News1 min ago
Evolution or Creation???
99 Answers
that is the question......!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by happyred. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What is a belief apart from that which demonstrates its validity, knowledge? Knowledge is derived from an understanding of the natural laws that govern existence including what is possible when those laws are understood and obeyed. Knowledge provides options for the continued existence and well-being of creatures that have learned how to acquired, verify and use it to physically alter reality in a way that is beneficial. A belief apart form the justification it acquires from knowledge can not reliably instruct us about what is or what should be.
Knowledge is not created out of a wishful or fear driven process. Knowledge grows out of a blank slate from what we have learned through observation of and experience with interacting with a world willing to reveal its secrets to those willing to explore and decode its mysteries. Knowledge evolves conceptually when the various facts of reality are logically differentiated and integrated into larger units making it possible to grasp and communicate complex ideas with single words such as evolution and reason.
Creationism implies that the knowledge required to create could have existed before evolution allowed knowledge to evolve to a level where any meaningful creation, let alone the creation of a universe, is possible. But then to understand why this causal relationship must be respected requires first that one has obtained the knowledge to appreciate why this is so. A belief without the knowledge required to justify it makes this or any other rational conclusion difficult if not impossible to achieve.
Knowledge is not created out of a wishful or fear driven process. Knowledge grows out of a blank slate from what we have learned through observation of and experience with interacting with a world willing to reveal its secrets to those willing to explore and decode its mysteries. Knowledge evolves conceptually when the various facts of reality are logically differentiated and integrated into larger units making it possible to grasp and communicate complex ideas with single words such as evolution and reason.
Creationism implies that the knowledge required to create could have existed before evolution allowed knowledge to evolve to a level where any meaningful creation, let alone the creation of a universe, is possible. But then to understand why this causal relationship must be respected requires first that one has obtained the knowledge to appreciate why this is so. A belief without the knowledge required to justify it makes this or any other rational conclusion difficult if not impossible to achieve.
Naomi says "nothing comes from nothing"
Presumably she looks around her at the things she experiences in her life, draws this conclusion and then applies it to the entire universe.
It's a little like medieval europeans trying to think about a nuclear reactor to in terms of agriculture.
The processes in the big bang are so far from our everyday experience as to be laughable.
Actually things can come from nothing in some circumstances. so clled virtual particles can pop in and out of existance - we see them in something called the casimir effect.
Similarly virtual particles are involved in Hawking radiation.
You can't just look around you and believe that you can extend what you see to the the start of creation - that's what the ancient Greeks did, hopefully we've come on a bit since then
Presumably she looks around her at the things she experiences in her life, draws this conclusion and then applies it to the entire universe.
It's a little like medieval europeans trying to think about a nuclear reactor to in terms of agriculture.
The processes in the big bang are so far from our everyday experience as to be laughable.
Actually things can come from nothing in some circumstances. so clled virtual particles can pop in and out of existance - we see them in something called the casimir effect.
Similarly virtual particles are involved in Hawking radiation.
You can't just look around you and believe that you can extend what you see to the the start of creation - that's what the ancient Greeks did, hopefully we've come on a bit since then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Quantum-me chanical_definition
Read line number 8
Should we accept that our understanding of nothing in scientific terms is therefore inconclusive?
Read line number 8
Should we accept that our understanding of nothing in scientific terms is therefore inconclusive?
Absolutely Theland. The concept of absolute nothingness is as flawed in practical terms as the concept of absolute zero temperature.
This is my point - it is very dangerous to draw from your everyday reality that revolves around what are very "middle of the road" conditions and apply them to the sort of conditions at the birt of the Universe.
Things have a habbit of getting very strange when you prod them hard enough.
You wouldn't expect to be able to "walk through walls" but sub-atomic particles can do exactly that.
You're also talking about the start of time - our everyday english language itself starts to fall apart then.
What do phrases like "creation" or even "big bang" actually mean when you are considering the "start of time"
All of these have comcepts of time actually embedded in them.
You just can't discuss these concepts in natural language any more than you can change a type with a slice of bread - the tools are not up to the job.
If it's any consolation I'm not entirely convinced current mathematical language is either but it's a lot closer
This is my point - it is very dangerous to draw from your everyday reality that revolves around what are very "middle of the road" conditions and apply them to the sort of conditions at the birt of the Universe.
Things have a habbit of getting very strange when you prod them hard enough.
You wouldn't expect to be able to "walk through walls" but sub-atomic particles can do exactly that.
You're also talking about the start of time - our everyday english language itself starts to fall apart then.
What do phrases like "creation" or even "big bang" actually mean when you are considering the "start of time"
All of these have comcepts of time actually embedded in them.
You just can't discuss these concepts in natural language any more than you can change a type with a slice of bread - the tools are not up to the job.
If it's any consolation I'm not entirely convinced current mathematical language is either but it's a lot closer
J - T - P Thanks for that. As an ignorant layman I am nevertheless fascinated by the whole subject of subatomic particle physics, and have had to rely on scientists writing books that convert their knowledge into words of one syllable for the likes of me.
The point I have often tried to make, is that the universe is far too complex a place to be understood only through our five senses, and those people who cannot detect God through their senses, rule Him out completely.
Now, I am not for a moment saying that there is a physical scientific proof of God, but what I am saying is that the idea of God cannot be ruled out, when we cannot even fully understand the minutae of (His) creation.
As I recall, your work involves particle physics? Or am I mistaking you for another ABer?
The point I have often tried to make, is that the universe is far too complex a place to be understood only through our five senses, and those people who cannot detect God through their senses, rule Him out completely.
Now, I am not for a moment saying that there is a physical scientific proof of God, but what I am saying is that the idea of God cannot be ruled out, when we cannot even fully understand the minutae of (His) creation.
As I recall, your work involves particle physics? Or am I mistaking you for another ABer?
The problem of the probable inability of human thought to properly grasp the start of the Universe can easily seen as equivilent to the inability of the mind to grasp God.
It's just that religious thought adds an extra layer - After all - where does your God come from? Any answer you give I can equally say well that applies to a universe without God.
Adding God into the equation doesn't help with the fundamental question - It just shifts it down a layer.
And it is as you say almost impossible to prove a negative - I cannot disprove God any more than you can disprove that God was assisted in the creation by his pet robot "Sparky".
This is why scientists tend to ebrace Occam's Razor which basically says that in any explanation - assume the simplest one that fits all the facts is true - I'm sure you'd apply that to "Sparky" just as I apply that to God :c)
Once apon a time when the world was young and dinosaurs ruled the earth I was a physicist with the UK Atomic Energy Authority - but I made the fundamental discovery that physicists were poorly paid and sold out to the world of computer security. I keep an occasional interest though, especially this year with the CERN LHC revving up.
It's just that religious thought adds an extra layer - After all - where does your God come from? Any answer you give I can equally say well that applies to a universe without God.
Adding God into the equation doesn't help with the fundamental question - It just shifts it down a layer.
And it is as you say almost impossible to prove a negative - I cannot disprove God any more than you can disprove that God was assisted in the creation by his pet robot "Sparky".
This is why scientists tend to ebrace Occam's Razor which basically says that in any explanation - assume the simplest one that fits all the facts is true - I'm sure you'd apply that to "Sparky" just as I apply that to God :c)
Once apon a time when the world was young and dinosaurs ruled the earth I was a physicist with the UK Atomic Energy Authority - but I made the fundamental discovery that physicists were poorly paid and sold out to the world of computer security. I keep an occasional interest though, especially this year with the CERN LHC revving up.
Jake - I thought it was you. I was right. Now I know where to direct my questions about "up - down - colour - flavour etc" But don't laugh too hard at the terminology I may use.
I didn't realise CERN was coming on line this year, I thought it was quite a few years away. (It's a pity the CERN contractors didn't get to build the Wembley stadium - might have done it on time!)
However, so far, God, (and Sparky), remain an objective possibility.
I didn't realise CERN was coming on line this year, I thought it was quite a few years away. (It's a pity the CERN contractors didn't get to build the Wembley stadium - might have done it on time!)
However, so far, God, (and Sparky), remain an objective possibility.
Theland, You're back in action I see. Was beginning to think I might have run you off with that sorry excuse for a joke of mine. You've been missed as you have probably learned from reading some of the other threads. I'd say that I missed you but that might be admitting too much . . .
happyred, Welcome to answerbank where you sometimes get answers and often a lot more
happyred, Welcome to answerbank where you sometimes get answers and often a lot more
What has any of this got to do with the original question, which was plainly about life, not the origins of the universe, a totally separate question with which evolution is not concerned?
Life is not something which came from nothing: all the chemical ingredients needed were already there. (How those ingredients came about is, as I say, a different matter.)
If those ingredients came together by accident to form a very primitive form of life (which is something we haven't proved yet, though we're well on the way) then how that primitive life developed into modern complex life is rationally, elegantly and satisfactorily explained by the evolutionary process of random mutation followed by natural selection. Thus endeth the answer.
Life is not something which came from nothing: all the chemical ingredients needed were already there. (How those ingredients came about is, as I say, a different matter.)
If those ingredients came together by accident to form a very primitive form of life (which is something we haven't proved yet, though we're well on the way) then how that primitive life developed into modern complex life is rationally, elegantly and satisfactorily explained by the evolutionary process of random mutation followed by natural selection. Thus endeth the answer.
I suggest,Theland, that instead of sitting there lazily waiting for scientifc discoveries to come along and bite you, you go out and study them.
The twenty amino acids essential to life (and men and horses differ by only one such acid) have now been produced in the laboratory, not deliberately (which would be easy) but by putting those basic elements that existed 3500 thousand million years ago into the sort of hot, humid, electrically- charged environment which would then have obtained. That is astonishing progress, made no less by the fact that your religion demands that you ignore it. Now more complicated molecules, beginning to resemble proteins, though nowhere near that yet, are emerging. By all means continue to yawn at all this, your problem being that I can't guarantee that when more discoveries emerge they will find time to bite you out of your religious stupor. They have better things to do.
The twenty amino acids essential to life (and men and horses differ by only one such acid) have now been produced in the laboratory, not deliberately (which would be easy) but by putting those basic elements that existed 3500 thousand million years ago into the sort of hot, humid, electrically- charged environment which would then have obtained. That is astonishing progress, made no less by the fact that your religion demands that you ignore it. Now more complicated molecules, beginning to resemble proteins, though nowhere near that yet, are emerging. By all means continue to yawn at all this, your problem being that I can't guarantee that when more discoveries emerge they will find time to bite you out of your religious stupor. They have better things to do.
I think last time we discussed evolution versus creation i pointed out that there was plenty of scope to prove all the evolutionists wrong.
I think it was CP Snow ( but I could be wrong) "Rabbits in the Permian should do it" he said.
Shouldn't be hard, there are an awful lot of rabbits about, a lot more than T-Rex's
Yet nobody has ever found one - All those dinosaur bones from before the flood apparently
No rabbits, no weasels, wolves, lions, waterbuffalo no mammals at all!
And yet we have beatifully preserved insects amphibians and reptiles.
If you truely believe in the evidence you have to conclude that if creationism is true that all these creatures were created at different times.
Or have I missed something?
I think it was CP Snow ( but I could be wrong) "Rabbits in the Permian should do it" he said.
Shouldn't be hard, there are an awful lot of rabbits about, a lot more than T-Rex's
Yet nobody has ever found one - All those dinosaur bones from before the flood apparently
No rabbits, no weasels, wolves, lions, waterbuffalo no mammals at all!
And yet we have beatifully preserved insects amphibians and reptiles.
If you truely believe in the evidence you have to conclude that if creationism is true that all these creatures were created at different times.
Or have I missed something?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
