Irony of the evolutionary belief

[We Never Know]

Science universally recognizes the "cause and effect" law as a settled science. This law states that every effect must have a cause, in other words nothing can happen unless something causes it to happen. If we apply this law to the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution, it exposes them as being fundamentally flawed theories. As both theories are lacking a cause, or foundation.

Logic tells us that nothing came form nothing, and nothing happens unless something causes it to happen. Life is tooo complexed to suggest it came out of nothing, if we look at a Picasso painting it bares witness of an artist. How much more complexed is life. It takes a lot more faith to believe that life spontaneously evolved without a designer.

I think I read once that things that exist require a cause. However without a beginning, that has always existed, does not require a cause.

With that said... if the universe always existed, it has no cause. If it has a beginning, then it has a cause.

 

[McBell]

Since I understand the theory

Your posts in this and other threads strongly indicate otherwise.

 

[McBell]

They are still plants. Now "science" can help figure out both how to propagate and also which plants may help certain conditions. That's a pretty graph though that you put up. Thanks for that. Interesting.

Of course they are still plants.
Just like animals are still animals.

In your vast knowledge of evolution do you think there is a plant that becomes something other than a plant?
Or an animal that becomes something other than an animal?

 

[Charles Philips]

I think I read once that things that exist require a cause. However without a beginning, that has always existed, does not require a cause.

With that said... if the universe always existed, it has no cause. If it has a beginning, then it has a cause.

That doesn't explain the who or what or how or why or when. It's just an attempt to make sense of reality, but it doesn't actually answer any questions

 

[Charles Philips]

Really? I have never seen a "cause and effect law". It is the norm for most cases but not all. Do you have a link that supports you?

There are uncaused events in the sciences. When you get down to the quantum level the rules are not cause and effect. The rules are all probabilistic.

By the way, life did not "come from nothing", it probably arose naturally through complex chemistry. That is not "from nothing".

I was referring to logic, I'm not sure if science recognizes the existence of logic. But logic simply concludes that a painting must have a painter, a painting didn't spontaneously evolve with a cause.

now your asking me to believe that "complex chemistry" came from nothing and nobody created it. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in the "everything came from nothing" theory. It takes a lot of denial of facts and logic to embrace that theory, and I'm unable to empty myself of so much to embrace it.

 

[We Never Know]

That doesn't explain the who or what or how or why or when. It's just an attempt to make sense of reality, but it doesn't actually answer any questions

My post isn't about the who or what or how or why or when. It's about cause. Sorry you didn't understand it.

 

[Charles Philips]

My post isn't about the who or what or how or why or when. It's about cause. Sorry you didn't understand it.

The "who or what" represent the cause. So those two words cover the question regarding the cause, which science has no answers to anyway so it's a dead end subject.

 

[Pogo]

I was referring to logic, I'm not sure if science recognizes the existence of logic. But logic simply concludes that a painting must have a painter, a painting didn't spontaneously evolve with a cause.

now your asking me to believe that "complex chemistry" came from nothing and nobody created it. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in the "everything came from nothing" theory. It takes a lot of denial of facts and logic to embrace that theory, and I'm unable to empty myself of so much to embrace it.

Sorry there is no law of cause and effect in science only in so called creation science and bad philosophy and theology.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Science universally recognizes the "cause and effect" law as a settled science. This law states that every effect must have a cause, in other words nothing can happen unless something causes it to happen. If we apply this law to the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution, it exposes them as being fundamentally flawed theories. As both theories are lacking a cause, or foundation.

Resolving ultimate unseen causes requires knowledge that isn't available. The theory comes from the observation that the universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards the universe must at one time have been very dense and hot; and that is all Big Bang theory model is about. It is calculations and simulations. Discipline requires forbearance and the patience to wait for a proper answer. If we want to talk about causes all we really have is the density suggested by that backward extrapolation. The density might be what is causing the Big Bang, however that does not tell us why the universe is dense and hot, whether a previous state precedes it or not. Making guesses is not within the discipline required.

People who want to prove God exists using telescopes basically are demanding that God become visible. It seems to me they are the ones fighting God. Science (in this case) is doing what it is supposed to do: good work.

Logic tells us that nothing came form nothing, and nothing happens unless something causes it to happen. Life is tooo complexed to suggest it came out of nothing, if we look at a Picasso painting it bares witness of an artist. How much more complexed is life. It takes a lot more faith to believe that life spontaneously evolved without a designer.

That is philosophy. Science has philosophy but also applies the discipline of testing and of only pursuing questions which are suggested by observations. Philosophy is not so constrained and deals with any idea. There is no problem with being a philosopher, however good research of nature requires this specific discipline. Mixing Science with flights of fantasy results in pseudoscience like books about pyramid power. You can't have no discipline that results in discipline.

 

[McBell]

I was referring to logic, I'm not sure if science recognizes the existence of logic. But logic simply concludes that a painting must have a painter, a painting didn't spontaneously evolve with a cause.

now your asking me to believe that "complex chemistry" came from nothing and nobody created it. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in the "everything came from nothing" theory. It takes a lot of denial of facts and logic to embrace that theory, and I'm unable to empty myself of so much to embrace it.

What is this "everything came from nothing theory" you keep mentioning?

Perhaps you can explain what it is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was referring to logic, I'm not sure if science recognizes the existence of logic. But logic simply concludes that a painting must have a painter, a painting didn't spontaneously evolve with a cause.

You clearly do not understand logic because you used a a begging the question fallacy just now. Logic is a tool. But improperly used gives wrong answers. Surely you have heard of "GIGO".

now your asking me to believe that "complex chemistry" came from nothing and nobody created it. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in the "everything came from nothing" theory. It takes a lot of denial of facts and logic to embrace that theory, and I'm unable to empty myself of so much to embrace it.

What do you mean "came form nothing"? I am not a creationist, I do not believe in creation from nothing. You are doing some heavy projection there.

 

[Charles Philips]

Sorry there is no law of cause and effect in science only in so called creation science and bad philosophy and theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is this "everything came from nothing theory" you keep mentioning?

Perhaps you can explain what it is?

Well at least he acknowledges that evolution is a fact. I mean, we have a master of logic here. He surely knows the consequences of moving the goalposts to a different though related topic and would never commit that logical fallacy.

 

[Charles Philips]

Sorry there is no law of cause and effect in science only in so called creation science and bad philosophy and theology.

That's one man's attempt, at justifying the failure of secular science to explain the basic questions a 4 year old child may ask.

Secular science defends it's inability to answer the basic fundamental questions, which it it based on. Secular science claims to be based on theories made by observations, and when observation is not possible as with the theory of evolution. It claims that "causation" is non existent.

It's all well and good to admit that secular science has no answers, regarding causes. But it can't claim they don't exist, the simple truth is secular science doesn't know what the causes are. Secular Science is based on 'CIRCULAR REASONING', whereby it starts with a premise and then bases everything on that theory.

The problem with that kind of science is, it's not open to investigation or correction, when faults are discovered. Circular Reasoning, relies on an unproven theory being accepted as fact and doesn't allow for error. It's a closed minded system which relies on the ignorance of those who embrace it to survive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's one man's attempt, at justifying the failure of secular science to explain the basic questions a 4 year old child may ask.

Secular science defends it's inability to answer the basic fundamental questions, which it it based on. Secular science claims to be based on theories made by observations, and when observation is not possible as with the theory of evolution. It claims that "causation" is non existent.

It's all well and good to admit that secular science has no answers, regarding causes. But it can't claim they don't exist, the simple truth is secular science doesn't know what the causes are. Secular Science is based on 'CIRCULAR REASONING', whereby it starts with a premise and then bases everything on that theory.

The problem with that kind of science is, it's not open to investigation or correction, when faults are discovered. Circular Reasoning, relies on an unproven theory being accepted as fact and doesn't allow for error. It's a closed minded system which relies on the ignorance of those who embrace it to survive.

Please be more specific in your charges. I have never seen "circular reasoning" used by scientists. I have seen creationists use strawman arguments.

Or, you could ask questions.

For example we know that abiogenesis happened on the Earth. The question is was it natural or was it by magic. I lean towards natural.

 

[Charles Philips]

Resolving ultimate unseen causes requires knowledge that isn't available. The theory comes from the observation that the universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards the universe must at one time have been very dense and hot; and that is all Big Bang theory model is about. It is calculations and simulations. Discipline requires forbearance and the patience to wait for a proper answer. If we want to talk about causes all we really have is the density suggested by that backward extrapolation. The density might be what is causing the Big Bang, however that does not tell us why the universe is dense and hot, whether a previous state precedes it or not. Making guesses is not within the discipline required.

People who want to prove God exists using telescopes basically are demanding that God become visible. It seems to me they are the ones fighting God. Science (in this case) is doing what it is supposed to do: good work.



That is philosophy. Science has philosophy but also applies the discipline of testing and of only pursuing questions which are suggested by observations. Philosophy is not so constrained and deals with any idea. There is no problem with being a philosopher, however good research of nature requires this specific discipline. Mixing Science with flights of fantasy results in pseudoscience like books about pyramid power. You can't have no discipline that results in discipline.

There are many conflicting "sciences", so there is no consensus in the scientific community on the unproven mysterious things.

Every type of science agrees on the obvious things, which can easily be proved by performing simple experiments and observing the results. The laws of physics are obeyed by all matter, and all matter behaves according to it's nature. Water boils and freezes at predetermined temperatures, so it's observable and repeatable and that makes it a science fact.

There's no argument for anyone regarding the repeatable and observable scientific facts. The problem has to do with "theories", a theory says "this is probable because what we can observe suggests it" but it is not the same as a repeatable and observable fact. A theory requires faith on the part of the observer or student to believe that it is plausible and possible but it can't claim to be a settled science until it is finally proven.

 

[Charles Philips]

What is this "everything came from nothing theory" you keep mentioning?

Perhaps you can explain what it is?

It's the theory of the big bang and theory of evolution, which both claim to have no cause. Those of us who reject those theories, do so because we only believe in evidence based, proven facts. A theory is just an unproven hypothesis and that's unacceptable to those of us who only believe in evidence based, documented facts

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many conflicting "sciences", so there is no consensus in the scientific community on the unproven mysterious things.

Every type of science agrees on the obvious things, which can easily be proved by performing simple experiments and observing the results. The laws of physics are obeyed by all matter, and all matter behaves according to it's nature. Water boils and freezes at predetermined temperatures, so it's observable and repeatable and that makes it a science fact.

There's no argument for anyone regarding the repeatable and observable scientific facts. The problem has to do with "theories", a theory says "this is probable because what we can observe suggests it" but it is not the same as a repeatable and observable fact. A theory requires faith on the part of the observer or student to believe that it is plausible and possible but it can't claim to be a settled science until it is finally proven.

You could not be more wrong. A theory is based upon evidence. It has to be able to explain all of the evidence of a particular field of science. It has to be falsifiable, that means that there must be reasonable tests that could possibly show it to be wrong. The theory of evolution has been tested millions of time and keeps passing those tests.

You are conflating the lay definition of a theory with the scientific one. In the sciences a scientific theory is at the top of the hierarchy. If anything a theory outranks laws. In the history of science no theory has ever become a law, but who would want that? That would be a demotion. I know of at least one law that was supplanted by a scientific theory, and it is a big one.

It is rather clear that you do not have a very extensive knowledge of the sciences. Perhaps your time would be better spent asking questions and trying to learn.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are many conflicting "sciences", so there is no consensus in the scientific community on the unproven mysterious things.

Every type of science agrees on the obvious things, which can easily be proved by performing simple experiments and observing the results. The laws of physics are obeyed by all matter, and all matter behaves according to it's nature. Water boils and freezes at predetermined temperatures, so it's observable and repeatable and that makes it a science fact.

There's no argument for anyone regarding the repeatable and observable scientific facts. The problem has to do with "theories", a theory says "this is probable because what we can observe suggests it" but it is not the same as a repeatable and observable fact. A theory requires faith on the part of the observer or student to believe that it is plausible and possible but it can't claim to be a settled science until it is finally proven.

In the old USSR you'd be right. It was politically trying to argue that God didn't exist; and it tried to claim Science had a place in disproving theology. The people thought that religion was dividing humanity, so they tried to eliminate it through arguments and political pressures. That was incorrect and was a corruption of the discipline of science. It was sloppy, too and tended to accept any convenient result which supported its political aims. We are not in the USSR.

The alleged circular reasoning that you refer to is a challenge leveled in churches, but evolution is pretty obviously a process that is continuing all the time. Its not about theology at all, not today except in communist countries. They are kind of backwards about that. Evolution is known to happen since it is a process that can be observed, so scientists should not be blamed for noticing it.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Its a hypothesis that perhaps the first cells came from chemical processes, but evolution is testable independent of how the first cells appear. Abiogenesis is an explanation for how things might have started. That is why it is not a theory but a hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's the theory of the big bang and theory of evolution, which both claim to have no cause. Those of us who reject those theories, do so because we only believe in evidence based, proven facts. A theory is just an unproven hypothesis and that's unacceptable to those of us who only believe in evidence based, documented facts

Incorrect. The Big Bang cause is unknown. That does not mean that is has no cause, but you know what? It might not have one.

And no, the theory of evolution is based quite often on causes. And I doubt if you even understand what is and what is not evidence. That is a concept that you can easily understand if you want to.