religion

[magekillr]

But when it comes to creation, magically people decide that it is a respectable theory.

 

Is it more plausible that we exist through phenomenal random chance or is it more plausible that we exist through a phenomenal being's design?

 

The former:

 

Well, let's take this question as seriously as our knowledge allows us to. (And by that, I mean physically, rather than philosophically or theologically.) In physics, can you get something for nothing? And if so, what can you and can't you get?

 

In many ways, yes, you can. In fact, in many ways, getting something when you have nothing is unavoidable! (Although you can't necessarily get anything you want.)

 

For example, take a box and empty it, so that all you've got is some totally empty space, like above. An ideal, perfect, empty vacuum. Now, what's in that box?

 

Did you guess nothing? Well, it turns out that empty space isn't so empty.

 

One of the consequences of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle -- that you can't know a quantum state's energy exactly for a finite duration of time -- means that when you're talking about very short time intervals, there are large uncertainties in the energy of a system. Over short enough timescales, the energies are large enough that particle-antiparticle pairs wink in-and-out of existence all the time!

 

"That's crazy talk," you say. Prove it! And they did.

 

Take two identical, uncharged, parallel metal plates, and put them close to one another. The vacuum fluctuations in between the plates cause there to be a pressure pushing the plates together. This isn't the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force, but a force due to empty space itself. This experiment -- first done in 1948 but repeated many times (under many conditions) -- was a rousing success, and has many immediate, far-reaching and fantastic consequences. The space near a black hole is, of course, filled with these particle-antiparticle pairs, just like space everywhere else. But create a pair close to the event horizon, and one of the two can fall in! The other one, being outside the event horizon, can escape, carrying energy away, and becoming real. These particles that escape are known as Hawking radiation. When the Universe inflates, or expands exponentially (before the Big Bang), these quantum fluctuations also expand, and get stretched across the Universe faster than they can annihilate one another. These fluctuations show up as regions with slightly more (for positive fluctuations) or less (for negative ones) energy, which then grow into structure (like clusters, galaxies, and stars) and voids as the Universe ages. And if you start with enough energy, you can take all of the real matter and antimatter pairs that exist, and create more matter than antimatter, giving us a Universe where we have something, today, rather than nothing. Now, that's what we know we can get, even from nothing. But there are many things we can't do, either practically or theoretically: violate charge or energy conservation, decrease the total entropy of the Universe, or figure out where our initially inflating Universe came from. (Yet!) But we definitely can get something for nothing; quantum field theory not only allows it, it demands it. But it remains to be seen whether we can get everything for nothing. If we ever figure it out, I'll make sure you're among the first to know!

Can you get something from nothing--Scienceblogs

 

My own take:

 

What came before... that is the problem of infinite regression. The assumption is that all things must have had a beginning. If someone says "God has always existed, he didn't need to be created or to have a beginning," then I can make the exact same argument for matter/energy.

 

If you accept the premise that all things must have a beginning, then the problem of infinite regression can be answered in one of two ways: either everything in the universe came from nothing at the beginning of time, or a supernatural being came from nothing at the beginning of time and then created everything else. It seems much more likely to me that simple atoms and energy could wink into being spontaneously than an omniscient, omnipotent being could do the same. Hawking has argued that the sum total of all matter and energy in the universe is zero, so all of everything that came from nothing still equals nothing and our equation is balanced.

 

So, how do I answer the question of what came before the big bang? I say it is a nonsense question. There was no "before" the big bang. Time is a function of space. With all matter/energy contained within an infinitely small singularity there was no space and therefore no time, thus no "before."

[Zierro]

I see no ammount of mystery involved in this question. No more than any other scientific question.

 

Are you kidding? Us asking where we came from is such a silly question to begin with. We can't test or observe our origin was. The closest thing we could do would be to mimic creationism by creating life from non-life. As far as I can see, we haven't been able to pull off such a feat - we have only theorized about the possibility. Even if we could, the conditions would still be different, as humans would be on the project so there wouldn't be sufficient enough evidence showing that it can happen naturally without the aid of an intelligent being.

 

It can? Wow, enlighten me. Tell me where gravity comes from.

 

God.

 

But seriously, I see your point. It just "is" and there is no need to further question such a thing. And I also agree on this point - it is not necessary for there to be a god. However, that isn't proof that one does not exist.

 

False dichotomy. The choices aren't a.) random chance or b.) God.

 

If those were the only two options, hell, I would believe in god. People make this argument all the time "You think the Earth came just by chance? So much stuff had to go according to plan..."

 

Thats true. We had to be a certain distance from the sun, we need an atmosphere, we need a moon. Theres a huge list of factors that need to be right for our type of life. But that doesn't mean this happened by chance. There are billions of stars in the universe and billions of planets. If the odds of Earth developing were one in a billion, there would be at least one Earth. It's called the anthropic principle.

 

? Then what would the third or fourth options be? I don't see how there could be more to it than A.) God exists and created life or B.) God doesn't exist and life occurred because random chance (nature) allowed it.

[Myweponsg00d]

God.

 

But seriously, I see your point. It just "is" and there is no need to further question such a thing. And I also agree on this point - it is not necessary for there to be a god. However, that isn't proof that one does not exist.

 

That isn't my point at all. Millions of dollars are being spent on research to figure out what the mechanism is that makes matter have a gravitational attraction. My point is that we don't just say "God" or "Fairies" or "little green men" are responsible for other stuff. We don't go around saying "Hmmm, I wonder why my roof blew off" and say "The spirit of the house must be angry with me!" If you existed 1000 years ago in Russia, you would likely have blamed it on the Domovoi, the spirit of the house. But today, when we develop explanations for things, most people think that these explanations are dumb.

 

The point wasn't that "gravity just exists" the point is that literally every natural phenomenon is not explained by some type of magic or superintelligent being.

 

? Then what would the third or fourth options be? I don't see how there could be more to it than A.) God exists and created life or B.) God doesn't exist and life occurred because random chance (nature) allowed it.

 

You either misunderstand what "chance" means or you misunderstand the scientific theories.

 

For example, many anti-evolutionists make the argument "The human eye is so complex, you think that came about BY RANDOM LUCK? BY CHANCE?!"

 

This isn't at all what evolution suggests. In fact, evolution says that it is CERTAIN that we would evolve. Complex lifeforms don't thrive because of random luck, they thrive because they are stronger and more fit for survival. It has nothing to do with luck.

 

The same can be said about our Earth. Many people think "What are the chances that Earth exists?" Well, okay...heres the thing. There are billions of stars in the galaxy and many many more planets. These planets aren't all going to be Earths, but some of them are BOUND to be Earths. It is CERTAIN that an Earth would exist simply because there are so damn many planets in the galaxy.

 

And the principle can be extended to the universe. One of the current leading theories suggests that there may be many many other dimensions and many many other universes. If a huge number of universes exists, that means that a universe like ours is bound to exist.

 

It might be RARE to find planets like Earth, but that doesn't mean that we had any especially good luck. Earth was bound to be created somewhere, and life was bound to evolve on it until it becomes intelligent.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, calculations have been done that show the chance of the earth's existence is more like 1x10^130 something....and the universe hasn't existed long enough to even come close to affording a reasonable chance at this...

 

I've linked to this book already but I'll do it again...it's a great source for some scientific ideas that can reflect the existence of God: http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1296826209&sr=8-4

 

Interestingly enough, the author of the book has NO BACKGROUND IN PHYSICS. Not even in any type of science or mathematics.

 

Do you also go to Jiffy Lube to get a cheeseburger, McDonalds to have your taxes done, and call up an exterminator when your cable goes out?

[sees_all1]

It might be RARE to find planets like Earth, but that doesn't mean that we had any especially good luck. Earth was bound to be created somewhere, and life was bound to evolve on it until it becomes intelligent.

And you're bound to win the lottery if you keep buying tickets, right?

[jjrox32]

It might be RARE to find planets like Earth, but that doesn't mean that we had any especially good luck. Earth was bound to be created somewhere, and life was bound to evolve on it until it becomes intelligent.

And you're bound to win the lottery if you keep buying tickets, right?

 

Well if you bought billions of tickets the odds are pretty good.

[sees_all1]

It might be RARE to find planets like Earth, but that doesn't mean that we had any especially good luck. Earth was bound to be created somewhere, and life was bound to evolve on it until it becomes intelligent.

And you're bound to win the lottery if you keep buying tickets, right?

 

Well if you bought billions of tickets the odds are pretty good.

Sure, but you'd be out billions of dollars.

 

 

The probabilities of events like this occurring are so astronomically small they approach zero, so that nothing is "bound to happen". If the probability was any larger I'd expect to see evidence of another intelligent species on earth, another planet supporting life, aliens or what not.

It doesn't boil down to just the position of the earth and the size of our sun, it also comes down to physical constants such as the speed of light, the charge of an electron, the gravitational pull between two objects. If any of those were slightly different, the entire universe would have been a different outcome.

[Rainbows]

the entire universe would have been a different outcome.

 

Or: If things were different, they'd be different!

 

Orly?

[meol]

It might be RARE to find planets like Earth, but that doesn't mean that we had any especially good luck. Earth was bound to be created somewhere, and life was bound to evolve on it until it becomes intelligent.

And you're bound to win the lottery if you keep buying tickets, right?

Maybe not you, but someone is bound to win the lottery, yes, just as life would have appeared somewhere. Neither you nor the Earth are special a priori. The reason Earth and nature constants seem so perfect for life is that life adapted to the environment, not the other way around.

 

Isn't it a bit arrogant to think that everything, from the supernovas where the iron in your body was created to the constants that define physics were especially designed and created so that a group of apes could tell another group about Jesus?

[obfuscator]

im willing to bet that book strawmans as much as the books saying that there is evidence to say there can be no God

 

Interesting to hear your bets. However, I think it would make more sense if you held judgement and didn't jump to conclusions ;)

 

Interestingly enough, the author of the book has NO BACKGROUND IN PHYSICS. Not even in any type of science or mathematics.

 

Do you also go to Jiffy Lube to get a cheeseburger, McDonalds to have your taxes done, and call up an exterminator when your cable goes out?

 

Yet neither Christopher Hitches, nor Richard Dawkins, nor Sam Harris have backgrounds in physics, but I doubt you'd bring up that particular objection were they to postulate on science as the proof of supernatural nonexistence.

 

You also seem quite content to try to explain, through physics, how the universe cannot exist...tell me, do you have a doctorate degree in physics? I also doubt it.

 

My point is that an intelligent person can still research and know a topic reasonably well despite the fact that may not be their major area of study.

 

However...here's another intelligent design book, written by an astrophysicist, just for you: http://www.amazon.com/Creator-Cosmos-Greatest-Scientific-Discoveries/dp/0891097007/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296916342&sr=1-10

 

 

Maybe not you, but someone is bound to win the lottery, yes, just as life would have appeared somewhere. Neither you nor the Earth are special a priori. The reason Earth and nature constants seem so perfect for life is that life adapted to the environment, not the other way around.

 

Isn't it a bit arrogant to think that everything, from the supernovas where the iron in your body was created to the constants that define physics were especially designed and created so that a group of apes could tell another group about Jesus?

 

I feel like all I'm doing is linking to books in this thread but here's an interesting one on the topic. http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1296917221&sr=8-4

 

See, the "unguided evolution as a starting point of life" has some flaws. I think it's fairly hard to deny that evolution is in fact real. It's generally portrayed as a linear process of trial and error...yet there's nothing linear about many of the things we see on earth.

 

Take a cell, for example....it requires no less than forty different components, functioning perfectly together, to process as a whole. If evolution is a linear process, the question of the evolution of a cell raises further questions? Did the mitochondria spend millions of years developing to be perfect, then did it stop and wait until evolution designed a nucleus that would work, then did this process continue forty times over? One might say yes....but the fact is that individual cellular components are function-less by themselves and therefore it would be impossible for them to "tell" when they had achieved the right form to function correctly with further cellular parts yet to exist.

 

A question I have personally, in regards to unguided evolution, is the question of intelligence. Darwin postulated that each species adapted to suit its relative environment, and this seems plausible enough...until you take humanity into the equation.

 

Now, a bear for example, has fur to keep it warm, and sharp claws to keep itself safe. An ape has strong limbs and can climb trees. A human has none of these assets, and, in fact...I've seen the argument made many times that humans were shafted by evolution in that aside from intelligence, we are among the weakest and defenseless creatures on the planet. Even the turtle, for example, which cannot move with any speed comes with a hard shell to protect itself. Humans have only intelligence.

 

Yet humans have fared surprisingly well despite our lack of most "ordinary" evolutionary tools of defense. Extremely well, and one might say even too well, to the point at which humans have complete dominance over practically all other life forms and we're even on pace to destroy our planet. In this, I believe, is clear evidence that, despite our lack of "ordinary" evolutionary defenses, we have obtained the createst gift through evolution of all - as intelligence has led us to not only survive, but prosper far more than other species.

 

Now, IF intelligence, then, is the masterpiece of evolution...why has it yet to show it's face once more? Of course, many animals have been observed with very basic intelligence, but nothing anywhere near what's been observed in humanity. I find this nonsensical...if intelligence is the most superior tool for survival, why have more animals not evolved to also have it? We see many animals with sharp teeth, many animals with claws, many animals who can disguise themselves...but only one animal with truly superior intelligence.

 

Another thing that comes to mind is....take, for example, the cow and the shrimp. What are their evolutionary defense tool?. The shrimp basically exists to be eaten by other animals (as far as we've seen), so their only survival tool seems to be a high rate of reproduction. Likewise, the cow is fat, slow, and largely unable to defend itself...so it seems it's basic purpose is merely to be nourishment for other animals.

If evolution was truly unguided, survival of the fittest would have dictated the extinction of both these creatures before they could have even evolved.

 

Now I don't know if this is any documented scholarly type of thinking, and I'm certainly open to being proven wrong....these are just some questions I have that spring from the theory of unguided evolution as an origin of life.

[sees_all1]

Another part about evolution as a way to explain the origins of life all the way to where we are now that is difficult to believe -

Life is believed to have begun from a single organism, as some random combination of proteins that reproduced itself.

That's all well and good, except for evolution to work the organisms need to be differentiated somehow. If all of life on earth came from one organism, the resulting organisms would be exactly the same. There wouldn't be a "fittest" to survive.

 

It also means that at some point the organism had to mutate - one of them had to be exposed to radiation or a toxin or something - that when it reproduced it formed something different. This had to happen more than hundreds of millions of times to produce the wildly differentiated array of species we know today.

You can try to reproduce this - take a single bacterium, put it on a sterilized Petri dish, seal it and let it grow for a long time. If evolution occurs, you'd expect an entirely new species (not known to man) to exist in a rather short period of time. More than likely the bacteria growing there won't differentiate, which makes the explained origins of life on earth difficult to believe.

[Myweponsg00d]

The probabilities of events like this occurring are so astronomically small they approach zero, so that nothing is "bound to happen". If the probability was any larger I'd expect to see evidence of another intelligent species on earth, another planet supporting life, aliens or what not.

It doesn't boil down to just the position of the earth and the size of our sun, it also comes down to physical constants such as the speed of light, the charge of an electron, the gravitational pull between two objects. If any of those were slightly different, the entire universe would have been a different outcome.

 

I would like to know what you estimate to be the odds of Earth developing are. Because even if the odds are 1 in a billion, there would still be a billion earths in the universe.

 

Even if the odds were 1 in a billion billion, there would still be at least 1 Earth, and thats all we need.

 

Or if the odds were 1 in a billion billion billion, that would mean that all we have to do is get an extraordinary stroke of luck and then we have Earth.

 

What do you think of medical oddities that happen? There was a man that I saw on the Discovery channel who could run electric current through his body. I have never seen this or heard of this anywhere else, so I assume he is probably the only guy who can do this. Therefore the odds of a person being able to do this are like 1 in 8 billion, or even less. What do you think of this man? That he was born by supernatural methods? The chances of his case happening are extremely low, so therefore God is responsible?

 

 

 

Yet neither Christopher Hitches, nor Richard Dawkins, nor Sam Harris have backgrounds in physics, but I doubt you'd bring up that particular objection were they to postulate on science as the proof of supernatural nonexistence.

 

Dawkins and Harris both are scientists. Also none of these authors try to prove that an intelligent creator does NOT exist, as it cannot be done.

 

You also seem quite content to try to explain, through physics, how the universe cannot exist...tell me, do you have a doctorate degree in physics? I also doubt it.

 

Undergraduate in Physics and Astronomy. I would be going to graduate school for Physics but instead I decided to obtain a post-grad degree in teaching so that I can help fight the US's terrible problem with scientific illiteracy.

 

My point is that an intelligent person can still research and know a topic reasonably well despite the fact that may not be their major area of study.

 

If anyone is claiming that God does exist, there is simply no possible way that this person is well-versed in experience with making scientific claims or defending scientific arguments.

 

However...here's another intelligent design book, written by an astrophysicist, just for you: http://www.amazon.co...6916342&sr=1-10

 

 

Good, another book. Theres books written about the flying spaghetti monster, should I link you to those? Anybody can write a book and it doesn't help your argument.

 

 

 

 

 

Another part about evolution as a way to explain the origins of life all the way to where we are now that is difficult to believe -

Life is believed to have begun from a single organism, as some random combination of proteins that reproduced itself.

That's all well and good, except for evolution to work the organisms need to be differentiated somehow. If all of life on earth came from one organism, the resulting organisms would be exactly the same. There wouldn't be a "fittest" to survive.

 

You completely misunderstand how evolution works. Each organism has some type of genetic variation. Think like, how some people are tall? Some have very thin hair? Different color eyes...etc. Each lifeform has the chance of developing a random trait that is more fit for survival than others of the same species. For example, if a bird randomly developed a genetic trait that allowed it to fly faster than other birds of the same species, then this bird would be more likely to reproduce and pass its genetics on to another generation.

 

It also means that at some point the organism had to mutate - one of them had to be exposed to radiation or a toxin or something

Genetic variation has nothing to do with toxins

that when it reproduced it formed something different. This had to happen more than hundreds of millions of times to produce the wildly differentiated array of species we know today.

 

Again, a complete misunderstanding. It isn't like a worm randomly mutated and became a catterpillar. These two seperate lifeforms came from millions of years of very slight genetic variation.

 

You can try to reproduce this - take a single bacterium, put it on a sterilized Petri dish, seal it and let it grow for a long time. If evolution occurs, you'd expect an entirely new species (not known to man) to exist in a rather short period of time. More than likely the bacteria growing there won't differentiate, which makes the explained origins of life on earth difficult to believe.

 

This is simply not true. Organisms evolve on a much much much larger timescale than this...

[Myweponsg00d]

I feel like all I'm doing is linking to books in this thread but here's an interesting one on the topic. http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1296917221&sr=8-4

 

See, the "unguided evolution as a starting point of life" has some flaws. I think it's fairly hard to deny that evolution is in fact real. It's generally portrayed as a linear process of trial and error...yet there's nothing linear about many of the things we see on earth.

 

I don't really know what you mean by linear.

 

Take a cell, for example....it requires no less than forty different components, functioning perfectly together, to process as a whole. If evolution is a linear process, the question of the evolution of a cell raises further questions? Did the mitochondria spend millions of years developing to be perfect, then did it stop and wait until evolution designed a nucleus that would work, then did this process continue forty times over? One might say yes....but the fact is that individual cellular components are function-less by themselves and therefore it would be impossible for them to "tell" when they had achieved the right form to function correctly with further cellular parts yet to exist.

 

I don't know what to tell you about this except that individual cell components are not useless by themselves. It sounds like you just got this from some random person using the "irreducilby complex" argument. I've heard this many times about things such as the bacterial flegellum. The flegellum would not work if any of its componets were not present. However, it just would not work as a flegellum. The flegellum with a few less parts could still be used as a sort of syringe for attacking other organisms.

 

A question I have personally, in regards to unguided evolution, is the question of intelligence. Darwin postulated that each species adapted to suit its relative environment, and this seems plausible enough...until you take humanity into the equation.

 

Now, a bear for example, has fur to keep it warm, and sharp claws to keep itself safe. An ape has strong limbs and can climb trees. A human has none of these assets, and, in fact...I've seen the argument made many times that humans were shafted by evolution in that aside from intelligence, we are among the weakest and defenseless creatures on the planet. Even the turtle, for example, which cannot move with any speed comes with a hard shell to protect itself. Humans have only intelligence.

 

Yet humans have fared surprisingly well despite our lack of most "ordinary" evolutionary tools of defense. Extremely well, and one might say even too well, to the point at which humans have complete dominance over practically all other life forms and we're even on pace to destroy our planet. In this, I believe, is clear evidence that, despite our lack of "ordinary" evolutionary defenses, we have obtained the createst gift through evolution of all - as intelligence has led us to not only survive, but prosper far more than other species.

 

Intelligence is the most useful tool for survival. As humans gained intelligence, we lost other features that were now useless. For example, our hands are not good for attacking barehanded, but they are extremely good at using tools. As humans evolved, we lost features that we had in our musculature that made us strong by ourselves, and gained features that were more useful for using tools.

 

Now, IF intelligence, then, is the masterpiece of evolution...why has it yet to show it's face once more? Of course, many animals have been observed with very basic intelligence, but nothing anywhere near what's been observed in humanity. I find this nonsensical...if intelligence is the most superior tool for survival, why have more animals not evolved to also have it? We see many animals with sharp teeth, many animals with claws, many animals who can disguise themselves...but only one animal with truly superior intelligence.

 

This just seems to be another huge misconception regarding evolution. It's not like any random animal can just evolve to produce intelligence, several other features must be present. If the animal does not have sufficient motor capabilities to manipulate the environment around it, it will never need intelligence and would prosper more from having other features.

 

But..compare us to apes. Apes are one of our closest evolutionary "relatives". They have far more intelligence than other species because they are quite similar biologically: they have the ability to use their surroundings as tools.

 

Another thing that comes to mind is....take, for example, the cow and the shrimp. What are their evolutionary defense tool?. The shrimp basically exists to be eaten by other animals (as far as we've seen), so their only survival tool seems to be a high rate of reproduction.

 

First of all, shrimp eat other lifeforms...so I'm not sure how you think they just exist for others to eat them...

 

Secondly, shrimp are bigger, stronger, and faster than many other smaller lifeforms that are found in the ocean.

 

Likewise, the cow is fat, slow, and largely unable to defend itself...so it seems it's basic purpose is merely to be nourishment for other animals.

 

First of all, a cow is only the female bovine. Are you trying to tell me that a bull isn't strong, fast, or scary...?

 

Secondly, the cows we eat today are largely a product of domestic breeding. Asking this question would be like asking why a poodle is so fluffy? Whats the evolutionary purpose? None. They were bred.

 

If evolution was truly unguided, survival of the fittest would have dictated the extinction of both these creatures before they could have even evolved.

 

"Survival of the fittest" is a term that only applies to animals in the same species. The shrimp we see today are stronger, faster, and more apt for survival than the animals that may have resembled shrimp 5 million years ago.

 

A lion is certainly one of the most fit animals for survival. Does this mean that he goes around the plains and squashed all of the bugs, eats the grass, and hunts every animal from a wildebeast to a small mouse? No. And it isn't his goal either.

[sees_all1]

Another part about evolution as a way to explain the origins of life all the way to where we are now that is difficult to believe -

Life is believed to have begun from a single organism, as some random combination of proteins that reproduced itself.

That's all well and good, except for evolution to work the organisms need to be differentiated somehow. If all of life on earth came from one organism, the resulting organisms would be exactly the same. There wouldn't be a "fittest" to survive.

 

You completely misunderstand how evolution works. Each organism has some type of genetic variation. Think like, how some people are tall? Some have very thin hair? Different color eyes...etc. Each lifeform has the chance of developing a random trait that is more fit for survival than others of the same species. For example, if a bird randomly developed a genetic trait that allowed it to fly faster than other birds of the same species, then this bird would be more likely to reproduce and pass its genetics on to another generation.

The first lifeform wouldn't have had any genetic variation, which is why "survival of the fittest" doesn't explain how all of life came to be.

 

It also means that at some point the organism had to mutate - one of them had to be exposed to radiation or a toxin or something

Genetic variation has nothing to do with toxins

Because there is no such thing as a carcinogen.

[Myweponsg00d]

The first lifeform wouldn't have had any genetic variation, which is why "survival of the fittest" doesn't explain how all of life came to be.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? All living organisms have genetic variation.

 

 

Because there is no such thing as a carcinogen.

 

 

This is another "WTF?!!?!" moment. What are you talking about and how does a carcinogen have anything to do with evolution?

[sees_all1]

The first lifeform wouldn't have had any genetic variation, which is why "survival of the fittest" doesn't explain how all of life came to be.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? All living organisms have genetic variation.

The first life form to appear on earth has absolutely no genetic variation. How can there be genetic variation in just one organism? There isn't any!

 

 

Because there is no such thing as a carcinogen.

This is another "WTF?!!?!" moment. What are you talking about and how does a carcinogen have anything to do with evolution?

How ignorant are you?

What causes genetic variation? Mutations. What is cancer? A malignant mutation. What causes cancer? Carcinogens, radiation, the same thing that causes mutations.

[Myweponsg00d]

The first lifeform wouldn't have had any genetic variation, which is why "survival of the fittest" doesn't explain how all of life came to be.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? All living organisms have genetic variation.

The first life form to appear on earth has absolutely no genetic variation. How can there be genetic variation in just one organism? There isn't any!

 

 

Because there is no such thing as a carcinogen.

This is another "WTF?!!?!" moment. What are you talking about and how does a carcinogen have anything to do with evolution?

How ignorant are you?

What causes genetic variation? Mutations. What is cancer? A malignant mutation. What causes cancer? Carcinogens, radiation, the same thing that causes mutations.

 

Okay bro, whatever you say. You seem to be totally messed up on what your idea of DNA replication is. There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up. The first lifeform to exist on Earth certainly replicated to have variation in successive generations. You think the only reason people look different is cause some kind of carcinogen interfered in our reproduction?? :blink:

 

Go back to high school and pay attention in Biology class.

 

Your idea of evolution seems to be that one day, a fish gave birth to a freak mutant baby who could walk on land and breathe air. This is absolute nonsense.

[sees_all1]

I might not be clear, but lets say life found its way to a billion uninhabitable worlds (in this axiom life existed in some microbial form before finding the world, and we are not discussing how it would have come about in the first place) and dies in every world but one. Would you say that it is divine intervention that it survived on that world? Or would you say that only on such perfect worlds can life survive, making it luck not divinely driven

The way you've described the conditions, I wouldn't call it an intervention. However there is so much more questions as to how everything came to be in your scenario (like the billion planets, the life that occurred that we don't discuss how it occurred) that it makes the "absurd" higher power much more probable and much less absurd.

[Myweponsg00d]

I might not be clear, but lets say life found its way to a billion uninhabitable worlds (in this axiom life existed in some microbial form before finding the world, and we are not discussing how it would have come about in the first place) and dies in every world but one. Would you say that it is divine intervention that it survived on that world? Or would you say that only on such perfect worlds can life survive, making it luck not divinely driven

The way you've described the conditions, I wouldn't call it an intervention. However there is so much more questions as to how everything came to be in your scenario (like the billion planets, the life that occurred that we don't discuss how it occurred) that it makes the "absurd" higher power much more probable and much less absurd.

 

If you're curious to how stars and planets come to exist, pick up an astronomy or astrophysics textbook.

[Da_Latios]

I might not be clear, but lets say life found its way to a billion uninhabitable worlds (in this axiom life existed in some microbial form before finding the world, and we are not discussing how it would have come about in the first place) and dies in every world but one. Would you say that it is divine intervention that it survived on that world? Or would you say that only on such perfect worlds can life survive, making it luck not divinely driven

The way you've described the conditions, I wouldn't call it an intervention. However there is so much more questions as to how everything came to be in your scenario (like the billion planets, the life that occurred that we don't discuss how it occurred) that it makes the "absurd" higher power much more probable and much less absurd.

 

If you're curious to how stars and planets come to exist, pick up an astronomy or astrophysics textbook.

He should just watch a couple of episodes of Cosmos.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShJwq3aPLMk

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxQR6gdd1P0

[sees_all1]

Basically which is more absurd, a straw hut building itself or all the buildings/infrastructure of NYC building itself. This is essentially what you are comparing, and its not even the best comparison, God would still be infinitely more complex then the whole city of NYC compared to a straw hut.

If life was a robot, a theist would tell you that the robot was designed and built by someone else, a higher being. An atheist would tell you that the robot occurred out of random chance - somehow the metal fell into place, coiled itself to form motors, and a battery formed naturally causing it to move and replicate.

[Myweponsg00d]

Basically which is more absurd, a straw hut building itself or all the buildings/infrastructure of NYC building itself. This is essentially what you are comparing, and its not even the best comparison, God would still be infinitely more complex then the whole city of NYC compared to a straw hut.

If life was a robot, a theist would tell you that the robot was designed and built by someone else, a higher being. An atheist would tell you that the robot occurred out of random chance - somehow the metal fell into place, coiled itself to form motors, and a battery formed naturally causing it to move and replicate.

 

You act like we don't have perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for how stars, planets, and life have come to exist.

 

What would you like explained? The formation of stars? Atoms? The evolution of life? We've most of it down completely. I insist that you stop referring to this stuff as random chance; there was nothing random about it. Well, there may be somewhat random elements, but I wouldnt say it happened by chance.

[jjrox32]

Basically which is more absurd, a straw hut building itself or all the buildings/infrastructure of NYC building itself. This is essentially what you are comparing, and its not even the best comparison, God would still be infinitely more complex then the whole city of NYC compared to a straw hut.

If life was a robot, a theist would tell you that the robot was designed and built by someone else, a higher being. An atheist would tell you that the robot occurred out of random chance - somehow the metal fell into place, coiled itself to form motors, and a battery formed naturally causing it to move and replicate.

 

No...that's not how it works at all. You seem to have beliefs about evolution that even myself, a grade 11 science student, know are false.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

 

Please just watch that.

[Dizzle229]

Thank you so much for that vid. I love it.

[Myweponsg00d]

Basically which is more absurd, a straw hut building itself or all the buildings/infrastructure of NYC building itself. This is essentially what you are comparing, and its not even the best comparison, God would still be infinitely more complex then the whole city of NYC compared to a straw hut.

If life was a robot, a theist would tell you that the robot was designed and built by someone else, a higher being. An atheist would tell you that the robot occurred out of random chance - somehow the metal fell into place, coiled itself to form motors, and a battery formed naturally causing it to move and replicate.

 

No...that's not how it works at all. You seem to have beliefs about evolution that even myself, a grade 11 science student, know are false.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

 

Please just watch that.

 

Lmfao. Thank you. Sounds exactly like half of my debates with creationists. The other half just walk away as soon as we start talking.

[foursideking]

It is so pathetically sad as well, seeing as 'robot guy's arguement was what I was gonna use to bash religion. Here's my arguement:

 

Let's say you woke up one day, and had 2 people coming up to you, explaining how life was created. The first guy (a christian) tells you that one guy with a beard created everything and everyone in his image, and although he doesn't have proof, he still continues to believe this. The second guy (an athiest/purist) says that life occurred through evolution, a process in which all different species adapted to their surroundings. For proof, he brings an encyclopedia. Who are you more inclined to believe?