The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Vger]

You dont have a leg to stand on.

so far your talking fantasy and want me to give credibility tosomething that at this point doesnt exist.


I understand why you dont have evidence

Credit ? From someone on the internet , someone I don't know? Really? This is unreal. You may find this of interest if not , I can live with it . Antony Flew Abandons Atheism - Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design This is just food for thought not fact. Wow. I am out of here.:run:

 

[Photonic]

First off I am not a theist. But there is some evidence toward ID. You may find the book "There is a God" by Anthony Flew interesting. I just feel that anyone that is so sure of their beliefs that they know with out a doubt that they are correct , just is not using their mind for much.If you are an atheist, and you maintain that there is no way you would ever believe in God, then you are not a skeptic. An atheist who is not a skeptic is just another troll, as far as I’m concerned. However, even if I were somehow convinced that God exists, I would not cease being a skeptic. I would still adhere to the same core epistemic values of critical thinking, honest inquiry, and empirical support for beliefs.As I feel we all should. If not , you may as well believe in the tooth fairy.

There is a difference between being a skeptic and being foolish in the face of facts.

 

[outhouse]

Credit ? From someone on the internet , someone I don't know? Really? This is unreal. You may find this of interest if not , I can live with it . Antony Flew Abandons Atheism - Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design This is just food for thought not fact. Wow. I am out of here.:run:

I wish people that get on here would do a little research on the links they post.

I know this well, FAIL ty again.

You know theres a good chance he didnt even write his book. Its almost certain he didnt.


Not only that he turned from atheism to his own form of religion that doesnt match up with conventional beliefs.



ID is nothing more then wishful thinking, all the credibal research and evidence can be put on a single page of paper, and still have room to write what you want.

At this point ID is a failed attempt to keep creation in schools by rebranding creation. its outlawed from public schools. enough said.

 

[shawn001]

Credit ? From someone on the internet , someone I don't know? Really? This is unreal. You may find this of interest if not , I can live with it . Antony Flew Abandons Atheism - Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design This is just food for thought not fact. Wow. I am out of here.:run:

That an atheist philospher changed his mind to Christanity, because he thinks ID is a good hypothesis because of "fine tuning" yet still doesn't believe in the bible and thinks that god hasn't intervened since the big bang.

So god didn't intervened and make a planet the size of mars slam into the earth to form our moon, it was just a random event and one reason why were here.

What about all the rest of the random events then?

Then another part of the site says

"
Irreducible Complexity

Perhaps the most important Creationist response to this has been to appeal to irreducible complexity. An organism is irreducibly complex if taking away some of its parts doesn’t just make it work a little worse, but makes it not work at all.
An illustration of irreducible complexity is a mouse trap. A mouse trap consists of several elements: a flat platform, a spring, a trigger, an arm, and some cheese. A mouse trap with all of these elements will work well. A mouse trap that lacks any one of these elements, though, won’t just not work well, it won’t work at all."

Ah the mouse trap argument.

Dr. Kenneth Miller uses Dr. Beatty's very own example of a mouse trap to prove why he thinks the central idea of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, is wrong.

[youtube]p-ms2kfenBQ[/youtube]
Intelligent design in a mouse trap - YouTube

It was professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity.

These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Michael Behe developed his ideas on the concept around 1992, in the early days of the 'wedge movement',


The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat scientific materialism represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"
Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time, gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we have evolved on an upward curve.
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex."

"
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this): think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won’t just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won’t have any survival value at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can’t have incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn’t evolution. Evolution is a gradual process."

even though here

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience


LOL

The person who wrote the site doesn't believe in the scientific theory of evolution and the billions of facts that support it.

Then his responce to the many worlds, although he doesn't have that right either, because just in our galaxy alone there are some 100 billion planets and there are a hundred billion galaxies.

This guy is jumping all over the place and first doesn't understand evolution to begin with.



Nor does he bring into it the actual science of QM and the possiblities of multiverses.

Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?

Hard as it is to swallow, cutting-edge theories are suggesting that our universe may not be the only universe. Instead, it may be just one of an infinite number of universes that make up the "multiverse." In this show, Brian Greene takes us on a tour of this brave new theory at the frontier of physics, showing what some of these alternate realities might be like. Some universes may be almost indistinguishable from our own; others may contain variations of all of us, where we exist but with different families, careers, and life stories. In still others, reality may be so radically different from ours as to be unrecognizable. Brian Greene reveals why this radical new picture of the cosmos is getting serious attention from scientists. It won't be easy to prove, but if it's right, our understanding of space, time, and our place in the universe will never be the same.

[youtube]-FGgkfsMpCs[/youtube]
Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? - YouTube


There are a ton of problems with the site you posted as any evidence for ID. You also have scolded others for saying god is not a possiblity yet here he is saying multiverses or life on other planets is not a possiblity. Anothers words, he can't explain it so a god must have done it. I didn't see him mention aliens doing it?

Everything after the big bang evolved, including the elements were made from in super nova star explosions.

Not only that but the "IDer" desinged a universe that will eventually not have matter or intelligence in it later down the line.


" If the conditions weren’t suitable for life, we wouldn’t be asking why they are as the are.If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn’t be asking why it is so finely adjusted."

Life in the Universe by Stephen Hawking « physics4me


In 2006 a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.

 

[shawn001]

"EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."
But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument.

"The fundamental problem with creationism is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."
But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[gnostic]

ID has already failed to qualify to be science.

Usually when hypothesis failed to pass muster - like

1. not using scientific method,
2. not have any evidence to support it,
3. cannot be verified through independent sources,
4. or not getting through peer review...

...then that hypothesis should have been dropped and forgotten. A hypothesis can either be proven or refuted. When it is refuted then the hypothesis should have been discarded.

Getting back on to subject of ID.

Intelligent Design should have died out when their proposition wasn't accepted by scientific communities. It has never met any of the criteria of scientific method. It is nothing more than pseudoscience and creationism in guise.

But the Intelligent Design advocates refused to give up. It used all sort of tactics to get approval from those who are not scientific illiterates through deception and desperate propaganda. It tried to get into public school systems, and yet it is not taught by any of the leading universities around the world. It tried to use the law to force ID being taught in schools as a science subjects. It resorted to appealing to government officials, who has no idea whatsoever of what procedures any proposition or hypothesis before accepted as a scientific theory.

All these tactics showed how desperate they are to make creationism acceptable as science. And that's what Intelligent Design is - another form of creationism.

So I seriously question your motive, vger, as to why Intelligent Design be accepted as science and taught as science, when it is nothing more than creationism and pseudoscience.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You don't even know your own religion.


<H4>Genesis 1

The History of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
</H4> Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Earth was made on the first day the sun on the fourth day.

Did NOT happen that way of course.

Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1? | Reasons To Believe

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ah the mouse trap argument.

Dr. Kenneth Miller uses Dr. Beatty's very own example of a mouse trap to prove why he thinks the central idea of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, is wrong.

[youtube]p-ms2kfenBQ[/youtube]
Intelligent design in a mouse trap - YouTube

This video is a misunderstanding of the argument. Dr. Miller said the mousetrap, if you took away any of its parts, could be used for other things (spit ball device, tie holder,etc). Granted, but that isn't the point. The point is, when you take different parts away from the mousetrap, it will fail to perform the function THAT IT WAS designed FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!. This is equivilent to me taking a car motor out of a car. If i did this, the car will no longer function. But lets say i took the car motor out of the car for the purpose of dropping it on someones head. The car motor can still be used, but for purposes OTHER THAN what it was DESIGNED FOR. So this is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE argument shawn and im suprised you thought highly of it to even post, because the argument is elementary school flawed. Second, Irreducible complexity is inescapable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning And these are just 10. There are at least 80 more. Fine tuning is a brute FACT. Scientist know that it is a fact, that is why they postulated the so called "multiverse" theory as a way to say, "if there are a infinite number of universes out there, there will have to be at least one universe that has just the right conditions for human life". So the plan is to multiply the possibilities until you get the desired result. You have to try very hard to not to believe in ID.

 

[PolyHedral]

Fine tuning is a brute FACT.

Have you seen the video of Derren Brown tossing a completely unbiased, fair coin and getting 10 heads in a row?

 

[idav]

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning[/URL] And these are just 10. There are at least 80 more. Fine tuning is a brute FACT. Scientist know that it is a fact, that is why they postulated the so called "multiverse" theory as a way to say, "if there are a infinite number of universes out there, there will have to be at least one universe that has just the right conditions for human life". So the plan is to multiply the possibilities until you get the desired result. You have to try very hard to not to believe in ID.

This is not evidence of fine tuning. We are well aware that if the big bang didn't happen in a certain way that it would of collapsed on itself and we simply wouldn't be around to explain it. Just cause we are here and able to explain it is an obvious sign that it isn't impossible for it to happen. Winning the lottery simply is not proof of a designer since an infinite amount of things can happen in an infinite amount of time without a need for it to be purposeful.

 

[idav]

Here is the argument from the view of a biologist.
[youtube]ba2h9tqNYAo[/youtube]
'Design vs. Chance' by PZ Myers, AAI 2009 - YouTube

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Have you seen the video of Derren Brown tossing a completely unbiased, fair coin and getting 10 heads in a row?

No. But there are only two possibilities with the flipping of a coin. Based on this...
The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

...there are two possibilities for every PARAMETER. And in each parameter the right alternative has to be met, otherwise there would be no life. So you have improbability+improbability+improbability, etc. You cant escape fine tuning :no:

 

[Koldo]

Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1? | Reasons To Believe

Quoted from the link:

Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth "day." Most young-earth creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for "made" (asah) refers to an action completed in the past.7 Thus, the verse is correctly rendered "God had made" rather than "God made." This indicates God "had made" the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth "day."8
This view of the fourth "day" has broad support. For example, Gleason Archer, one of the foremost evangelical Hebrew scholars, states: "[Verse 16] should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day …9 Likewise, Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem states: "[Verse 16] Can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before … This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier …"10
So, when were the Sun, Moon and stars created? Genesis 1:1 tells us, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" (hashamayim we ha' erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence.11 This indicates the heavenly bodies—the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets—were created "in the beginning" prior to the six creation "days."

It doesn't make sense.
If the sun was created at the beginning, considering this is a written narrative, why is it mentioned only in the fourth day of the story?

 

[PolyHedral]

No. But there are only two possibilities with the flipping of a coin.

You don't have the first clue what you are talking about. There are 1,024 different ways of tossing a coin 10 times in a row. In Derren's show, he got exactly the one (i.e. all 10 heads) he wanted. He follows up this trick by successfully predicting the outcomes of six 6-horse races in a row. Both of these are entirely genuine, with no doctoring of either the video, coin or the races.

It's quite clear that something is fine-tuning his results, isn't it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is not evidence of fine tuning. We are well aware that if the big bang didn't happen in a certain way that it would of collapsed on itself and we simply wouldn't be around to explain it. Just cause we are here and able to explain it is an obvious sign that it isn't impossible for it to happen. Winning the lottery simply is not proof of a designer since an infinite amount of things can happen in an infinite amount of time without a need for it to be purposeful.

Not so. The physicist Roger Penrose, calculated that the probability of our universe being here by mere chance in light of low entropy conditions are 1:1010(123). That is a 10 as the base and a 1 as the exponent followed by 123 zeros. Very large and inconceivable number. And second, winning the lottery is not a good example of the fine tuning probability. Think of it more like you are standing above a big box, blindfolded. The box has a million balls in it. Every single ball in the box is the color black except one, which is white. So there are 999,999 black balls, and 1 white ball. You are blindfolded, and you are told to reach your hand in the box and grab a ball. If you grab a black ball, you will be executed. But if you grab a white ball, you will live. Now despite the colors of the balls, each ball you pick has the same probability of being chosen. But it is highly unlikely you will choose that SPECIFIC ball based on the color odds.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You don't have the first clue what you are talking about. There are 1,024 different ways of tossing a coin 10 times in a row. In Derren's show, he got exactly the one (i.e. all 10 heads) he wanted. He follows up this trick by successfully predicting the outcomes of six 6-horse races in a row. Both of these are entirely genuine, with no doctoring of either the video, coin or the races.

It's quite clear that something is fine-tuning his results, isn't it?

What the heck are you talking about? I said there are only two possbilities when flipping a coin. Only two results could happen, either you land HEADS or you land TAILS. Thats all i said. Attack some more straw man, will ya.

 

[Koldo]

No. But there are only two possibilities with the flipping of a coin. Based on this...

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

there are two possibilities for every PARAMETER. And in each parameter the right alternative has to be met, otherwise there would be no life. So you have improbability+improbability+improbability, etc. You cant escape fine tuning :no:

Question : Could these parameters possibly be set in a different manner? Could they really be larger or smaller?
This is not a question as to whether you can conceive them as being different, but rather if they could , in fact, be different than they are. If your answer is yes, then what evidence do you have?

 

[idav]

Not so. The physicist Roger Penrose, calculated that the probability of our universe being here by mere chance in light of low entropy conditions are 1:1010(123). That is a 10 as the base and a 1 as the exponent followed by 123 zeros. Very large and inconceivable number. And second, winning the lottery is not a good example of the fine tuning probability. Think of it more like you are standing above a big box, blindfolded. The box has a million balls in it. Every single ball in the box is the color black except one, which is white. So there are 999,999 black balls, and 1 white ball. You are blindfolded, and you are told to reach your hand in the box and grab a ball. If you grab a black ball, you will be executed. But if you grab a white ball, you will live. Now despite the colors of the balls, each ball you pick has the same probability of being chosen. But it is highly unlikely you will choose that SPECIFIC ball based on the color odds.

The lottery is a perfectly good example especially when you can give me the odds of winning said lottery. Again with eternity to play with your bound to hit the right sequence.

Besides that Koldo makes a good point that the paramaters we live in are needed for the universe we live in only cause that is how it turned out. A different stable universe could have a whole different set of rules.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The lottery is a perfectly good example especially when you can give me the odds of winning said lottery. Again with eternity to play with your bound to hit the right sequence.

Besides that Koldo makes a good point that the paramaters we live in are needed for the universe we live in only cause that is how it turned out. A different stable universe could have a whole different set of rules.

This isn't a case of "this is just the way we came out". The number that i gave is to inconceivable for this to happen by mere chance. Each paramater is improbable on its own merit. But for every single parameter's condition to be met makes the whole thing highly improbable as a whole. And "highly improbable" is an understatement.

 

[idav]

This isn't a case of "this is just the way we came out". The number that i gave is to inconceivable for this to happen by mere chance. Each paramater is improbable on its own merit. But for every single parameter's condition to be met makes the whole thing highly improbable as a whole. And "highly improbable" is an understatement.

Improbable to a point yet we exist (it is a wonder we exist at all ). You ever run the numbers on the probability that an outside agent was able to get it right the first time? I assure you that natural causes are much more probable.