Adam and Eve or Evolution? (1 Viewer)

[BradCube]

He does actually try to justify it with Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding, but his conclusion - that the idea of infinite density before the big bang is the same as no density, as nothingness - shows a profound misunderstanding of some of the most basic quantum theory.

Okay, your going to have to break that one down for me.

Wrong. He misunderstands both the implication and the actual contextual process of heat death, especially in the event of a Big Crunch. He's also wrong about a lot of the opposite of it; the fact that he refers to "some scientists" and does not cite his work to the appropriate sources on that subject is hugely telling.
It's about there that I stopped.

I'm going to have to take your word that he is wrong on that part. Although I must say that it seems to be missing the point. His point was that if the universe is going to end - like it looks that it eventually will why has it not occurred if it has already had an infinity to do so?

Also, your point of not quoting seems a little misleading at there are 35 actual quotes throughout the article. I would be lead to believe that he did not quote in this case because his point was not on how the universe will end, but the apparent implications if such an event were a possibility. Maybe you can educate me then, what does current scientific evidence point toward? Does there look to be an end to the universe eventually?

 

[HalcyonSky]

People (christians in particular) love to cling on to the areas of science that aren't yet fully explained and cite it as evidence of gods existence, and love to reject the phenomena that science can explain which jeapordise their beliefs in some way.

Your 1000 page link basically says everything has to be created by something. (Except god of cause, hes clearly exempt from this rule) I wont even bother getting stuck into you over this.
I'd refer you to some notes on string theory and M-theory in their attempts at explaining the cause of the big bang, but its all entirely theoretical. (at least until the large hadron collider is finished) (Party boys hosting my CERN particle physics party to celebrate this event, ur not invited)

By the way, referring us to sites like http://answersingenesis.org is an unfunny joke.

 

[Kwayera]

Okay, your going to have to break that one down for me.

Here I'd have to defer to a physicist, who could explain it better than I. Cop out, I know, but I'd rather not misinform. Basically, infinite density isn't no density. Infinite density is infinite density. Understanding of the concept of infinity in that case (which is indeed a real concept; I used it in mathematical equations involving the speed of light in which, for example, as something approaches the speed of light it's mass increases, and at the speed of light, it's mass is infinite).

I'm going to have to take your word that he is wrong on that part. Although I must say that it seems to be missing the point. His point was that if the universe is going to end - like it looks that it eventually will why has it not occurred if it has already had an infinity to do so?

Why should've it? The universe has not existed for an infinite about of time. In fact, it's about (at current best estimates) 13.7 billion years old. If, in five billion years, our sun has not deigned to die, why should the universe have ended before now, a mere 13.7 billion years after it's "birth"? If that was his point, I don't follow.

Also, your point of not quoting seems a little misleading at there are 35 actual quotes throughout the article. I would be lead to believe that he did not quote in this case because his point was not on how the universe will end, but the apparent implications if such an event were a possibility. Maybe you can educate me then, what does current scientific evidence point toward? Does there look to be an end to the universe eventually?

35? That's it? And not ONE citation in the sections where he relates his "scientific evidence" that I refer to (i.e. paragraph 1 under the heading "Second Scientific Confirmation"). To have an opinion on the implications of an event one much understand it, and in this he fails thoroughly, which for me invalidates his entire argument.

Current scientific theory indicates that yes, there is likely to be an end to the universe. I'm not up to date on the details of those theories as current, however; I'll have to do some research of my own.


Finally, to argue about science, you must do it in the language of science. He doesn't.

 

[Slowpoke]

Brad is a lost cause

Hey guys, someone told me there was some guy with this ridiculous idea that the world wasn't flat. What kind of blasphemy is this?

 

[BradCube]

Your 1000 page link basically says everything has to be created by something. (Except god of cause, hes clearly exempt from this rule) I wont even bother getting stuck into you over this.

I'm guessing that you didn't read the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological argument: "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence."

The explanation of a God that transcends naturalistic causes is why in my mind this argument makes sense. Put simply, since God did not begin to exist, of course this rule is not applicable to him.

 

[HalcyonSky]

I stopped reading it after kwayera debunked its scientific credibility

Is this not a scientific, logical debate/discussion based on facts and evidence (not a lack thereof) ? You seem to want to diverge into the realm of philosophy

 

[BradCube]

Why should've it? The universe has not existed for an infinite about of time. In fact, it's about (at current best estimates) 13.7 billion years old. If, in five billion years, our sun has not deigned to die, why should the universe have ended before now, a mere 13.7 billion years after it's "birth"? If that was his point, I don't follow.

Ahh, see your arguing with a whole point when you don't need to. The point he was trying to make was that the universe is not infinite - if you already believe that, then there is no problem.

The Kalam cosmological argument can be summarized to:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

That, is pretty much all this article entails - it does not delve much into why he believes that this cause is God (I'm pretty sure that there are other articles with his opinion in those areas). If you agree with the above points of the argument, what do you peronsally attribute to the cause of the beginning of the universe?

Finally, to argue about science, you must do it in the language of science. He doesn't.

True, but that is because he is a philosopher and not a scientist as you had pointed out

 

[BradCube]

I stopped reading it after kwayera debunked its scientific credibility

Is this not a scientific, logical debate/discussion based on facts and evidence (not a lack thereof) ? You seem to want to diverge into the realm of philosophy

True, which is why I originally refrained from posting my reasons for my belief in a God. You insisted however that it was revelvant, so I posted them. Now they're not relevant? If that is the case, I'm more than happy for this discussion to be moved into the "Does God Exist" thread.

Everyone has pretty much answered the majority of my questions regarding evolution as it is anyway

 

[BradCube]

Hey guys, someone told me there was some guy with this ridiculous idea that the world wasn't flat. What kind of blasphemy is this?

Lol, well not blashemy against the Bible or Christianity. It's a common misconception that the bible teaches that the world is flat.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Hundreds of proofs of gods existence using brads logic

 

[BradCube]

Hundreds of proofs of gods existence using brads logic

Trying to discredit my beliefs by associating them with what are obviously flawed logical conclusions does nothing more than misguide people on what I have actually posted.

I find it interesting that you have linked to a page from an atheistic website. You don't feel this requires the same amount of "faith" as that of Gods existence?

 

[HalcyonSky]

im discrediting ur logic, not ur beliefs (and the website is an unfunny joke, much like answersingenesis)

Really, i dont have a problem with people believing in a god, its just that 99% of them bewilder me with their reasons and logic behind doing so. Your beliefs will change over time, and honestly i think the more you read into the same kind of material thats been discussed in this thread, the more you'll be compelled towards an atheist mindset

 

[withoutaface]

I'm guessing that you didn't read the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological argument: "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence."

The explanation of a God that transcends naturalistic causes is why in my mind this argument makes sense. Put simply, since God did not begin to exist, of course this rule is not applicable to him.

Why do you conclude that the universe as a whole could not create itself? Have you experience with entire universes and the laws that apply to them?

 

[withoutaface]

Lol, well not blashemy against the Bible or Christianity. It's a common misconception that the bible teaches that the world is flat.

It's also a common misconception that it says abortion is bad.

 

[katie_tully]

It's also a common misconception that anything said in the Bible is true.
Go figure.

 

[KFunk]

The cosmological argument is well known and trivial.
it simply assumes that its logically impossible for a universe to exist uncaused. this is based on nothing but intuition, limited to our perception of what we see as normal; consider the counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics and relativity (look up if you wish).

It may be the case that the concept of an infinite chain of preceeding causes describes a real possibility which is merely beyond our grasp. However, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to suppose that this causal chain bottoms out somewhere. The pertinent point for criticism of the cosmological argument comes out when we ask 'where do we have reason to believe this chain might end?'. Here Ockham's razor becomes very useful.

Many atheistic scientists likely believe that the universe has some sort of first cause (some 'unmoved mover'). However, if they accept the argument for a first cause then all they need to conlude is that something existed (or perhaps continues to exist?) which a) was uncaused and b) set in play the causal chain which led to our universe existing. What properties do we have reason to attribute to this something? Certainly not anthropomorphic qualities, such as a mind, a capacity for judgement, or a will. To do so would be like invoking particle personalities in explaining electromagnetism (consider a claim like 'opposite charged particles attract because they have compatible personalities'). Once we move past the minimal theoretical features required to explain a given phenomenon (such as the existence of the universe) we run great risk of arbitrariness. Ockham's razor saves us from some of this arbitrariness by advocating that we stick to the bare minimum - in this case that some uncaused thing simply existed (perhaps we might want to add some additional properties in line with physics or similar).

Evolutionary theory provides us with the basic mechanism(s) through which a simple system of uncaused substance could gain in complexity and stability. To take a passage form David Hume: "Let us suppose that matter is finite. A finite number of particles is only susceptible of finite transpositions: and it must happen, in an eternal duration, that every possible order or position must be tried an infinite number of times." While I don't agree that every position need be attained an infinite number of times (or at all!), Hume nonetheless notes that "this world... with all its events, even the most minute" may be produced by the random rearrangements of a primitive substance. The important thing to note is that such a system (which itself may be uncaused) could, by yielding semi-stable and increasingly complex systems, perhaps generate the universe we see before us today.

 

[Slidey]

This one is for Brad:

So I've got a question for the Creationists who claim dinosaurs never existed.

What are birds, if not dinosaurs?

Really, it might be a romantic notion that such majestic and powerful creatures ALL died out, but I think it is wrong to teach that when all evidence these days indicates birds come from a clade/species of dinosaur. They are in fact extremely closely related to velociraptors, and also quite closely related to T.Rex.

I now demonstrate through picture:

Two commonly accepted artists impressions of the velociraptor:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/velociraptor1_skrep.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Velociraptor_BW.jpg

And a comparison of velociraptor feet with pigeon feet (not to scale)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/deinon_pes_skrep.jpg

Also, birds have scales on their feet, and feathers are in fact specialised scales. And if you'll examine their reproductive systems, they are amazingly similar. Especially the eggs.

The blood temperature thing is fairly irrelevant, since there were hot and cold blooded dinosaurs. As there are and were hot and cold blooded reptiles and mammals.

So you're probably wondering what clade/species they come from? The clade is Maniraptora. Same one velociraptors come from.

Now, let me show you an ostrich foot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ostrich_Foot.jpg

Also of interest is the headcrest which evolved in some tyrannosaurs. It is also found in many bird species, namely... the ostrich!
Tyrannosaur headcrest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Guanlong_wucaii_head.jpg
Ostrich headcrest: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Double-wattled_Cassowary.jpg/425px-Double-wattled_Cassowary.jpg

This dinosaur here is an interesting example of a species which wasn't a bird, but was very closely related (it actually split off and evolved from the ancestor of birds - it didn't evolve into birds).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodontid#Troodontids_and_Bird_Evolution

Here is the group of dinosaurs which all had feathers and were closely related. It includes, birds, tyrannosaurs and raptors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelurosaur

 

[Kwayera]

You'd probably want to show more taxonomic and genetic proof there, Slidey, because otherwise it could be argued as parallel evolution (and given the evidence you have provided, an idiot would be justified in doing so).

 

[Slidey]

You'd probably want to show more taxonomic and genetic proof there, Slidey, because otherwise it could be argued as parallel evolution (and given the evidence you have provided, an idiot would be justified in doing so).

I figured if anybody was really interested, it'd be easy to google it or follow the Troodontid wiki link provided.

Here's the primary transitional fossil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Here's a very closely related raptor species which had feathers and is presumed to have been capable of gliding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
Here is wikipedia's blurb on birds as dinosaurs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird#Dinosaurs_and_the_origin_of_birds
Here is the phylogenetic tree of where birds stand in reference to the other dinosaurs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptora#Phylogeny
Genetic material of T. rex is related to that of birds: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/tech/main2677169.shtml
A list of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

 

[live.fast]

woah you people are gay.

God > THEORY of evolution.

The end.


suck my balls.