an idea?

It's foolish to believe something is true just because there's no evidence to show it is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

wow, thats a statement of ignorance...there's a ****load of evidence against it. What you should have said is that YOU dont believe the evidence against it!

Then please present it. I doubt if you have any. Let's do it one piece at a time and it helps a lot if you do not use a pseudoscience soruce.

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"! (you know what a theory is right?)

And right away you list two pseudoscience sources. I have a feeling that you do not even understand the scientific method.

To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare (despite my not even being a millionare right now. However, im an ideas man and some of my ideas are theorectically, brilliant ones!). The point is, historically i have nothing to support the theory i might become a billionare and that leaves my theory in tatters.

Okay, so you do not know what a theory is either. You are using a lay definition of theory. When one is discussing science one uses the scientific definition of theory. Here is a hint, theories outrank laws. If you accept scientific laws then you should accept scientific theories. And the definition of a scientific theory:

"
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record."

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

In everyday use, it may mean a hunch, or a guess. Scientists understand the term quite differently.

www.amnh.org

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

Why is that a problem for Christians? Most Christians know that the Bible is not a science book. Most Christians do not make the error of interpreting Genesis literally. Nor do they make the mistake of reading the Bible literally when it describes a geocentric universe, or even a Flat Earth. If you were consistent in your literal interpretation of the Bible you would have to have those beliefs as well.

EDIT: By the way, a theory has to be able to explain all observed phenomena that it covers. Not just some of them. Theories also have to be testable and the theory of evolution is testable in quite a few different ways. Mostly in the various hypotheses that it is comprised of. A hypothesis is also a scientific idea that is testable. It is tested on the predictions that it makes and almost all scientific evidence that you see was generated by hypotheses. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. In fact they run away from the concept as if it were Satan himself. That is what makes creationism a pseudoscience at best.

 

[F1fan]

wow, thats a statement of ignorance...there's a ****load of evidence against it. What you should have said is that YOU dont believe the evidence against it!

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"! (you know what a theory is right?)

Those websites are fraudulent. Creationism is fraud. Notice there are no creationist labs doing research. These creationist groups are businesses that rent office space where they create fraud and disinformation. Notice only conservative Christians and some Muslims buy into creationist disinformation. None of it is taught in accredited schools.

To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare (despite my not even being a millionare right now. However, im an ideas man and some of my ideas are theorectically, brilliant ones!). The point is, historically i have nothing to support the theory i might become a billionare and that leaves my theory in tatters.

See, you don’t understand what a theory in science is and how if differs from the colloquial definition of the word.

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

It’s the flawed literalist interpretation of the Bible that is the dilemma for Christians in the 21st century.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I consider the "evidence," or lack of it, it appears that there is a consistency in life but nothing evidences the process of evolution as promoted by many. Since so much of the discussion is ostensibly based on what is considered as evidence of the process of evolution, there really is none of the precise kind. Does that mean that God exists? Not saying that it means that, but it also doesn't mean that God does not exist. I believe there IS a God who created the heaven and the earth "in the beginning," and He will demonstrate who He is in the near enough future. First to those that are alive. Later to those who have died. Hey! Have a good one, y'all.

 

[Dimi95]

wow, thats a statement of ignorance...there's a ****load of evidence against it.

Ok , so now the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise since you claim the oposite.

What you should have said is that YOU dont believe the evidence against it!

Oh.... Here we go.

Why does it always have to go that way ? This tactic is analyzed

You bothering about what I should have said?

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"! [(you know what a theory is right?)

Ok , now the 'ad hominem' shows up.

But let's discuss some theory for the sake of the argument.
Can the 'proof' be true without evidence? What do you think?

To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare (despite my not even being a millionare right now. However, im an ideas man and some of my ideas are theorectically, brilliant ones!). The point is, historically i have nothing to support the theory i might become a billionare and that leaves my theory in tatters.

I have read it multiple times , and still can't understand how you adress the question with this weird analogy.

You understand that you adress something that is not fundementaly neccessary,do you? That tells something however.

Regardless of that,i belive that is the consequence of interpretating Scripture with adressing questions that are of no spiritual value(Apsolutly none - zero!).

You think that the Bible is the entire human History.But you fail to realize that is not the case.
The Bible itself does not stand against that

You should read Ephesians 4:25...

The dilemma for Christians is that historically, the Bible simply does not support naturalism theory as the basis for life...or old age earth for that matter.

Because you think 'The Bible' is the only neccessary merit , i get that.

When you realize that there is 'outside of the Bible' which doesn't make the Bible in any sense false,maybe you will prosper in the persue of knowledge.

Evolution doesn't need a Creator in the same sense as it does not bother with the question of 'Is there one'.

You should learn more about Genetics.

 

[McBell]

As I consider the "evidence," or lack of it, it appears that there is a consistency in life but nothing evidences the process of evolution as promoted by many.

I completely agree.
Answers In Genesis, The Discovery Institute, and other Liars For Jesus groups promote all manner of nonsense and crap they call evolution.

Since so much of the discussion is ostensibly based on what is considered as evidence of the process of evolution, there really is none of the precise kind. Does that mean that God exists? Not saying that it means that, but it also doesn't mean that God does not exist. I believe there IS a God who created the heaven and the earth "in the beginning," and He will demonstrate who He is in the near enough future. First to those that are alive. Later to those who have died. Hey! Have a good one, y'all.

Even if you were to prove 110% absolutely that evolution is false, it would reveal absolutely nothing about the existence of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Even if you were to prove 110% absolutely that evolution is false, it would reveal absolutely nothing about the existence of God.

hmm...I agree and believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I do not see that is not true. But this is not to say that if and, from what I see evolution is a well-established but not necessarily true thesis, I do not think this says God does not exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

I completely agree.
Answers In Genesis, The Discovery Institute, and other Liars For Jesus groups promote all manner of nonsense and crap they call evolution.


Even if you were to prove 110% absolutely that evolution is false, it would reveal absolutely nothing about the existence of God.

P.S. I am pretty sure I cannot prove evolution to be false. Especially since I see no evidence that it is true. OK, let me put it this way: I do not see that what is promoted as the truth about evolution is -- by evidence true. That's it.

 

[McBell]

I do not see that what is promoted as the truth about evolution is -- by evidence true. That's it.

That is because you get your information of The Theory of Evolution from Liars For Jesus sources.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is because you get your information of The Theory of Evolution from Liars For Jesus sources.

Actually I'm getting it from the (lack of) evidence and people like you that present what you consider to be the truth of science. Hey, have a good one.

 

[McBell]

Actually I'm getting it from the (lack of) evidence and people like you that present what you consider to be the truth of science. Hey, have a good one.

You go with whatever it is that helps you sleep at night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. I am pretty sure I cannot prove evolution to be false. Especially since I see no evidence that it is true. OK, let me put it this way: I do not see that what is promoted as the truth about evolution is -- by evidence true. That's it.

Then you do not even know what evidence is and really have no business debating the topic. With such epic ignorance almost any post that you make is apt be be a falsehood.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you do not even know what evidence is and really have no business debating the topic. With such epic ignorance almost any post that you make is apt be be a falsehood.

I was interested in this topic because I wanted to know what evolutionists believe. I can read textbooks and I understand about categories and fossils. But if you think this means evolution is true -- that's up to you. There is no debate I'm sure as far as you're concerned. And because what is there or not there, there really is no debate. There is no need for me to go any further about this with you now. I have learned a lot as to what people believe or don't believe. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was interested in this topic because I wanted to know what evolutionists believe. I can read textbooks and I understand about categories and fossils. But if you think this means evolution is true -- that's up to you. There is no debate I'm sure as far as you're concerned. And because what is there or not there, there really is no debate. There is no need for me to go any further about this with you now. I have learned a lot as to what people believe or don't believe. Thank you.

But you do not want to know. The only way to know what evolutionists believe is for you to learn yourself and you are afraid to do that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

[leroy]

If I have an objection, that objection will be against your justification of your claims. And since you refuse to share those, there isn't actually anything for me to object (or agree) to.

Ok, I will play by your rules,

One of the claims that I have made is that the Boltzmann brain paradox (BB Paradox) refutes any “chance did it” hypothesis, as an explanation of the FT of the universe. (Including the multiverse hypothesis and anthropic principle refutations)

This is the FT argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity
3. it is not due to chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

my claim is that the BB paradox refutes premise 3 , I am not claiming that the BB paradox alone shows that the conclusion is true, my intent is to show that premise 3 is true. (more arguments are needed to show that the other premises are ture)


Do you agree with me on that particular claim yes or no?

if not I will provide my justification.


Definitions, just for the sake of this post and related replies

Observer: in this context an observer is someone who observe himself living in a FT universe ether because he really lives in a FT universe, or because he is having a hallucination or a dream of him living in a FT universe



My justification:

The most probable type of observer is a Boltzmann Brain, in other words for every “normal observer” there would be trillions upon trillions of Boltzmann Brains that “imagine” themselves living in a FT universe, with planets, stars, people etc. when in reality they are just a brain floating in an nearly empty “none FT universe”

In other words there are much, much, much, more simple observers (BB) that live in a simple universe and that they are imagining themselves being complex creatures living in in a complex FT universe. than real complex observers (people) living in a real FT universe

As an analogy, if you observe yourself winning an improbable lottery 100 times in a row, chances say that you rare just dreaming or hallucinating, this hypothesis will always be more likelly to be true than.

The math

That BB are statistically more likelly than whole FT universes is not controvertial, while the exact maths are obviously impossible to determine with 100% accurecy, many estimates have been done, showing that BB are much, much, much more likelly that FT universes,

The probability of a FT universe: according to Roger Penrose

Let us return to the extraordinary degree of precision (or ‘fine-tuning’) that seems to be required for a Big Bang of the nature that we appear to observe. the required precision, in phase-space-volume terms, is one part in 10^1123 at least

https://ia601208.us.archive.org/6/items/RoadToRealityRobertPenrose/road%20to%20reality-robert%20penrose.pdf

this is a number with 1123 ceros after the decimal point

the probability of a BB

Application of Minkowski Space by means of a four-dimensional manifold beyond
Euclidean geometric characteristics that allow for length contraction and time dilatation
by unification of space and time. Here a Boltzmann Brain could spontaneously appear
by quantum fluctuation, with one estimate requiring 10^500.

https://osf.io/9kspr/download

this is a number with 500 ceros.


so while both numbers are very, very very small, the first is much much more smaller, for every FT universe we would have more than 10^600
BB ... so under that basis I am supporting my clam tha BB are more likely than FT universes.

The implicatios:

well there are 2 implications:
1 that you are a BB is a Reductio ad absurdum which means that we most reject any hypothesis that leads to that conclusion which means that you should reject chance

2 that you are a BB is demosntrably a better hypotheis than chance, so in any case, chance is discarted as the best explanatin, because there is alteast one that is better than chance. which means that premise 3 in the argument is correct.



soooo....
Do you agree in that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypotheiss? if not why not, please select your specific point of disagreement and explain why you disagree.

If you agree, then please let me know and I will provide justification for the other premises.

 

[YoursTrue]

But you do not want to know. The only way to know what evolutionists believe is for you to learn yourself and you are afraid to do that.

You are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I will play by your rules,

One of the claims that I have made is that the Boltzmann brain paradox (BB Paradox) refutes any “chance did it” hypothesis, as an explanation of the FT of the universe. (Including the multiverse hypothesis and anthropic principle refutations)

This is the FT argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

Okay, that is not too bad.

1. It is not due to physical necessity

Whoa (and sorry, I did not change your numbers, that occurred automatically) How do you know that it is not due to physical necessity? In fact I pointed out that the biggest one that creationists point to has been shown to be by physical necessity. The Sean Carrol video explained that to you. Are the others due to physical necessity? We do not know yet.

1. it is not due to chance.

And how do you know that? Some of them may have been. We know that at least one if due to physical necessity. Who knows? the rest may be too. We don't know.

1. Therefore, it is due to design.

Sorry, you have not shown any reason at all for this conclusion. How can you show "design" to be more than "dumb luck" as an answer? You do not get to assume that it is easy.

my claim is that the BB paradox refutes premise 3 , I am not claiming that the BB paradox alone shows that the conclusion is true, my intent is to show that premise 3 is true. (more arguments are needed to show that the other premises are ture)

But that is the very one that Sean Carroll covered. When you cannot do the math at all you cannot argue which answer is more likely. All that you have is an argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are wrong.

No, I am correct. You keep demonstrating it. I have tried to help you to learn. Others have tried to help you to learn. You keep making the same ridiculous errors no matter how many times that they are explained to you. If I am wrong then that means that you have been lying the whole time here. I do not think that you are a liar. You just won't let yourself learn. Probably due to the fears that were put upon you from birth.

It is not a false dichotomy since sooooooooo many have tried to help you and you still do not get it. So, do you not understand evolution at all or are you a liar? I can even repeat an argument of yours that demonstrates that you do not understand evolution.

 

[Pogo]

Ok, I will play by your rules,

One of the claims that I have made is that the Boltzmann brain paradox (BB Paradox) refutes any “chance did it” hypothesis, as an explanation of the FT of the universe. (Including the multiverse hypothesis and anthropic principle refutations)

This is the FT argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity
3. it is not due to chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

my claim is that the BB paradox refutes premise 3 , I am not claiming that the BB paradox alone shows that the conclusion is true, my intent is to show that premise 3 is true. (more arguments are needed to show that the other premises are ture)


Do you agree with me on that particular claim yes or no?

if not I will provide my justification.


Definitions, just for the sake of this post and related replies

Observer: in this context an observer is someone who observe himself living in a FT universe ether because he really lives in a FT universe, or because he is having a hallucination or a dream of him living in a FT universe



My justification:

The most probable type of observer is a Boltzmann Brain, in other words for every “normal observer” there would be trillions upon trillions of Boltzmann Brains that “imagine” themselves living in a FT universe, with planets, stars, people etc. when in reality they are just a brain floating in an nearly empty “none FT universe”

In other words there are much, much, much, more simple observers (BB) that live in a simple universe and that they are imagining themselves being complex creatures living in in a complex FT universe. than real complex observers (people) living in a real FT universe

As an analogy, if you observe yourself winning an improbable lottery 100 times in a row, chances say that you rare just dreaming or hallucinating, this hypothesis will always be more likelly to be true than.

The math

That BB are statistically more likelly than whole FT universes is not controvertial, while the exact maths are obviously impossible to determine with 100% accurecy, many estimates have been done, showing that BB are much, much, much more likelly that FT universes,

The probability of a FT universe: according to Roger Penrose

this is a number with 1123 ceros after the decimal point

the probability of a BB

this is a number with 500 ceros.


so while both numbers are very, very very small, the first is much much more smaller, for every FT universe we would have more than 10^600
BB ... so under that basis I am supporting my clam tha BB are more likely than FT universes.

The implicatios:

well there are 2 implications:
1 that you are a BB is a Reductio ad absurdum which means that we most reject any hypothesis that leads to that conclusion which means that you should reject chance

2 that you are a BB is demosntrably a better hypotheis than chance, so in any case, chance is discarted as the best explanatin, because there is alteast one that is better than chance. which means that premise 3 in the argument is correct.



soooo....
Do you agree in that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypotheiss? if not why not, please select your specific point of disagreement and explain why you disagree.

If you agree, then please let me know and I will provide justification for the other premises.

I like it, the probability we are a BB is really tiny and that is absurd.
10^600 times less likely than that is that the universe is fine tuned.
Since FT is that absurdly absurdly small a possibility and we are here (at least we think so since BBs are absurd) then obviously the universe is due to necessity.