Effect without mechanism, suspension of the natural laws of physics -- that's magic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
I think we slightly disagree.
Everything is random. Everything that appears to not be random is just the average of many random things.
Please don't tell me that you do not accept Quantum Mechanics, either
Ciao
- viole
McBell
Unbound
Might want to offer up something that needs more than a one line reproof...
Just saying.
Unlike you, I am fine admitting I do not know.
I for one do not need to fill in the blanks with whatever makes me feel better.
McBell
Unbound
appeal to popularity does not help you.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
That's not true. Reasonable scientists believe the Law of Conservation was not in effect when the Big Bang singularity expanded, and before it expanded. They don't know the reason, nor is one readily available in all of natural law, including physics as you wrote. No one says, "The Big Bang, it was magic!"
Nor should you assume one simply believes magic simply for questioning the ultimate nature of reality.
But, I'm afraid you will persist, after all, skeptics love to accuse creationists and others of "believing in magic" while disobeying simple rules of logic, as above.
PS. When you respond, "Sure, we don't know what natural cause brought this universe into being, even though we know it wasn't always here, but came into being somehow, someway, matter from the singularity... but even though we don't know how it happened, it couldn't be God, because, um, it just, um, couldn't... it's not possible we're in a deistic, let alone theistic universe, because, um, science, can, um, solve any problem, like... magic.
Put another way, we theists know what blind faith is, and who employs it!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I think we slightly disagree.
Everything is random. Everything that appears to not be random is just the average of many random things.
Please don't tell me that you do not accept Quantum Mechanics, either
Ciao
- viole
I don't accept for one moment that we all know all there is to know about Quantum Mechanics, other than that things formerly thought to be random show elements of design, prescience and causality. Touch a particle here, move a particle across the universe seems random to you?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
That is not the issue!
The issue is it's eminently reasonable, since no one has seen creation take place or the Big Bang or whatever you're calling it, to say:
1. We evolved mechanistically OR
2. We're space seed OR
3. God
What is not reasonable is your consideration that:
1. Mechanistically OR
2. Space seed OR
3. I don't know, and I can't think of a third alternative, nor can anyone I've ever met or read, but it couldn't be God, because I possess all knowledge
That's CRAZY. Don't be crazy, be RATIONAL. Our rationalist mindset clearly informs us:
Evolution alone and/or space seed and/or God!
I've met atheists who admitted that if mechanistic evolution cannot do all, there must be a higher power. Why wouldn't you accept the only logical alternative?
PS. You don't have to accept it, if you fill out the blank:
1. Mechanistic Evolution
2. Space seed (from mechanistic evolution)
3. Not God alternative, authored by Mestemia, goes here: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
McBell
Unbound
nothing but pigeon chess.
Sad you are unable to get through your head that most members in this thread are not in your choir.
McBell
Unbound
And once again you are not paying attention to what I posted.
The fact is *I* am not calling it anything.
I do not know.
I was assuming you are not paying attention, at this point I cannot help but wonder if it is just plain old fashioned dishonesty.
I am not a member of your choir and you are not going to brow beat into it.
Especially given how dishonest you are.
No one claims to know the "reason" for the Big Bang or to fully understand the mechanism, But "Goddidit" is clearly not a mechansm, it's just an assertion of agency. If an effect is produced by intentionally altering the laws of physics, that's magic. If the effect is produced through natural causes/laws then a God is unnecessary and irrelevant.
Who's assuming that? That's what science does.
Magic is intentional conjuring without resort to physics or chemistry.
Whish rules of logic am I disobeying?
God is not a mechanism. God's an agent. If He uses a mechanism that involves effect without mechanism; if He alters the laws of physics and chemistry to effect something, that's magic.
Agency is outside the purview of science. Science says nothing of God. Science can only speak to the physics or mechanism involved.
Last edited:
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I think it's you who haven't thought it through...you've only considered 3 options! This is how it really goes:
The issue is it's eminently reasonable, since no one has seen creation take place or the Big Bang or whatever you're calling it, to say:
1. We evolved mechanistically OR
2. We're space seed OR
3. God
4. STEVE
What is not reasonable is your consideration that:
1. Mechanistically OR
2. Space seed OR
3. God OR
4. I don't know, and I can't think of a third alternative, nor can anyone I've ever met or read, but it couldn't be God, because I possess all knowledge
Come on open your mind to the possibility of STEVE!
Zosimus
Active Member
The point is that you have no idea what the laws of physics are. You cannot say that God, Allah, Thor, etc., violates the laws of physics using magic. It's entirely possible that no fundamental laws are broken but you simply don't know the real law and think that the law has been broken.
gnostic
The Lost One
BilliardsBall.
Why do you keep hijacking topic about evolution with the Big Bang?
Physical cosmology (of the universe) have no bearing on biology on Earth.
Second, evolution is subject of the mechanisms of biological change, not about the origin of first life. Research on the mechanism of first life belonged to biochemistry field - abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is about how non-living matters (purely chemical) become living matters (biochemical).
With evolution, life have to exist already, for parents to pass their genes or DNA to offspring, from ancestors to descendants. Changes in genes or DNA cannot happen without the parents or ancestors.
Pathologists and viral researchers don't need to study the first ever virus or diseases. They can mostly work on more recent samples, like these last two centuries.
Lastly, we have only biological life on Earth. There may be life in other planets in this galaxy or some galaxies further out, but we have no mean of study them. Any question or idea on extraterrestrial life are purely speculative.
You should know all this by now, but you keep bringing up the same BS time and time again.
Why do you keep hijacking topic about evolution with the Big Bang?
Physical cosmology (of the universe) have no bearing on biology on Earth.
Second, evolution is subject of the mechanisms of biological change, not about the origin of first life. Research on the mechanism of first life belonged to biochemistry field - abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is about how non-living matters (purely chemical) become living matters (biochemical).
With evolution, life have to exist already, for parents to pass their genes or DNA to offspring, from ancestors to descendants. Changes in genes or DNA cannot happen without the parents or ancestors.
Pathologists and viral researchers don't need to study the first ever virus or diseases. They can mostly work on more recent samples, like these last two centuries.
Lastly, we have only biological life on Earth. There may be life in other planets in this galaxy or some galaxies further out, but we have no mean of study them. Any question or idea on extraterrestrial life are purely speculative.
You should know all this by now, but you keep bringing up the same BS time and time again.
Zosimus
Active Member
I think you're missing the point.
Okay, I understand where you're coming from with the Big Bang. No problem.
However, the origin of life is intrinsical to the argument over Darwinism. If one postulates that God created the initial spark of life on this planet, then Darwinism is unnecessary because all life can be explained by special creation. Darwinism then becomes an unnecessary postulate.
Well, it has been demonstrated that there are no hidden variable that make what looks random in something that is not random. Particle physics appears to be fully random.
Of course you do not accept it. i expect you do not accept lots of modern science. For obvious reasons.
Ciao
- viole
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, plus there's an error in logic made by some who harp the "order" issue, namely that since all particles and elements have certain characteristics, when they combine or rub against each other there's going to be some "order" just because of these characteristics. When hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form water, are we to believe that God makes each molecule one at a time? [rhetorical]
gnostic
The Lost One
No, it isn't.
The Natural Selection Evolution is about biological changes affected by environmental forces (eg climate changes, change geological terrains, the availability of food and water). NS required passing of genes from ancestors to descendants. NS as well as all other evolutionary mechanisms, are only concern with biodiversity over periods of time ("time" as in number of generations than number of years).
The first life can't inherit genes from parents, if parents don't exist. Hence, the origin of life is not evolution.
As I have told BilliardsBall a number of time, the origin of life in science, is ABIOGENESIS, NOT evolution. He can't seem to grasp this concept the differences between abiogenesis and evolution.
As I have repeated argued, using the virus example. Viruses are examples of Natural Selection and Mutation.
When scientists make vaccines to combat the latest strain of virus, to resist the vaccine, the virus produce new strain that are resistant to or become develop immunity to the vaccine. Vaccine researchers and pathologists are require to start on new vaccine to fight the new strain.
How viruses react to vaccines, are real evidences for evolution, showing that evolution is factual and don't require biologists to know about the FIRST viral illness or diseases.
For BilliardsBall and other creationists they confuse evolution for origin of life.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If Goddidit is a mechanism of last resort, what should I term Goddidntbutwedontknowwhatdidbutitdoesntmatterbecausewehaveproventherewasnogodinthetimeofthebigbang? I call it "magic" or "special knowledge" or "confirmatory bias" or "hindsight bias".
In the case of the Big Bang, we are talking about an inductively observed natural law (conservation) that is affirmed by all scientists I know not to have been in effect. So your choices now are:
1. Not all immutable laws of science (inductively observed) are truly immutable
2. There are immutable laws of science, therefore, there are absolutes, therefore, there may also be moral absolutes, and moral judgments
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I accept all of modern science, including the many parts of biological science that admit a variety of unknown mechanisms are involved in either rapid or slow evolution.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Huh? I felt like talking about the Big Bang in the context of using a weak argument, that all laws of science are immutable, based on flaws of inductive reasoning.
Let's say macro-mechanistic evolution is real and true. Could God have still entered the picture and moved some parts of the evolutionary tree here and there? Of course He could, if He exists. But saying that "science has proven that at EVERY step of evolution, there was only mechanistic action, and never ANY design, is QUITE an ASSUMPTION. Feel free to disagree--I know you will!