Qusetions about evolution for Advanced Science/physics/biology experts.

Before I ask my questions, I want you to know that I am not here to debate god or religion, so please lets refrain from debating that specific thing.

I was watching someone speak about biology and particles and came up with a few questions that I really never got to ask.

1. If the universe was born of the Big Bang, which was a singularity that either always existed or suddenly appeared for no reason, how can Universal Law even exist? Meaning, if evolution is real and there was no creation, how can universal laws like gravity, particles and atomic structure of basic elements be the same here as they are on the opposite side of the universe, a number of lightyears away that you cannot count to? How can such a thing be possible...it seems like things are preset to exist this way right here as well as infinte light years away. If evolution is real, then things far away shouldnt be like it is here...but they are. The basic elements of the universe seem to be unbias regardless of location in the universe...that bothers me and i really dont understand that. Air evoloved over time, water, carbons ect ect. Yet, infinite light years away they will remain the same as they are here, evolving exactly the same way. Evolution is supposed to be RANDOM...this makes absolutely no sense to me.

2. If the universe expanded to infinity, wouldn't it take an infinite amount of time to do so? Otherwise it is still expanding and there is an edge, which means there is a container for our universe, right? If there is no edge to the universe, then there was no beginning and you cannot say the universe is 13.5 billion years old because you are measuring the amount of time it takes to reach infinity. ( this is where i dont want to spark an argument, please dont argue :P ) But if infinity was instantly obtained after the big bang, to me it seems like only something that already existed with limitless power can make such a thing occur instantly. You've just broken the laws of math and physics in saying evolution of the universe took place, and the universe expanded to infinity in a measured amount of time however small.

3. Evolution seems to be based on the idea that 0 + 1 = 2. 0 being the absense of intelligence and the law that governs the existence of the idea of randomization ( which either doesnt exist but still allows for things to exist and occur, or that it always existed. ) 1 being anything else that exists then evolving, may it be people, life, planets, stars ect ect. How can the absense of intelligence create randomization? Yet on a universal, infinitely large scale that repeats itself indentically regardless of your location as mentioned in my first question.

4. Why are athiest people so closed minded about God only being that which is found in the Bible, or other written works. I've know some athiest who simply do not believe in god because the Bible to them is stupid or they dont like the way God is written. Personally, I am the polar opposite. If there is a God, I believe it isnt even remotely like that which is found in any literary works of religion. To some people, this means auto denying the existence of a higher power. Why? Since when do athiest have to believe anything written down? Just because it is said doesnt make it true...athiest of all people should not be bias towards that. Im not saying all do, but like i said ive know a few that automatically turn down the idea of a higher power simply because if their view of the bible.

4a. If there is a God like being, a higher power, couldn't it have created the universe and earth to be old? Many evolutionists and geologists believe the earth is close to 4 billion years old, for this reason they dont believe in god and that the bible is nonsense saying the earth is a few thousand years old. While i do not agree with that last idea, couldnt a higher power have created our universe to be aged? Why do so many athiests deny the existence of a god for this reason?

5. If aliens do exist, wouldnt they be jelous and very interested in our planet if the son of GOD came to us and not them? ....or if you believe in Jesus and god, what are your thoughts on the possibility that he also visited other alien planets? Mind bomb :D

"Why are athiest people so closed minded about God only being that which is found in the Bible, or other written works."

deadpool86x

I skimmed through the post and saw that, so I'm out of here.

Why post then? If you had read the very first few lines you wouldn't feel that way.

1. If the universe was born of the Big Bang, which was a singularity that either always existed or suddenly appeared for no reason, how can Universal Law even exist? Meaning, if evolution is real and there was no creation, how can universal laws like gravity, particles and atomic structure of basic elements be the same here as they are on the opposite side of the universe, a number of lightyears away that you cannot count to? How can such a thing be possible...it seems like things are preset to exist this way right here as well as infinte light years away. If evolution is real, then things far away shouldnt be like it is here...but they are. The basic elements of the universe seem to be unbias regardless of location in the universe...that bothers me and i really dont understand that. Air evoloved over time, water, carbons ect ect. Yet, infinite light years away they will remain the same as they are here, evolving exactly the same way. Evolution is supposed to be RANDOM...this makes absolutely no sense to me.

deadpool86x

I don't understand the basis for your assertions. When the universe was a singularity, the entire universe was filled with matter. It then expanded, much as raisins grow further apart in a loaf of raisin bread as it rises and grows as it becomes filled with air. When the temperature in the universe had decreased sufficiently so as to allow particles to become suffciently deprived of excitement, quarks formed into protons and neutrons, and then protons, neutrons, and electrons formed into atoms. All of this occurred precisely because these universal laws give the universe order, and dictate the way in which items within that universe behave. Why would the existence of that singularity somehow render these universal laws nonexistent?

And as for where the singularity came from or whether it always existed, that is not a question to which we currently have the answer, but scientists are as hard at work as ever to determine that answer. Knowing the answer to that question is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the big bang happened, though, just as the identity of a man who left a footprint in a patch of dirt is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we may conclude from the footprint that someone likely did indeed walk through that area.

2. If the universe expanded to infinity, wouldn't it take an infinite amount of time to do so? Otherwise it is still expanding and there is an edge, which means there is a container for our universe, right? If there is no edge to the universe, then there was no beginning and you cannot say the universe is 13.5 billion years old because you are measuring the amount of time it takes to reach infinity. ( this is where i dont want to spark an argument, please dont argue :P ) But if infinity was instantly obtained after the big bang, to me it seems like only something that already existed with limitless power can make such a thing occur instantly. You've just broken the laws of math and physics in saying evolution of the universe took place, and the universe expanded to infinity in a measured amount of time however small.

deadpool86x

Space can only really be defined as the region between two objects. As there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, so too is there a finite amount of space in the universe, space that is constantly expanding as everything in the universe expands away from everything else (as mentioned above). At the time of the singularity there was no space in the universe, because all matter was infinitely dense. Space was created when matter moved apart from each other.

I don't understand the basis for your assertion that the universe has expanded to infinity. It clearly has not, given that it is still expanding to this day and given that the space between celestial objects continues to grow.

3. Evolution seems to be based on the idea that 0 + 1 = 2. 0 being the absense of intelligence and the law that governs the existence of the idea of randomization ( which either doesnt exist but still allows for things to exist and occur, or that it always existed. ) 1 being anything else that exists then evolving, may it be people, life, planets, stars ect ect. How can the absense of intelligence create randomization? Yet on a universal, infinitely large scale that repeats itself indentically regardless of your location as mentioned in my first question.

deadpool86x

Evolution follows natural laws, just like anything else. Abiogenesis is a field in science that is still in relative infancy, although, as above, scientists are working on it (although we do have theories regarding how it worked). If we assume the existence of an extremely primitive form of life, however, whose form is dictated by its DNA and which is capable of self-reproduction, then evolution makes perfect sense. Since we cannot get something out of nothing, conditions are always required for that life form to reproduce. Obviously, if it is incapable of reproducing, it will not do so, and there will be no further propagation of life. If, on the other hand, it is readily capable of doing so, then it will.

The difference between two life form's capabilities for survival and reproduction are dictated by two things: its physical characteristics and its environment. If you change its physical characteristics, its capability to survive and reproduce will change. Similarly, if you change its environment, its capaibility to survive and reproduce will also change. The changing of a life form's physical characteristics are what falls under the category of mutation. If that mutation makes the life form lesser capable to survive and reproduce, then it will slowly - or quickly, depending on how drastically its capability to survive and reproduce was reduced - dwindle away. If, on the other hand, that mutation makes the life form more capable to survive and reproduce, then it will do so at a more rapid rate than the rest of the population, and as such, that mutation will become propagated over generations across the population.

Changing the environment also affects matters, as well. This is why scientists say that there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" trait; there are only traits that make a life form better or worse adapted to its environment. In a cold environment, a life form with no thick fur or other strong form of insulation at all is very likely to freeze to death, thereby decreasing its ability to survive and reproduce. In a warm environment, however, a life form with thick fur or other foorm of insulation will likely find the climate far too hot, and it too will have a poor ability to survive and reproduce. The placing of the same animal in two different environments is something that leads to speciation, which is an observed phenomenon - if you allot them sufficient amount of time and then bring them back together, you will find that they do indeed become divergent in terms of their physical characteristics because of the way in which certain traits enable animals to become better or worse able to survive and reproduce, thereby propagating their genetic material.

None of this, you will observe, requires any intelligence of any kind. It is simply something that happens on its own.

4. Why are athiest people so closed minded about God only being that which is found in the Bible, or other written works. I've know some athiest who simply do not believe in god because the Bible to them is stupid or they dont like the way God is written. Personally, I am the polar opposite. If there is a God, I believe it isnt even remotely like that which is found in any literary works of religion. To some people, this means auto denying the existence of a higher power. Why? Since when do athiest have to believe anything written down? Just because it is said doesnt make it true...athiest of all people should not be bias towards that. Im not saying all do, but like i said ive know a few that automatically turn down the idea of a higher power simply because if their view of the bible.

deadpool86x

Atheists are closed-minded about God for the same reason that theists are closed-minded about atheism. Humans like to be right, and naturally tend to look for validation of their beliefs rather than the truth. There is nothing in this trait that makes atheists, nor or any other sufficiently large group of people, unique.

4a. If there is a God like being, a higher power, couldn't it have created the universe and earth to be old? Many evolutionists and geologists believe the earth is close to 4 billion years old, for this reason they dont believe in god and that the bible is nonsense saying the earth is a few thousand years old. While i do not agree with that last idea, couldnt a higher power have created our universe to be aged? Why do so many athiests deny the existence of a god for this reason?

deadpool86x

It could. But Occam's Razor dictates that the likeliest explanation for an observed phenomenon is that which requires the fewest number of assumptions in order to make it tenable. When one gets out of bed in the morning and is waved at by a smiling neighbor, one could come to the conclusion that that person is part of a super-secret organization that is trying to fool you into thinking that he is an average family man... but why would you?

Similarly, there is no reason for us to believe that things are not as they seem unless we have evidence that demands the raising of such a possibility.

5. If aliens do exist, wouldnt they be jelous and very interested in our planet if the son of GOD came to us and not them? ....or if you believe in Jesus and god, what are your thoughts on the possibility that he also visited other alien planets? Mind bomb :D

deadpool86x

I tend not to believe that the Bible, or any other book for that matter, is the one and only received word of God, nor do I believe that there is something that makes human beings particularly unique. We are, more or less, a simply much more intellectually advanced form of life on a planet we have arbitrarily called "Earth". There are no traits that I know of that are found in humans and which are not found anywhere else in the world to at least a certain extent. I don't believe that this is a very depressing or nihilistic thought, as some contend - I think that it is just a simple acknowledgement of reality, the denial of which I find unhealthy.

Elements don't evolve. Oxygen, or Hydrogen, or Iron in one place is the same in any other.

Atheists are closed-minded about God for the same reason that theists are closed-minded about atheism. Humans like to be right, and naturally tend to look for validation of their beliefs rather than the truth. There is nothing in this trait that makes atheists, nor or any other sufficiently large group of people, unique.

GabuEx

On another note (since I can't edit my post or it will blow up), none of what I said above either proves or disproves God. It perhaps disproves a God with specific characteristics, such as one who created the world in six days some six thousand years ago, but that is as far as it goes. And for that matter, any information at all rules out at least some such possibilities. But that is, in the end, all that what we are doing: ruling out possibilities. Could some entity whom we might properly call God be ultimately responsible for the Big Bang? Sure, why not.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Atheists are closed-minded about God for the same reason that theists are closed-minded about atheism. Humans like to be right, and naturally tend to look for validation of their beliefs rather than the truth. There is nothing in this trait that makes atheists, nor or any other sufficiently large group of people, unique.

LJS9502_basic

Closed-minded about the possibility that God might not exist is what I meant.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Atheists are closed-minded about God for the same reason that theists are closed-minded about atheism. Humans like to be right, and naturally tend to look for validation of their beliefs rather than the truth. There is nothing in this trait that makes atheists, nor or any other sufficiently large group of people, unique.

GabuEx

Closed-minded about the possibility that God might not exist is what I meant.

evolution is not random, and thats my point. How can the universe, an unintelligent something that does exist have anything inside of it that is NOT random. That is my entire point here and what annoys me to the bone. Something that is NOT random denotes intelligent design, and that is science fact is it not?

People say the universe just popped into existence or always existed. A God could have done just the same, and I begin to think it makes more sense that a higher power did all of this. I see Presets all over the place, the more i study science and biology, the more i realize this may not be random evolution and that evolution in general is nonsense in the respect that nothing set it into motion. It is more likely that a higher power set evolution down, not that evolution is a result of the absense of intelligence suddenly appearing without cause, and continuing all throughout the infinite universe without the slightest bit of error.

On another note (since I can't edit my post or it will blow up), none of what I said above either proves or disproves God. It perhaps disproves a God with specific characteristics, such as one who created the world in six days some six thousand years ago, but that is as far as it goes. And for that matter, any information at all rules out at least some such possibilities. But that is, in the end, all that what we are doing: ruling out possibilities. Could some entity whom we might properly call God be ultimately responsible for the Big Bang? Sure, why not.

GabuEx

The God in the bible is a god of the gaps. As science slowly fills in the gaps of human understanding, there is slowly less and less of a justification for him.

Obviously a lot of the details of the origin of the universe are still a mystery to us. That doesn't mean we are satisfied that a god did it. I'm confident we'll eventually figure it out ourselves. If we say a god did it, the question is where did he come from and who created him? And then we're back at square one anyways.

Its like how people couldn't figure out where Earth and humans came from, so the easiest answer was god did it.

evolution is not random, and thats my point. How can the universe, an unintelligent something that does exist have anything inside of it that is NOT random. That is my entire point here and what annoys me to the bone. Something that is NOT random denotes intelligent design, and that is science fact is it not?

deadpool86x

No, not at all. All of the universal laws are precisely what ensure that the universe is predictable (i.e., not random). When you throw a ball up and it comes back down due to gravity, that is not random, that is an extremely predictable event. Yet, at the same time, there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws.

Now, of course, you could ask the question of why any such forces exist at all, and then you would be asking a question to which science does not currently have any answer. But that is a different question. To answer your question, which is basically, "Does a lack of randomness imply intelligence?", the answer is, "No, not necessarily."

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

On another note (since I can't edit my post or it will blow up), none of what I said above either proves or disproves God. It perhaps disproves a God with specific characteristics, such as one who created the world in six days some six thousand years ago, but that is as far as it goes. And for that matter, any information at all rules out at least some such possibilities. But that is, in the end, all that what we are doing: ruling out possibilities. Could some entity whom we might properly call God be ultimately responsible for the Big Bang? Sure, why not.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

On another note (since I can't edit my post or it will blow up), none of what I said above either proves or disproves God. It perhaps disproves a God with specific characteristics, such as one who created the world in six days some six thousand years ago, but that is as far as it goes. And for that matter, any information at all rules out at least some such possibilities. But that is, in the end, all that what we are doing: ruling out possibilities. Could some entity whom we might properly call God be ultimately responsible for the Big Bang? Sure, why not.

LJS9502_basic

A god could technically exist, but I've yet to see any reason to believe it. Why would a god that created a universe be so darned hard to find?

I completely agree with you ^

both are one in the same in my view, I do believe in God and that it either always existed or came to be and then created everything else. I cant believe the ipod shuffled the same sequence of songs for everyone on earth who has an ipod, if such a thing happened it would be the result of a programmer or user making every ipod the same regardless of where you are. Such a thing doesnt seem possible to occur without something else making it so.

[QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

evolution is not random, and thats my point. How can the universe, an unintelligent something that does exist have anything inside of it that is NOT random. That is my entire point here and what annoys me to the bone. Something that is NOT random denotes intelligent design, and that is science fact is it not?

GabuEx

No, not at all. All of the universal laws are precisely what ensure that the universe is predictable (i.e., not random). When you throw a ball up and it comes back down due to gravity, that is not random, that is an extremely predictable event. Yet, at the same time, there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws.

Now, of course, you could ask the question of why any such forces exist at all, and then you would be asking a question to which science does not currently have any answer. But that is a different question. To answer your question, which is basically, "Does a lack of randomness imply intelligence?", the answer is, "No, not necessarily."

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

evolution is not random, and thats my point. How can the universe, an unintelligent something that does exist have anything inside of it that is NOT random. That is my entire point here and what annoys me to the bone. Something that is NOT random denotes intelligent design, and that is science fact is it not?

deadpool86x

This topics again?

People say the universe just popped into existence or always existed. A God could have done just the same, and I begin to think it makes more sense that a higher power did all of this. I see Presets all over the place, the more i study science and biology, the more i realize this may not be random evolution and that evolution in general is nonsense in the respect that nothing set it into motion. It is more likely that a higher power set evolution down, not that evolution is a result of the absense of intelligence suddenly appearing without cause, and continuing all throughout the infinite universe without the slightest bit of error.

deadpool86x

People may say that, but any scientist worth his salt will not. As I already said, scientists currently do not know what provided the impetus for the Big Bang.

I think that you are making the mistake that many make, where you seem to be implicitly stating that science cannot be right on anything unless it can explain everything. This is just not true, which is why there are many, many fields of science, each which examine and account for their own set of phenomena. In the case of evolution, it is explaining the phenomena of the diversity of life on Earth. And there are a number of pieces of strong evidence in favor of the basic assertion that life became more complex and diverse over time:

1. Dozens upon dozens of fossils exist that inspired heated debates over whether it was, for example, a "mammal-like reptile" or a "reptile-like mammal". This is strong evidence in favor of the idea that the boundaries between species is not as absolute as it initially would appear.

2. All life on Earth is interconnected through a series of common traits, which are increasingly numerous the closer related taxonomically two animals are. This is strong evidence in favor of common descent, especially considering that there exist instances of traits, like hollow bones in flightless birds, that are utterly unexplainable through the idea that the animal was design, but which are completely explainable through evolution.

3. In the fossil record, fossils which are dated as older tend to be less complex, and there are less species found. Fossils that are dated as younger tend to be more complex, and many more species are found the closer we get to the present. This provides strong evidence in favor of the idea that life on Earth grew more complex and diverse as time passed.

4. The existence of DNA provided a breakthrough indication both of how animals grow and of how the growth of an animal might be altered such that a new trait might be subject to natural selection. This provides strong evidence in favor of the idea that it is possible for animals to mutate and change.

[QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

evolution is not random, and thats my point. How can the universe, an unintelligent something that does exist have anything inside of it that is NOT random. That is my entire point here and what annoys me to the bone. Something that is NOT random denotes intelligent design, and that is science fact is it not?

ProudLarry

The God in the bible is a god of the gaps. As science slowly fills in the gaps of human understanding, there is slowly less and less of a justification for him.

Obviously a lot of the details of the origin of the universe are still a mystery to us. That doesn't mean we are satisfied that a god did it. I'm confident we'll eventually figure it out ourselves. If we say a god did it, the question is where did he come from and who created him? And then we're back at square one anyways.

Its like how people couldn't figure out where Earth and humans came from, so the easiest answer was god did it.

Juken7

That reply also bothers me because it seems vastly more probable that something like our universe that is not alive or intelligent can pop into existence or always existed, but a God cannot. The day someone can justify the absense of intelligence creating something that is universal and not random is a day I feel will never come. I've researched the ideas and theories athiests and similar types offer, I've yet to hear a shred of proof god doesnt exist. Nobody knew gravity existed until Newton. It will only take the correct words or formula to show a god must exist or not, we've yet to reach that point.

That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist. Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context. Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works. That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes.

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

LJS9502_basic

LJS, no offense, but... you seem to be arguing against positions that I am not making, so I'm not really sure what to say. I have never said that science has disproved God, or that God does not exist. I am simply saying that science has made the position untenable that there exists a God who created the world in six days six thousand years ago. Which is true - one would have to overturn almost everything we know about the universe to support the assertion that that particular God exists.

And similarly, I am not saying that there is no intelligent being that is in some sense a piece of the puzzle. All I was saying was that the existence of order and the lack of randomness does not necessarily imply that that state of being is due to the direct intervention of an intelligent being. Perhaps an intelligent being created the fundamental forces of nature. Fine - I won't argue against that assertion. But there is no real evidence at all that those forces themselves are intelligent, such that there is a conscious being that is responsible for any observable effect from those forces.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist. Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context. Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works. That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes.

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

GabuEx

LJS, no offense, but... you seem to be arguing against positions that I am not making, so I'm not really sure what to say. I have never said that science has disproved God, or that God does not exist. I am simply saying that science has made the position untenable that there exists a God who created the world in six days six thousand years ago. Which is true - one would have to overturn almost everything we know about the universe to support the assertion that that particular God exists.

And similarly, I am not saying that there is no intelligent being that is in some sense a piece of the puzzle. All I was saying was that the existence of order and the lack of randomness does not necessarily imply that that state of being is due to the direct intervention of an intelligent being. Perhaps an intelligent being created the fundamental forces of nature. Fine - I won't argue against that assertion. But there is no real evidence at all that those forces themselves are intelligent, such that there is a conscious being that is responsible for any observable effect from those forces.

That reply also bothers me because it seems vastly more probable that something like our universe that is not alive or intelligent can pop into existence or always existed, but a God cannot. The day someone can justify the absense of intelligence creating something that is universal and not random is a day I feel will never come. I've researched the ideas and theories athiests and similar types offer, I've yet to hear a shred of proof god doesnt exist. Nobody knew gravity existed until Newton. It will only take the correct words or formula to show a god must exist or not, we've yet to reach that point.

deadpool86x

You ask us to justify the assertion that intelligence was absent in creating the diversity of life we see on Earth today, but then in the very next statement you say you've yet to hear of proof that God doesn't exist.

You do understand that the existence of God and the lack of intelligence behind the diversity of life are not mutually exclusive ideas... yes?

I've yet to hear a shred of proof god doesnt exist.

deadpool86x

Why do you have to? It's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist; at best, it's possible to prove that current methods of observation cannot detect the discussed object, or that it is logically incapable of existing.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

LJS, no offense, but... you seem to be arguing against positions that I am not making, so I'm not really sure what to say. I have never said that science has disproved God, or that God does not exist. I am simply saying that science has made the position untenable that there exists a God who created the world in six days six thousand years ago. Which is true - one would have to overturn almost everything we know about the universe to support the assertion that that particular God exists.

And similarly, I am not saying that there is no intelligent being that is in some sense a piece of the puzzle. All I was saying was that the existence of order and the lack of randomness does not necessarily imply that that state of being is due to the direct intervention of an intelligent being. Perhaps an intelligent being created the fundamental forces of nature. Fine - I won't argue against that assertion. But there is no real evidence at all that those forces themselves are intelligent, such that there is a conscious being that is responsible for any observable effect from those forces.

LJS9502_basic

No, not at all. All of the universal laws are precisely what ensure that the universe is predictable (i.e., not random). When you throw a ball up and it comes back down due to gravity, that is not random, that is an extremely predictable event. Yet, at the same time, there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws.GabuEx

Unless you are referring to something else that he said.

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

evolution is not random, and thats my point. How can the universe, an unintelligent something that does exist have anything inside of it that is NOT random. That is my entire point here and what annoys me to the bone. Something that is NOT random denotes intelligent design, and that is science fact is it not?

LJS9502_basic

"No, not at all. All of the universal laws are precisely what ensure that the universe is predictable (i.e., not random). When you throw a ball up and it comes back down due to gravity, that is not random, that is an extremely predictable event. Yet, at the same time, there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws."

Unless you are referring to something else that he said.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

"No, not at all. All of the universal laws are precisely what ensure that the universe is predictable (i.e., not random). When you throw a ball up and it comes back down due to gravity, that is not random, that is an extremely predictable event. Yet, at the same time, there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws."

Unless you are referring to something else that he said.

LJS9502_basic

Perhaps when you return...

I bolded my argument with him.....he ignored it. Now you have. Meh. I'll be back in about an hour. As a Catholic we have to attend mass on New Years. Just to stop the partying the night before methinks. Doesn't work.

LJS9502_basic

If you're talking about this:

"...there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws."

I'm... not really sure how that can be construed as me saying that it is random. The entire purpose of my post was to illustrate the way in which something can be predictable (again, that is to say, not random), yet not be directly guided by an intelligent being. It is analogous to programming a computer: the programmer defines the way in which the computer ought to act, but once that definition is made, the computer does not require the direct intervention of the programmer to guide its actions.

Like I said, if you are wishing to assert that the fundamental forces of nature were created by an intelligent being, I am more than happy to grant that possibility without debate. What I am arguing against is the idea that the forces themselves are intelligent. Given the way in which the same input will always give the same output, they seem an awful lot more to me like predefined, intelligence-less procedures, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, I do not think one would have any justification for asserting otherwise.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

evolution is not random, and thats my point. How can the universe, an unintelligent something that does exist have anything inside of it that is NOT random. That is my entire point here and what annoys me to the bone. Something that is NOT random denotes intelligent design, and that is science fact is it not?

LJS9502_basic

No, not at all. All of the universal laws are precisely what ensure that the universe is predictable (i.e., not random). When you throw a ball up and it comes back down due to gravity, that is not random, that is an extremely predictable event. Yet, at the same time, there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws.

Now, of course, you could ask the question of why any such forces exist at all, and then you would be asking a question to which science does not currently have any answer. But that is a different question. To answer your question, which is basically, "Does a lack of randomness imply intelligence?", the answer is, "No, not necessarily."

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

From that part you concluded that to an atheist what occures in the universe is random, as a logical conclusion from the belief that theres no intelligence behind it. Well the conclusion is false because believing that there is no intelligence behind it doesnt equate to believing that its random; at the same time Gabu specifically said that its not random (green text).

Unless you mean something else by "random"; something different than what Gabu means by that specific term.

everyday i wake up and look at myself in the mirror and say "damn im hot" and when i think about the fact that i have eyes so i can see, ears so i can hear, mouth so i can eat, tongue to taste, nose to smell, brain so i can think, am i really a work of random mutations and natural selection over billion of years or is there someone who created us the way we are? he gave us sight and hearing along with other stuff, brutha, thats where i start believeing in God and thats where evolution fails for me 8)

[QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

That reply also bothers me because it seems vastly more probable that something like our universe that is not alive or intelligent can pop into existence or always existed, but a God cannot. The day someone can justify the absense of intelligence creating something that is universal and not random is a day I feel will never come. I've researched the ideas and theories athiests and similar types offer, I've yet to hear a shred of proof god doesnt exist. Nobody knew gravity existed until Newton. It will only take the correct words or formula to show a god must exist or not, we've yet to reach that point.

GabuEx

You ask us to justify the assertion that intelligence was absent in creating the diversity of life we see on Earth today, but then in the very next statement you say you've yet to hear of proof that God doesn't exist.

You do understand that the existence of God and the lack of intelligence behind the diversity of life are not mutually exclusive ideas... yes?

Are you saying its absolute proof, undeniable proof against the theory God exists and created the universe as we know it? If so, it's certainly not a justified statement. I'm trying to play both sides here and decide for myself. I hear that line a lot. "Proove god exists!" Well I say proove god doesnt exist. Justify the absense of intelligence creating something that is not random, a universal law, a repeating law. Justify something infinite being created in a measured amount of time. Neither side really has absolute evidence to the contrary. Since anything that isnt absolutely random can exist universally, I feel that alone is more than enough proof of a higher power. The DNA of us humans is so vastly complex, billions of years doesnt seem enough time to allow for such a thing to ever happen.

Evolution is mutation in a positive or negative way, right? So how can the absense of intelligence govern the laws of randomization...meaning how can no intelligence allow for a positive OR negative event to occur repeating for billions of years. It never failed, not only did it suceed...it suceeded in a few million types of species on this planet. The even that took place inside the DNA of certain mamals branched off yet again and again and again without fail, yet they are still similar to other creatures. The lines between lions and monkeys were broken, yet they have 4 limbs? How can that be such a basic evolutionary train in so many species that have nothing to do with each other unless that info was specifically preset into them in the very beginning.

everyday i wake up and look at myself in the mirror and say "damn im hot" and when i think about the fact that i have eyes so i can see, ears so i can hear, mouth so i can eat, tongue to taste, nose to smell, brain so i can think, am i really a work of random mutations and natural selection over billion of years or is there someone who created us the way we are? he gave us sight and hearing along with other stuff, bortha, thats where i start believeing in God and thats where evolution fails for me 8)

sikanderahmed

No offense, but "I don't understand how it could have happened", much as people enjoy declaring so, does not constitute evidence against evolution. :P

^ Its a two sided coin, it works for the other side as well :P

I'm still waiting for science to explain it. They seem to have a lot of trouble with those questions :D

everyday i wake up and look at myself in the mirror and say "damn im hot" and when i think about the fact that i have eyes so i can see, ears so i can hear, mouth so i can eat, tongue to taste, nose to smell, brain so i can think, am i really a work of random mutations and natural selection over billion of years or is there someone who created us the way we are? he gave us sight and hearing along with other stuff, brutha, thats where i start believeing in God and thats where evolution fails for me 8)

sikanderahmed

Thats cool because then I can blame God for me being completely un-hot. 8)

:P

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

everyday i wake up and look at myself in the mirror and say "damn im hot" and when i think about the fact that i have eyes so i can see, ears so i can hear, mouth so i can eat, tongue to taste, nose to smell, brain so i can think, am i really a work of random mutations and natural selection over billion of years or is there someone who created us the way we are? he gave us sight and hearing along with other stuff, brutha, thats where i start believeing in God and thats where evolution fails for me 8)

Teenaged

Thats cool because then I can blame God for me being completely un-hot. 8)

:P

I blame god for everything that is wrong in my life and with this world >.> I take half the blame, he gets the other half

Are you saying its absolute proof, undeniable proof against the theory God exists and created the universe as we know it?

deadpool86x

No. I don't know what has given you the impression that I am. I said that it is proof against the theory that God created the universe in six days six thousand years ago. But that's all. If you wish to believe that God was ultimately responsible for the Big Bang, you are more than welcome to do so. If you wish to believe that God is ultimately responsible for the forces of nature that give the universe order, you are more than welcome to do that as well. All I am providing with you is the current scientific explanation for your questions that is consonant with the evidence we have available. If your conception of God does not violate any physical evidence, then science is not trying to tell you otherwise.

Evolution is mutation in a positive or negative way, right? So how can the absense of intelligence govern the laws of randomization...meaning how can no intelligence allow for a positive OR negative event to occur repeating for billions of years. It never failed, not only did it suceed...it suceeded in a few million types of species on this planet.

deadpool86x

When you have predefined parameters for the way in which things interact, as well as predefined parameters for what constitutes either a beneficial trait or a negative trait, such that one is propagated and the other not (in this case, capability of survival and reproduction constitute the measuring stick), then what happens next is entirely predictable, yet at the same time does not require the specific intelligent design of anything that this process produces.

The even that took place inside the DNA of certain mamals branched off yet again and again and again without fail, yet they are still similar to other creatures. The lines between lions and monkeys were broken, yet they have 4 limbs? How can that be such a basic evolutionary train in so many species that have nothing to do with each other unless that info was specifically preset into them in the very beginning.

deadpool86x

I'm not really sure if you recognize this, but what you are describing is a fact in favor of evolution. Yes, why are there common traits? Why do some flightless birds have hollow bones? Why do we have a tailbone? Because of common descent. If we were all intelligently designed, such features should not exist: flightless birds don't benefit from a reduced weight, nor do we have tails. Such common traits exist because of the genetic relationship between those animals and the animals that were their ancestors, as well as the inadequately long time span between now and when they became genetically distinct. Many flightless birds do have marrow-filled bones, because they split off further in the past than those who do not. Some animals don't have four limbs, because they are not part of the evolutionary path that led to that trait.

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

everyday i wake up and look at myself in the mirror and say "damn im hot" and when i think about the fact that i have eyes so i can see, ears so i can hear, mouth so i can eat, tongue to taste, nose to smell, brain so i can think, am i really a work of random mutations and natural selection over billion of years or is there someone who created us the way we are? he gave us sight and hearing along with other stuff, bortha, thats where i start believeing in God and thats where evolution fails for me 8)

GabuEx

No offense, but "I don't understand how it could have happened", much as people enjoy declaring so, does not constitute evidence against evolution. :P

but to me its not "I don't understand" but rather "I understand anddon't think its possible without a creator" :D

That reply also bothers me because it seems vastly more probable that something like our universe that is not alive or intelligent can pop into existence or always existed, but a God cannot. The day someone can justify the absense of intelligence creating something that is universal and not random is a day I feel will never come. I've researched the ideas and theories athiests and similar types offer, I've yet to hear a shred of proof god doesnt exist. Nobody knew gravity existed until Newton. It will only take the correct words or formula to show a god must exist or not, we've yet to reach that point.

deadpool86x

Well if both were observable I would agree that the god was more likely to have no cause than the universe.

Since only the universe is observable, I will assume that it popped into existence and not some unobservable god that may or may not exist.

You misunderstand my view i think. I support evolution, but not via the absense of intelligence. I believe evolution exists as a result of GOD writing the laws and letting them play out randomly. The predefined parameters you speak of is what i was trying to get at. It was written, things shall play out this or that way. This information exists that allows for the seemingly randomized events that will later take place. I believe that there is only a small portion of things that are randomized and that God allowed some leg room for things to grow and suprise him with how it turned out. He wrote the guidelines for the basics, made sure things dont mess up along the way, i think people are just out of their minds if they truely believe such complexity came from nothingness. Two events must have taken place if you believe this

the first being the universe itself suddenly popping into existence, the second event that life popped into existence without any thing causing it. Out of emptyness, the most complex thing possible in our universe suddenly existed.

I think god itself purposely intented to never know what things may come out of this, but he wanted humans to exist, tigers and lions, earth and stars, ect ect. The basics were preset, the rest was left the the written law of evolution. I do feel there is a mathematical formula for everything, if it exists, it has one. Evolution does exist, it has a prewritten formula for what governs its existence. Otherwise, it wouldnt exist in my opinion.

afterall if i were god, id want it to be that way.

No offense, but "I don't understand how it could have happened", much as people enjoy declaring so, does not constitute evidence against evolution. :PGabuEx

^ Its a two sided coin, it works for the other side as well :P

I'm still waiting for science to explain it. They seem to have a lot of trouble with those questions :D

deadpool86x

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]No offense, but "I don't understand how it could have happened", much as people enjoy declaring so, does not constitute evidence against evolution. :Plinkthewindow

^ Its a two sided coin, it works for the other side as well :P

I'm still waiting for science to explain it. They seem to have a lot of trouble with those questions :D

deadpool86x

yes really, because 100% of that text was written via the bibles word. The bible is nonsense. Is it possible jesus existed and was the son of god? Absolutely. The church slandered nearly everything, I believe very little from it. So using that as a backing for anything isn't even worth mentioning further. There is a difference between a creationist, and a person trying to use the word of the bible as their proof for things. And saying this or that is the proof that science is correct and creationists are wrong is just silly, that entire article was written in the context and thinking that what we see is what it is and nothing more. Sorry, but by that thinking science would have failed thousands of years ago. Just because you cannot see it doesnt mean its not there. And basing everything off the idea that "the big bang created stars, stars made us, we make more babies and so on" is just an avoidance manuver for those who are lazy and dont want to debate what really happened. That article wont even mention step 1. Where did the universe come from. It says step 1 doesnt exist....but there is a step 2-x

that is both scienticically and mathematically impossible...as are a few of the things evolution-ists ( lol ) say to be true,

[QUOTE="linkthewindow"][QUOTE="GabuEx"] I don't understand how general relativity works, thus it doesn't exist and Einstein paid out the Nobel committee. [QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

^ Its a two sided coin, it works for the other side as well :P

I'm still waiting for science to explain it. They seem to have a lot of trouble with those questions :D

deadpool86x

yes really, because 100% of that text was written via the bibles word. The bible is nonsense. Is it possible jesus existed and was the son of god? Absolutely. The church slandered nearly everything, I believe very little from it. So using that as a backing for anything isn't even worth mentioning further. There is a difference between a creationist, and a person trying to use the word of the bible as their proof for things.

Yea, I checked both. Both sides upset me. Both have massive gaps, both are not well thought out. Both sides say things that are just impossible and neither side will dive deeper into the explaination. Creationists have faith god made everything, evolutionary followers have faith that things just came to be. Neither side has absolute proof, so I questioned the logic of some athiests who really think creationists are just stupid people. Personally, I think the athiests ive come to know are just as crazy as the die hard religious folk. Neither side makes sense right now, but the idea that a God either always existed or came to be and then created all of this makes more sense to me than an unintelligent empty void creating something.

I really dont think you can empty space and make a void inside a cup and in 14 billion years an entire complex ecosystem will have just appeard inside. There was nothing to begin with, step 2 cant exist without step 1.

You misunderstand my view i think. I support evolution, but not via the absense of intelligence. I believe evolution exists as a result of GOD writing the laws and letting them play out randomly. The predefined parameters you speak of is what i was trying to get at. It was written, things shall play out this or that way. This information exists that allows for the seemingly randomized events that will later take place. I believe that there is only a small portion of things that are randomized and that God allowed some leg room for things to grow and suprise him with how it turned out. He wrote the guidelines for the basics, made sure things dont mess up along the way, i think people are just out of their minds if they truely believe such complexity came from nothingness. Two events must have taken place if you believe this

the first being the universe itself suddenly popping into existence, the second event that life popped into existence without any thing causing it. Out of emptyness, the most complex thing possible in our universe suddenly existed.

I think god itself purposely intented to never know what things may come out of this, but he wanted humans to exist, tigers and lions, earth and stars, ect ect. The basics were preset, the rest was left the the written law of evolution. I do feel there is a mathematical formula for everything, if it exists, it has one. Evolution does exist, it has a prewritten formula for what governs its existence. Otherwise, it wouldnt exist in my opinion.

afterall if i were god, id want it to be that way.

deadpool86x

Well, then you are correct, I did misunderstand what you were saying. In that case, then yes, there is no real argument that I can pose against the idea that the laws of nature exist because they were created. In fact, I happen to believe myself that there is something intelligent out there, as existence itself doesn't really make much sense otherwise. Of course, then this does bring up the rather obvious followup question, though: what is responsible for the existence of God? How does one either prevent or account for a seemingly logically nonsensical infinite regression of creators? Or if God has always existed, then why could not the laws of nature have always existed?

In truth, I fear that neither of the two explanations - that things were created, or that things always existed - have any real explanatory power or make any real sense when taken to their logical conclusions. I don't think we are really any closer at all than we were at the dawn of scientific investigation to answering the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. (Of course, then again, what enjoyment would there be to find in the world if there were no puzzles to worry ourselves over?)