The big bang or intelligent design

[ルカリオ]

I don't like ID because they completely rule out the thought of evolution when it's a process occuring all the time. It's why we get the same cold this year.

Less of why we get the same cold and more of why we're getting superbugs, resistant to antibiotics.

Though, many who flaunt evolution also seem to miss its basis. It's a way of a species adapting to the changes of its environment through genetic mutation. Meaning genetic flaws appear and either they prove favorable in which they become the mainstream or unfavorable and are weeded out of the gene pool.

Indeed, many of those who argue in favour of evolution/big bang are doing so more to argue against creation, and forget what their argument is about, as The Big Al has well stated.

Evolution still doesn't describe how matter suddenly became life however just like the Big Bang theory doesn't describe how the singularity that created the universe came into being in the first place.

Evolution was not meant to explain the beginning, but rather the continuum of change that has occurred since then. Big Bang theory, in its present form, is the same. The "Big Bang" is merely an extrapolation into the past based on known data.

However, we're going by logic based on our limited knowledge of existance. For us everything falls within the realm of linear time. So it's logical to assume we can apply that to everything. Perhaps to understand the creation of the universe we have to accept the possibility of something not existing within linear time.

Time itself was created at that time. At the beginning of time, all directions point towards the future, just as at the North Pole, all directions are South.

So while I believe God created the universe, I don't buy a fraction of the crap ID tries to sell.

The theory of "God set off the big bang" is one I can accept, though it's not one I believe personally. At this point, we've reached the limit of what science can offer at present.

Right --but from an agnostic's point of view -if you want to convince me that something is 'true", I'm going to need to see your proof.

I've seen far more proof from the scientific community than from the religious community. Granted the religious community often chalks it up to faith.

In any event nobody has ever been able to prove, to my satisfaction, that an intelligence guides existence.

I, too, have seen far more proof from the scientific community, or rather, "evidence" - a scientist's definition of proof falls well short of that of a mathematician - than from the religious (who, as you say, invoke the "goddunit" argument). However, as an atheist, I cannot provide any more proof to an agnostic of the non-existence of God, than a theist can provide for the existence of God. (By definition, non-existence cannot be proven.)

 

[Ganondorf]

Not quite, If you believe that nothing can be proven maddie then how do you know that's true? In fact how do you know that the scientist's evidence is true if you don't know anything is true? Or do you in fact believe that there is truth?

And Let me ask you which makes more sense, a tornado tearing through a wrecking yard making a B12 bomber that functions pretty well and has paintlines, serial numbers that are unique and upholstry on the seat.

Or is it more likely that some one built the bomber?

 

[evkl]

I feel like my edit will get buried--Ganondorf, your application of the Socratic Method, while theoretically sound, isn't getting your argument anywhere.

We can build our lives on certain premises, as I noted in my edited prior post, such as the fact that this world is 'real' and we are all alive. Without these premises, this argument is simply two people launching bombs at each other from two mountains--and nobody can touch the other, because you can self-justify to oblivion.

 

[Ganondorf]

I feel like my edit will get buried--Ganondorf, your application of the Socratic Method, while theoretically sound, isn't getting your argument anywhere.

We can build our lives on certain premises, as I noted in my edited prior post, such as the fact that this world is 'real' and we are all alive. Without these premises, this argument is simply two people launching bombs at each other from two mountains--and nobody can touch the other, because you can self-justify to oblivion.

Yup, it doesn't help me but it sure stops you too. Until we establish what is true in this world and the rules that make it true we can't determine anything right? So work with me how did the world start, let's take it slow with all rules that we can shall we?

 

[maddiejoan]

Not quite, If you believe that nothing can be proven maddie then how do you know that's true? In fact how do you know that the scientist's evidence is true if you don't know anything is true? Or do you in fact believe that there is truth?

And Let me ask you which makes more sense, a tornado tearing through a wrecking yard making a B12 bomber that functions pretty well and has paintlines, serial numbers that are unique and upholstry on the seat.

Or is it more likely that some one built the bomber?

Because scientific proof is based on that which is observable.

People build bombers. No one is arguing that a piece of man-made technology is created by a spontaneous event.

If your point is , How can a giraffe exist without an intelligent designer? My answer is very simple.

Giraffes created themselves and were created by their environment -- because there was both a need for a Giraffe and an environment conducive to creating them. This is not an "intelligence" per se, unless you define "intelligence" in a different way than I do.

 

[evkl]

Whoa, how did the world start is a far cry from establishing the rules of the world we exist in presently, from which we can deduce the manner in which the 'world' started.

And, Socratically speaking, how do we know that a world did in fact start? How do we know that the universe has a beginning--or an end?

Edit: I would state, as the premises of "everyone is born," people who others perceive as alive are in fact alive, and our eyes accurately report the world around us on a macroscopic scale, two assertions generally agreed upon as true. Logic can follow: as I said, if I am alive, my great-great grandfather was born BY DEFINITION.

 

[Ganondorf]

Because scientific proof is based on that which is observable.

People build bombers. No one is arguing that a piece of man-made technology is created by a spontaneous event.

If your point is , How can a giraffe exist without an intelligent designer? My answer is very simple.

Giraffes created themselves and were created by their environment -- because there was both a need for a Giraffe and an environment conducive to creating them. This is not an "intelligence" per se, unless you define "intelligence" in a different way than I do.

How did the giraffes creat themselves, what ability do they demonstrate to do make you believe that they madethemselves if you in fact don't know. Now if a B12 bomber was man made and isn't half as complicated as a living organism is (scientists can not replicate life in the lab) then why doesn't intelligent design make any sense or have you already ruled it out in your mind and don't want to take in any evidence?

@ the poster above me,

Now, now must we repeat the second rule that all matter breaks down.. .yadda yadda yadda. Then we have to assume that based on one of our most trusted and observed rules that the universe and existance itself had to have a begining, do we agree?

Oh, and by your grandfather argument you are assuming that all life has a begining wheather intentionally or not.

 

[maddiejoan]

How did the giraffes creat themselves, what ability do they demonstrate to do make you believe that they madethemselves if you in fact don't know. Now if a B12 bomber was man made and isn't half as complicated as a living organism is (scientists can not replicate life in the lab) then why doesn't intelligent design make any sense or have you already ruled it out in your mind and don't want to take in any evidence?

@ the poster above me,

Now, now must we repeat the second rule that all matter breaks down.. .yadda yadda yadda. Then we have to assume that based on one of our most trusted and observed rules that the universe and existance itself had to have a begining, do we agree?

prove to me that there is an intelligent designer.

I'm listening.

 

[evkl]

Scientists also couldn't make self-propelling machines (which relied on an internal, not external, input) until a few centuries ago.

Your point?

Most scientists suggest that within two decades artificial life will be created, or at least plausible--ethics regulations may prevent it from actually happening. It's already been proven in the lab that energy and the primordial soup can yield RNA precursors and essential amino acids.

 

[Ganondorf]

Scientists also couldn't make self-propelling machines (which relied on an internal, not external, input) until a few centuries ago.

Your point?

Most scientists suggest that within two decades artificial life will be created, or at least plausible--ethics regulations may prevent it from actually happening. It's already been proven in the lab that energy and the primordial soup can yield RNA precursors and essential amino acids.

yet they have one thing that baffles them, am I right? By the way read my edits. Conciousness and free will. By the by lets just point out that they "think" they can, just a point.

And Maddie just stick around, we'll see what we can do.

 

[maddiejoan]

yet they have one thing that baffles them, am I right? By the way read my edits. Conciousness and free will. By the by lets just point out that they "think" they can, just a point.

And Maddie just stick around, we'll see what we can do.

I'm fairly sure not all life has conscience and free will.

 

[evkl]

What one thing baffles them? Consciousness and free will are both being quickly explained in a mechanical sense--for instance, spontaneous decisions aren't looking all that spontaneous, there are electrical precursors to almost every decision we make, as has been evidenced by recent scientific discoveries.

And re: the grandfather thing, yes, of course all life has a beginning. Whether chicken or egg game first, life had to have an initiator, but what that initiator is I'm not debating at present.

Edit: Of course scientists aren't sure--and there's no empirical evidence which would prove their assertion beyond past experiments, which are coming pretty damn close to artificial life. But what's facts and evidence in the face of faith?

 

[The Big Al]

Time itself was created at that time. At the beginning of time, all directions point towards the future, just as at the North Pole, all directions are South.

Which is what makes creation a scientific sticking point. At the point of the creation the demension of "t" was created along with the "x", "y", and "z" dimensions. So linear time doesn't apply to creation which adds irony since the notion of creation is based on linear time.

Our understanding of the universe is litterally the drop in the ocean. Heck, we just learned in the last century time is not constant. So to claim we absolutely know how it happened is a bald faced lie.

EDIT: It was active while I posted this.

The brain is an interesting organ and yes all of our thoughts and decisions seem to have electronic and chemical markers. Though, those markers can't tell us what exactly we're thinking, just where and how it stimulates our brains. Like seeing someone attractive stimulates the brain and seeing someone different but still attractive will stimulate the brain in a simular way but you can't tell what the person was thinking exactly from scans. Perhaps in the future we will refine our understanding of thought in the future.

 

[Ganondorf]

What one thing baffles them? Consciousness and free will are both being quickly explained in a mechanical sense--for instance, spontaneous decisions aren't looking all that spontaneous, there are electrical precursors to almost every decision we make, as has been evidenced by recent scientific discoveries.

And re: the grandfather thing, yes, of course all life has a beginning. Whether chicken or egg game first, life had to have an initiator, but what that initiator is I'm not debating at present.

How is free will mechanical? how can randomly formed chemicals that make up you and I assume any form of intelligence. Free will is the act of choosing to go out with girl A or girl B for instance and you go with the girl you like for either looks or personality or whatever you like. (Choice) It applys for the girl too, she migh not like you and she'll choose to go with someone else.

How are these moods, choices and everything else a product of randomly formed chemicals?

What are observations in the evidence of theorys (aka scientific faith?)

If anything you have a lot more faith then I do a this point supposing that life just came to be all by itself.

 

[maddiejoan]

How is free will mechanical? how can randomly formed chemicals that make up you and I assume any form of intelligence. Free will is the act of choosing to go out with girl A or girl B for instance and you go with the girl you like for either looks or personality or whatever you like. (Choice) It applys for the girl too, she migh not like you and she'll choose to go with someone else.

How are these moods, choices and everything else a product of randomly formed chemicals?

What are observations in the evidence of theorys (aka scientific faith?)

If anything you have a lot more faith then I do a this point supposing that life just came to be all by itself.

Here's my point.

Human beings self-define what intelligence is.

This does not in actuality make it "intelligence".

 

[evkl]

Ah, but that decision isn't necessarily as "free" as you'd think it is. The chemicals in you, if they are "randomly formed," belie your notion of an "intelligent designer" or a creationist mechanically assembling you from nothing--so you've already contradicted yourself. Those random chemicals can come together to influence behavior in seemingly random--but essentially predictable--ways. I would love to dig up the study, which I'll work on throughout this debate.

Edit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=6640273 Ding!

Theories are not simply scientific faith. There's observational evidence which makes things a theory--like, as previously mentioned, catching the cold every year. The cold virus evolves year-to-year, because you can't catch the same virus twice (you are immune). That's proof towards the theory of evolution. Provide empirical proof to intelligent design, and not just "WELL IT LOOKS TOO NEAT TO BE RANDOM"

 

[Ganondorf]

Here's my point.

Human beings self-define what intelligence is.

This does not in actuality make it "intelligence".

Actually it doesn't because they have demonstrated both free will and intelligence by thinking and choosing to define something as intelligent. Truths are absolute no matter if people believe them or define them for example the world was thought to be flat at one point and no one would believe that it was round but was it actually flat because people defined it as such?


And to my everpresent and loved adversary you've said something untrue. We christians also base our faith on feelings, obseration of modern day miracles and history written down in what I've heard to be claimed the oldest form of history known.

And guess what there were thousands of copies and each was compared to the other to catch any contradictions and misprints and over a thousand said the same exact thing, thousands more said variations of the same thing with added things that got added in over the years but through scientific elimination (mabye mathmatical is more proper) we found the oldest and most consistent text known to man. Look it up.

And on a side not of evolution why have we not observed any larger animals evolving? In anyway other than hair color or thicker hair or perhaps adapting to the environment?

The closest DNA to humans is actually the snail, go look it up. It's closer than Apes according to what I've heard, you're evolution. Just a couple of random points that I chose to inclue instead of choosing to write a full fledged paper by choice, because it would have made my hands sore. and you are now choosing wheather to reply or not, go ahead it's your choice to leave or reply.

 

[maddiejoan]

Ah, but that decision isn't necessarily as "free" as you'd think it is. The chemicals in you, if they are "randomly formed," belie your notion of an "intelligent designer" or a creationist mechanically assembling you from nothing--so you've already contradicted yourself. Those random chemicals can come together to influence behavior in seemingly random--but essentially predictable--ways. I would love to dig up the study, which I'll work on throughout this debate.

Theories are not simply scientific faith. There's observational evidence which makes things a theory--like, as previously mentioned, catching the cold every year. The cold virus evolves year-to-year, because you can't catch the same virus twice (you are immune). That's proof towards the theory of evolution. Provide empirical proof to intelligent design, and not just "WELL IT LOOKS TOO NEAT TO BE RANDOM"

precisely.

The fact is that proponents of ID are setting definitions around their data.

The argument of 'complexity of form' holds no water because they themselves are defining 'complexity'.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Actually it doesn't because they have demonstrated both free will and intelligence by thinking and choosing to define something as intelligent. Truths are absolute no matter if people believe them or define them for example the world was thought to be flat at one point and no one would believe that it was round but was it actually flat because people defined it as such?

The belief that people believed the world to be flat is a lie. Unless you go back to when man was in caves (and NO ONE can prove one way or another what happened then beyond a few details), no one REALLY thought the world was flat (well, there IS the Flat Earth Society, but c'mon...I think we can all agree they're a little nuts).

 

[Ganondorf]

The belief that people believed the world to be flat is a lie. Unless you go back to when man was in caves (and NO ONE can prove one way or another what happened then beyond a few details), no one REALLY thought the world was flat (well, there IS the Flat Earth Society, but c'mon...I think we can all agree they're a little nuts).

ok. Maddie to define complexity you have to have seen something relatively simple correct?

Mt. Rushmore was it created through natural elements over hundreds of years? How about cave drawings? `