Evolution

Theres no need and no way for us to know everything, i think things like creationism are just attempts to "know" things we have no way of knowing.

 

People have thought of that before. It is the only thing that actually makes sense, IF, there is indeed a creator.

 

Because I believe it is the logical fallacy of the moving goalpost.

But that is just me.

 

thats what i believe too, adam. i suppose we live in a society of absolutes; its either this or that. so the human race either came into existence through evolution OR divine creation alone. it cant be both, right? el wrongo.

call it the logical fallacy of the moving goalposts or logical fallacy of the stampeding zebras or what have you, but i simply call it reality. God loves us so much that instead of forcing us to live one way, He provided us with the gift of free-will. therefore, we have been evolving at our own will essentially since creation.

 

If evolution is a process designed to bring about human beings, why did it take billions of years for us to arrive on the scene? If we were truly designed by a creator who made sure a process such as evolution would bring us about, why are we so poorly designed?

 

Not to mention, why are we still evolving?

It is a common mistake to assume we in our current form are the pinnacle of evolution. Not only that, but the entire reason for evolution.

Evolution is motion. Life today is just the latest frame in a very long movie with no end in sight.

And to clear up one little thing: Evolution got nothing to do with neither big bang or origin of life. Evolution is change between generations of life. Big bang is cosmology, origin of life is biochemistry.

 

Yes indeed, good question. I can't believe I forgot to ask it.

 

I was waiting for someone to clear this up. That's a common fallacy people like to throw out there when discussing the theory of evolution. But like zylark said, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life.

 

well done. thats it. you've got it right just there. no need to deal with the rest of this thread. thats it right there. "i can't seem to choose sides on creationism". great. perfect. then dont. you're done. you're sorted. you're correct right there. well done now.

 

So you are to say, someone who accepts their surroundings, instead of endlessly attempting to decipher the meaning behind them, may actually live a more prosperous life?

Who-dahh-thunkit?

 

"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" -Epicurus

Concept of god defeated!

 

ive chosen no sides when it comes to evolution/creationism. whenever im asked what i think on the subject/s, i can only reply "all i know is that, when i look around at everything there is, i cant accept it to be an accident".

 

It is not an accident. It is a product of evolution and other natural forces. We do not need a creator in order for us, and everything we see, to not be considered an accident.

 

Well, see the difference is that one of them is an actually logical fallacy, signaling flawed reasoning, while the other is a horrendously constructed strawman out of your own personal credulity.

Despite the fact that there is no evidence for that mechanism?

Free will is still very much unproven and simply a speculative philosophical concept.

The flip side of the coin, in which any proposed theistic plan is based; determinism.

Is that the creation of 6000 years or the creation of 13.7 billion years?

I find it hard to believe that the epicenter of a theistic creation would be living on a tiny planet, orbiting an incredibly unremarkable sun, on an obscure arm of an ordinary galaxy.

Said being, must be very intent on hiding his intention.... except to the true believers of course.

 

Here is my question, what came before both? What keeps me up at night isn't god or evolution, it's how did either spawn from nothingness? I mean, come now, the thought that god or the universe just magically popped out of nothingness makes no sense. With that logic in place it seems like the next great universe could spontaneously burst forth from Rosie O'Donalds cooch and that is what doesn't sit right with me.

I promise that as soon as one side can explain that part of the puzzle to me I'll be straight.

 

Well, this is really a physics question.

I would highly advise any book or paper written by Victor Stenger, he is a physacist and borderline cosmologist.

Also, this site has an incredibly detailed section on the science of the Big Bang: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

But firstly, the reality is that we don't know exactly what cause the big bang. We don't know what was 'before' it. But modern physics can help us make plausible inferences on the Big Bang.

Asking what occurred before it is a little misleading, because the big bang is the beginning of space-time, so there was no period before the big bang. Duration started when the big bang occured, and continue onward from then.

Also, from the little I've read from Stenger he discusses that a state of 'nothingness' is very unstable, that something rather than nothing is the normal state of affairs (which we learn from particle physics). This means that any state of nothingness will undergo a spontaneous phase shift to a state of something.

Now, this is commonly picked apart, in terms of the first law of thermodynamics. Aside from this being an argument of circular logic, Stenger also investigates, than in our observable universe that it exists as a close balance between positive and negative energy. This is a little mind-boggling, but he is suggesting that the total net energy of the universe is in fact zero.

We have never really go from 'nothing to something', we continue to exist as nothing in a state of imbalance.



although, I'm just sharing what I currently know. The topic of the Big Bang, particle physics, kinematics, theoretically physics etc. is a big topic. It will take my years to even have a grasp of it.

Althought, you have to keep in mind; just because we don't understand certain aspects of a concept is no reason to think the entire concept is wrong. This is nothing than the all-too-common logical fallacy of an argument from personal incredulity.

My own credulity on the subject is far from absolute, but what I've read, makes sense and is amply supported by evidence. It you're going to attempt to understand it, I wish you luck. It's quite a feat.


The Scientific World is ever marching towards the answer. With every particle collider we come closer, with ever particle physics experiment it makes a little bit more sense. Who knows what might be revealed with the finding of the higgs boson or the tachyon.


P.S. -- I'm not going to post more on this, I don't want to be accused on hijacking a thread. The reality is that evolution and the Big Bang are two entirley different subjects. Evolutionary Biologists and Elementary Physicists don't have too much in common.

 

The dominant intelligent life form on the planet has evolved along two different lines for the purpose of procreation. The larger and hairier of the pair provides seeds to fertilise eggs carried in the body of the smaller, smoother variety. The smaller group incubates its foetus for 283 solar days. After giving birth, it is biologically equipped to feed the offspring and care for it during its early years when it is unable to survive on its own.

Although similar in their primary functions, the two variants have a number of physical mental and emotional differences. The reason for this is that the primary task of the larger variety is to protect and support the smaller of the species while it cares for its species. Thats why members of the larger group are physically stronger, aggressive and easily enraged and willing to take life threatining risks for a show of dominance - lions in their kraal and apes in a show of hyrachical masculinity.

Wer'e animals, and we differ in numerous ways, The female species' reproductive systems are the most apparant of these differences- but they also differ in physical aspects not directly related to reproduction such as the way in which their brains work, and in their social behaviour, and close-nit social ties and values. We are very closely related to our animal ape relatives -This is my observation of the behavioural patterns of our species, that We mimick them well in our social behaviours, and have instincts passed down to us from the prehistoric beast.

 

So we exist as nothing in a state of imbalance...

Totally the opposite of existing as everything in a state of balance.


Somehow I think they are connected though. Not either or, a little bit of both somehow.

Perhaps everything is nothing and balance is actually imbalance... Hmmm... To confusing for words yet intriguing...


Like in math, the concept of zero. It is both infinitely something and infinitely nothing.

And if the universe is constantly in a state of imbalance... Such a constant state could be considered balance.

Head going to explode, danger

 

I really, really like this guy.