Do you Believe in evolution or creationism?

[QUOTE="ishoturface"]I think it is absurd to say that the big bang happened it just does not make any sense at allBuryMe

Like I already said, there are theories that account for the fact that the universe had a true beginning. The big crunch/big bang cycle was never a theory about how the universe formed since it didn't answer where everything came from in the first place. And there were always three hypotheses about the nature of the universe's expansion, and the big crunch one was just one of those three. I'd suggest you look into all the hypothetical causes of the universe's birth. While none of them may be correct (we're only just beginning to gain the knowledge necessary to tackle the problem) they should at least give you a good idea of the nature of the universe and why a creator is not necessary for its existence.

gameguy6700

What are those hypothetical causes? I'm not sure if I know of the ones you're talking about.

Although I've never stated point blank that a creator is necessary; I completely grant the possibility that there was no such thing, but at this point I remain of the opinion that it seems the most likely explanation.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]I think it is absurd to say that the big bang happened it just does not make any sense at allAnamosa41

So you just use argument from personal incredulity and god of the gaps then?

Both. While science IS our understanding of the universe.....I don't believe in chance.LJS9502_basic

Anyone see VenomFangX's video today? I'm not saying anything, I just want you to see it. Don't judge before you watch it either, because I know a lot of you hate this guy.... The video just came out today... Youtube it...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both. While science IS our understanding of the universe.....I don't believe in chance.foxhound_fox

Really? The Big Bang is certainly chance. And the development of the human brain is chance if one believes SOLELY in science.:|

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

had a beginning therefore must have been created? Thats a bit of a logical jump. Who's to say that the universe did not simply 'occur'?

GabuEx

Well, is there anything else that is in existence but which was not, at some point, created? It seems to me that the logical jump would be to look at something with a beginning but then coming to the conclusion that it was not created.

Well, here's the thing. We know that there was a singularity that existed some thirteen-odd billion years ago. We know that it was unstable and then exploded to create our universe. Based on that, and given that the singularity existed within time (being at the beginning, at least, of our conception of time within this universe), it doesn't make any sense to me to say that the singularity was just there, causeless. Is it possible? Yes, of course it's possible, but then we run into Occam's razor, and quite frankly I don't find that to be the simplest explanation based on the number of assumptions it requires.

and in regards to your occams razor comment, the cosmological argument makes quite a few assumptions of its own.

No such thing as chance in science.foxhound_fox

:? I don't get it... No such thing as chance in science?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both. While science IS our understanding of the universe.....I don't believe in chance.LJS9502_basic

Really? The Big Bang is certainly chance. And the development of the human brain is chance if one believes SOLELY in science.:|

Really? The Big Bang is certainly chance. And the development of the human brain is chance if one believes SOLELY in science.:|LJS9502_basic

No such thing as chance in science.foxhound_fox

Well, that's not quite true... Erwin Schroedinger would have something to say about that. ;)

In answer to your first point, conservation of energy yo! :P

Mr_sprinkles

Well, energy and mass are basically interchangable when it comes to conservation of energy... so the question about the origin of the mass in the universe is basically also a question about the origin of energy in the universe.

and in regards to your occams razor comment, the cosmological argument makes quite a few assumptions of its own.

Mr_sprinkles

I don't dispute that statement.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both. While science IS our understanding of the universe.....I don't believe in chance.Mr_sprinkles

Really? The Big Bang is certainly chance. And the development of the human brain is chance if one believes SOLELY in science.:|

And that has what to do with anything exactly?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? The Big Bang is certainly chance. And the development of the human brain is chance if one believes SOLELY in science.:|foxhound_fox

I'm not talking about brain size.:lol: The human brain functions much differently than animals. Period. We can reason. We can feel. Animals go by instinct. Very different my man.:)

:? I don't get it... No such thing as chance in science?brightshadow525

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both. While science IS our understanding of the universe.....I don't believe in chance.LJS9502_basic

Really? The Big Bang is certainly chance. And the development of the human brain is chance if one believes SOLELY in science.:|

And that has what to do with anything exactly?

It's got plenty to do with ^bold^
Mr_sprinkles

Not if I don't find natural selection by itself to be satisfactory. As animals humans need only to have the instinct for reproduction and survival. Much like the rest of the animal kingdom. Yet our brain has far surpassed that of other animals. :)

I'm not talking about brain size.:lol: The human brain functions much differently than animals. Period. We can reason. We can feel. Animals go by instinct. Very different my man.:)LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Like I already said, there are theories that account for the fact that the universe had a true beginning. The big crunch/big bang cycle was never a theory about how the universe formed since it didn't answer where everything came from in the first place. And there were always three hypotheses about the nature of the universe's expansion, and the big crunch one was just one of those three. I'd suggest you look into all the hypothetical causes of the universe's birth. While none of them may be correct (we're only just beginning to gain the knowledge necessary to tackle the problem) they should at least give you a good idea of the nature of the universe and why a creator is not necessary for its existence.

GabuEx

What are those hypothetical causes? I'm not sure if I know of the ones you're talking about.

Although I've never stated point blank that a creator is necessary; I completely grant the possibility that there was no such thing, but at this point I remain of the opinion that it seems the most likely explanation.

The one I'm most familiar with relates to M-theory and discusses how strings that oscillated oddly resulted in the big bang. There's also the meta-verse hypothesis but that one's pretty flimsy from what I understand. I think there's also some other, less well known ones as well but I don't follow this stuff too closely so I can't give you anything else at the moment.

In regards to your Occam's Razor comment though, you do realize that hypothesizing a being that has always existed as a way to explain how the universe was created is more complex and makes more assumptions than one that merely hypothesizes that the universe always existed, right?

The one I'm most familiar with relates to M-theory and discusses how strings that oscillated oddly resulted in the big bang. There's also the meta-verse hypothesis but that one's pretty flimsy from what I understand. I think there's also some other, less well known ones as well but I don't follow this stuff too closely so I can't give you anything else at the moment.

gameguy6700

That's an... interesting theory; I don't think I've ever heard it before.

In regards to your Occam's Razor comment though, you do realize that hypothesizing a being that has always existed as a way to explain how the universe was created is more complex and makes more assumptions than one that merely hypothesizes that the universe always existed, right?

gameguy6700

I never said it didn't require any assumptions, but compared to the other options it seems to require the fewest, although I haven't exactly sat down and counted.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? The Big Bang is certainly chance. And the development of the human brain is chance if one believes SOLELY in science.:|LJS9502_basic

I'm not talking about brain size.:lol: The human brain functions much differently than animals. Period. We can reason. We can feel. Animals go by instinct. Very different my man.:)

I'm a neuroscience major. I don't even know where to start on how completely wrong and misinformed your assumption about the differences between the human brain and an animal brain are. Rather than go into a long speil I'll just say this: there's a reason that neuroscientists are able to use rat brains as a model for human brains. When we can't use rat brains we use chimpanzee brains which are extremely similar to human ones. Although sometimes we also just use snails or fish instead of higher animals because it isn't necessary.

Chimpanzees, in fact, are very human like in their behavior. They can do non-liguistical math (better than humans according to some studies), they have moral systems, they use tools, they can even learn rudimentary language. And keep in mind this is all coming from an animal that isn't even directly related to us. Chimpanzees split off from the human evolutionary path millions of years ago. If they're that similar to us just imagine how similar our evolutionary ancestors were to us. There probably wasn't that much difference between each evolutionary step (indeed, just look at neanderthals compared to modern humans. very little difference).

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

In answer to your first point, conservation of energy yo! :P

GabuEx

Well, energy and mass are basically interchangable when it comes to conservation of energy... so the question about the origin of the mass in the universe is basically also a question about the origin of energy in the universe.

Everything within this universe does have a cause. All those causes have causes. etc etc etc.

In the end, you get to the big bang whatever way you look at it. That's the problem with asking "what else has a beginning that wasn't created?" Because in the end it all converges to the same thing.

If you could show us something that we knew was caused by god, it would be a different matter.

Basically, Inducing that the big bang has a cause because the things that the big bang caused have causes is a bit silly.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not talking about brain size.:lol: The human brain functions much differently than animals. Period. We can reason. We can feel. Animals go by instinct. Very different my man.:)foxhound_fox

Pst....function is part of development.

I'm a neuroscience major. I don't even know where to start on how completely wrong and misinformed your assumption about the differences between the human brain and an animal brain are. Rather than go into a long speil I'll just say this: there's a reason that neuroscientists are able to use rat brains as a model for human brains. When we can't use rat brains we use chimpanzee brains which are extremely similar to human ones. Although sometimes we also just use snails or fish instead of higher animals because it isn't necessary.

Chimpanzees, in fact, are very human like in their behavior. They can do non-liguistical math (better than humans according to some studies), they have moral systems, they use tools, they can even learn rudimentary language. And keep in mind this is all coming from an animal that isn't even directly related to us. Chimpanzees split off from the human evolutionary path millions of years ago.

gameguy6700

Chimps don't reason. And for the record...the common ancestor has yet to be found.:|

Pst....function is part of development. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

The one I'm most familiar with relates to M-theory and discusses how strings that oscillated oddly resulted in the big bang. There's also the meta-verse hypothesis but that one's pretty flimsy from what I understand. I think there's also some other, less well known ones as well but I don't follow this stuff too closely so I can't give you anything else at the moment.

GabuEx

That's an... interesting theory; I don't think I've ever heard it before.

In regards to your Occam's Razor comment though, you do realize that hypothesizing a being that has always existed as a way to explain how the universe was created is more complex and makes more assumptions than one that merely hypothesizes that the universe always existed, right?

gameguy6700

I never said it didn't require any assumptions, but compared to the other options it seems to require the fewest, although I haven't exactly sat down and counted.

Let's count:

- Universe always existed -
# of assumptions: 2 - the universe always existed and had no beginning

- Universe was created by a God that always existed -
# of assumptions: 3 - The universe was created by another being, that being always existed and had no beginning

And if you want to assume that your creator didn't have a beginning then why can't that same assumption hold true for the universe? Your creator hypothesis is redundant. That doesn't make it false but without any proof there's no reason why anyone should believe it when a more simple hypothesis exists with equally valid assumptions.

Agh, I'm not quite sure how to explain this. Right, here goes... *throws coherency out the window*

Everything within this universe does have a cause. All those causes have causes. etc etc etc.

In the end, you get to the big bang whatever way you look at it. That's the problem with asking "what else has a beginning that wasn't created?" Because in the end it all converges to the same thing.

If you could show us something that we knew was caused by god, it would be a different matter.

Basically, Inducing that the big bang has a cause because the things that the big bang caused have causes is a bit silly.

Mr_sprinkles

Eh, I kind of get the sense this conversation is going in a circle, as this line of dialog seems familiar... I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. And tell the scientists to hurry up and do more work so we can finally resolve this matter. :P

Chimps don't reason. And for the record...the common ancestor has yet to be found.:|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Chimps don't reason. And for the record...the common ancestor has yet to be found.:|foxhound_fox

That doesn't say it's the trasnsistional fossil between the two. At this time it's still missing.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I'm a neuroscience major. I don't even know where to start on how completely wrong and misinformed your assumption about the differences between the human brain and an animal brain are. Rather than go into a long speil I'll just say this: there's a reason that neuroscientists are able to use rat brains as a model for human brains. When we can't use rat brains we use chimpanzee brains which are extremely similar to human ones. Although sometimes we also just use snails or fish instead of higher animals because it isn't necessary.

Chimpanzees, in fact, are very human like in their behavior. They can do non-liguistical math (better than humans according to some studies), they have moral systems, they use tools, they can even learn rudimentary language. And keep in mind this is all coming from an animal that isn't even directly related to us. Chimpanzees split off from the human evolutionary path millions of years ago.

LJS9502_basic

Chimps don't reason. And for the record...the common ancestor has yet to be found.:|

Refer back to my post on page 4 on why the "common ancestor" argument is a load of bull please.

And yes, chimps do reason. If you want to argue they don't be aware that you're trying to argue against a large amount of scientific literature and naturalistic observations.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Chimps don't reason. And for the record...the common ancestor has yet to be found.:|LJS9502_basic

That doesn't say it's the trasnsistional fossil between the two. At this time it's still missing.

You know, fossil evidence is not the only way to determine phylogeny.

That doesn't say it's the trasnsistional fossil between the two. At this time it's still missing.LJS9502_basic

I believe in a Creator. It's obvious that creatures adapt to environmental changes, but evolution...a questionable theory. No one has recorded any evolutionary changes since history has been documented. Only adaptations, which are entirely different. Species don't evolve into something entirely different. That's fantasy.

Let's count:

- Universe always existed -
# of assumptions: 2 - the universe always existed and had no beginning

- Universe was created by a God that always existed -
# of assumptions: 3 - The universe was created by another being, that being always existed and had no beginning

gameguy6700

Oh, you know what I meant. :P

And if you want to assume that your creator didn't have a beginning then why can't that same assumption hold true for the universe? Your creator hypothesis is redundant. That doesn't make it false but without any proof there's no reason why anyone should believe it when a more simple hypothesis exists with equally valid assumptions.

gameguy6700

I already explained why. Since the universe's expansion is accelerating, that makes it seem likely that the universe began some thirteen billion years ago, which would make the idea that the universe has always existed need more assumptions than just what you provided; it would also need to provide assumptions that override this evidence.

Like I said to the other guy, this is kind of sounding like a familiar line of dialog, and I have a feeling that neither of us is terribly likely to convince the other of his point of view, so I think it'd probably be better just to agree to disagree on the subject until science comes along with more conclusive evidence one way or another.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That doesn't say it's the trasnsistional fossil between the two. At this time it's still missing.foxhound_fox

That doesn't say it either. And it uses the word probably. I know what science says. I didn't agrue that it didn't. However, science admits that as of yet the transistional fossil has not been found.

You know, fossil evidence is not the only way to determine phylogeny.

dainjah1010

I'm guessing you have no clue as to my stance..:|

Refer back to my post on page 4 on why the "common ancestor" argument is a load of bull please.

And yes, chimps do reason. If you want to argue they don't be aware that you're trying to argue against a large amount of scientific literature and naturalistic observations.

gameguy6700

Chimps are not the same as humans. Their brain IS not as complex and I doubt you could find ANY link saying a chimp has the same brain capacity as a human. Otherwise, they'd be living as we do.:|

I believe in a Creator. It's obvious that creatures adapt to environmental changes, but evolution...a questionable theory. No one has recorded any evolutionary changes since history has been documented. Only adaptations, which are entirely different. Species don't evolve into something entirely different. That's fantasy.

iwokojance

Observed Instances of Speciation

Also, please explain Endogenous Retroviruses, Ascorbic Acid Pseudogene, Human Chromosome #2, Protein functional redundancy, and the fossil record. Along with the other 150 years worth of research on evolution. Creationism is a fantasy perpetuated by ignorance.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Refer back to my post on page 4 on why the "common ancestor" argument is a load of bull please.

And yes, chimps do reason. If you want to argue they don't be aware that you're trying to argue against a large amount of scientific literature and naturalistic observations.

LJS9502_basic

Chimps are not the same as humans. Their brain IS not as complex and I doubt you could find ANY link saying a chimp has the same brain capacity as a human. Otherwise, they'd be living as we do.:|

No, they're not AS complex, but they do have reasoning abilities. Don't worry we're still the dominant species.

That doesn't say it either. And it uses the word probably. I know what science says. I didn't agrue that it didn't. However, science admits that as of yet the transistional fossil has not been found.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Let's count:

- Universe always existed -
# of assumptions: 2 - the universe always existed and had no beginning

- Universe was created by a God that always existed -
# of assumptions: 3 - The universe was created by another being, that being always existed and had no beginning

GabuEx

Oh, you know what I meant. :P

And if you want to assume that your creator didn't have a beginning then why can't that same assumption hold true for the universe? Your creator hypothesis is redundant. That doesn't make it false but without any proof there's no reason why anyone should believe it when a more simple hypothesis exists with equally valid assumptions.

gameguy6700

I already explained why. Since the universe's expansion is accelerating, that makes it seem likely that the universe began some thirteen billion years ago, which would make the idea that the universe has always existed need more assumptions than just what you provided; it would also need to provide assumptions that override this evidence.

Like I said to the other guy, this is kind of sounding like a familiar line of dialog, and I have a feeling that neither of us is terribly likely to convince the other of his point of view, so I think it'd probably be better just to agree to disagree on the subject until science comes along with more conclusive evidence one way or another.

It doesn't matter that the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, the singularity could have always existed prior to that, its just that it wasn't until 13 billion years ago that it suddenly expanded

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That doesn't say it's the trasnsistional fossil between the two. At this time it's still missing.LJS9502_basic

That doesn't say it either. And it uses the word probably. I know what science says. I didn't agrue that it didn't. However, science admits that as of yet the transistional fossil has not been found.

Because I don't think you read what I posted and because I really hate hearing the "but..but...teh tranzitional fozzils!11" argument against evolution:

Let's compare the evolution of an organism to the aging of a human being. They're comparable since they're both gradual changes over long periods of time. Let's take a random person in their present day form:

And here's another picture of that same person at an earlier point in time:

Now, we can find various intermediate steps between this picture and the first one:

But we're never going to find the precise moment where the baby turns into the current, present day form. Same thing with fossil records. Its impossible to find the exact point at which an ape turned into a human because its a continuous, gradual process.

For example, here's various homonid skulls:

But let me guess: It's just coincidence that so many human-like creatures sequentually existed before humans isn't it? And maybe that God just tired of making up new animals after a certain point and as a result just rushed things along a bit by just tweaking the same comparitavely few animals a few thousand times to get the variety of life we see today.

Chimps don't reason. And for the record...the common ancestor has yet to be found.:|LJS9502_basic

Chimps DO reason. Hell they can learn sign language, LANGUAGE. How could a creature learn sign language without the ability to reason or respond to humans properly?

Even though Catholic, I believe in evolution.

However, I find creation myths fascinating.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Refer back to my post on page 4 on why the "common ancestor" argument is a load of bull please.

And yes, chimps do reason. If you want to argue they don't be aware that you're trying to argue against a large amount of scientific literature and naturalistic observations.

darkmoney52

Chimps are not the same as humans. Their brain IS not as complex and I doubt you could find ANY link saying a chimp has the same brain capacity as a human. Otherwise, they'd be living as we do.:|

No, they're not AS complex, but they do have reasoning abilities. Don't worry we're still the dominant species.

The reasoning of chimps is solely based on their ability to observe behavior. I'm talking specifically of reasoning in the realm of logic and thinking. More complex thought processes.

The reasoning of chimps is solely based on their ability to observe behavior. I'm talking specifically of reasoning in the realm of logic and thinking. More complex thought processes.LJS9502_basic