Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Cranium

Evolution Vs. Creation

  

181 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you beleive in?

    • Evolution
      139
    • Creation
      27


Recommended Posts

However, none of this will prove of disprove the existence of god. Which is why the whole argument really has nothing to do with religion. Evolution happened. We can see it with our own eyes, we can track the evidence of it through history. This does not in any way effect religion or the existance of god. It only effects those who are either too stupid or too insecure in their own faith to accept it.

 

I would argue that it definitely affects religion. Genesis in the bible was once and still is in some circles considered literal. Maybe 1000 years ago and even up till recently it was considered literal by the majority of the general public, now it's claimed as a metaphor by even the most devout religious people.

 

It's the god of the gaps.

 

Reminds me of this pic 19882518.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bootleg, I hope you don't mind me responding to the Puddle analogy you gave.

 

It seems like you're trying to argue that since we are only going to exist on earth for a relatively short period of time then we cannot say that the Universe was fine tuned to permit our existence.

 

But why does the temporal nature of our existence discount whether or not the Universe is fine tuned to permit the existence of conscious creatures ?

 

A car may only function for a good 400,000kms but does that mean that it was never designed.

 

No theist would say that Gods created us to last forever in the physical world anyway.

 

If you're going to attack the idea that the Universe is fine tuned for life, you'll have to offer other reasons for the narrow range of life permitting conditions. eg Natural necessity or chance.

 

Not at all, what I'm arguing against is the idea of a finely tuned universe.

 

Essentially that argument states (according to wikipedia): "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood."

http://en.wikipedia....-tuned_Universe

 

The wikipedia article is very good at dismantling this argument, but i'll also give it a go and try and make it short;

 

1. The universe isn't really fine tuned for life if you look at it closely. The conditions required for life are rare.

the elements required to support life are first required to be forged inside of suns, suns must then die and reform into planets, life could not have existed after the big bang and if we were an outside observer we'd have to wait a billion years for even the possibility of life to arise, also the universe is a very hostile place for life, most of the universe is actually trying to kill us.

2. It's not like the universe is actually made for life, life arising in the universe is rare, we know because we haven't really confirmed life anywhere other than earth. If the universe was truly fine tuned for life, (as in, the laws of physics were fine tuned for life, i.e. if the speed of light was different life couldn't exist, if the gravitational constant was different, if the planck length or planck's constant was different, etc) then why don't we see life everywhere? The fact is, the universe would be killing life everywhere, black holes would destroy entire galaxies, it takes billions of years for life to actually evolve into something more than a single celled organism, the way planets are formed with tectonic plates, volcanoes, solar radiation, cosmic rays, the vacuum of space. The universe is a very harsh place for life.

I mean, honestly, if you think about it, it would be more sensible to say that the universe is finely tuned to extinguish life, and we're just a little pocket of resistance that's surviving in a relatively inactive solar system in a nice stable galaxy.

3. The reason it seems fine tuned is because we got lucky in where we're situated, because we're alive, and because we're smart enough to ask the question. That's the point of the puddle analogy. If we weren't alive, or if we weren't intelligent enough we wouldn't be able to think "hey, the universe is fined tuned to us". The universe and life would still exist.

 

Arguing that the universe is finely tuned really seems like people are grasping at straws. It's a very poor foundation for a belief in a god, and if that's all that people are holding onto, I think they'd be better off letting go of that idea. If you have other reasons for having a belief in some sort of god, that's fine, but a fine tuned universe is a very flimsy reason.

 

1. You say the conditions for life permitting are rare, then say that if you look closely they're not fine tuned. If they are rare, they don't happen often, if they don't happen often surely we can ask why are the life permitting conditions only seen on the earth. What the explanation for this? are they fine tuned? or did it happen by chance?

 

Then you say that the universe is trying to kill us, its a dangerous place for humans. I'm not denying there are dangers on the earth for humans, but obviously none great enough to disable life arising. So this doesn't discredit the idea that the conditions for life have been fine tuned.

 

2. In this point you say that it would be more sensible that the universe is fine tuned for extinguishing life. But as you keep saying life is rare in the universe, and despite all the odds being against life arising and continuing to exist, we're still here. So whats your explanation for the conditions that permit life being so narrow ?

 

3. You said we're here because we got "lucky" so I'll assume you think its by chance, but you've already illustrated how unlikely it is for us to exist, so surely chance is highly improbable.

 

So if you're going to refute the fine tuning argument you need offer another explanation other than design, for the fine tuned initial conditions permitting life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you're going to refute the fine tuning argument you need offer another explanation other than design, for the fine tuned initial conditions permitting life.

 

It's not really unlikely for life to exist. Although it's rare, it's not unlikely. You have to realise just how vast the universe is. Now let's talk numbers, the number of galaxies estimated in the observable universe is around 100 billion (possibly more), that's 100,000,000,000 and inside each of those galaxies there can be around 300 billion stars. The estimated number of stars in the observable universe in total is around three hundred sextillion, or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Many of those will have planets, many will have multiple planets like our solar system, many of those planets will have moons, and many of those bodies will support life.

 

While life is rare, the sheer magnitude of the universe makes it incredibly likely. It's just that the distances between each object are so vast. The nearest star (just the nearest star) is 39,900,000,000,000 kms away. Life will be found (very soon in fact) throughout the solar system. I don't know if we'll be able to discover life outside of our solar system in the near future, but we will be able to discover and confirm life sustaining planets very, very soon, which will imply the existence of life is very widespread.

 

Now, as for the finely tuned universe, I'm trying to think of an analogy to give you a good perspective:

 

Think of it this way, even a broken watch is right twice a day. If you were to look at that watch only in those 2 seconds of the day when it's right, you're argue it's finely tuned, perfect watch, when in reality it's not. This is the way people look at the universe when they argue it's finely tuned. It's all a matter of perspective.

Edited by bootlegapparel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If something is rare but still happens, someone must have made it happen.

Oh mah gawd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you're going to refute the fine tuning argument you need offer another explanation other than design, for the fine tuned initial conditions permitting life.

 

It's not really unlikely for life to exist. Although it's rare, it's not unlikely. You have to realise just how vast the universe is. That's just the nearest star. Now let's talk numbers, the number of galaxies estimated in the observable universe is around 100 billion (possibly more), that's 100,000,000,000 and inside each of those galaxies there can be around 300 billion stars. The estimated number of stars in the observable universe in total is around three hundred sextillion, or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Many of those will have planets, many will have multiple planets like our solar system, many of those planets will have moons, and many of those bodies will support life.

 

While life is rare, the sheer magnitude of the universe makes it incredibly likely. It's just that the distances between each object are so vast. The nearest star (just the nearest star) is 39,900,000,000,000 kms away. Life will be found (very soon in fact) throughout the solar system. I don't know if we'll be able to discover life outside of our solar system in the near future, but we will be able to discover and confirm life sustaining planets very, very soon, which will imply the existence of life is very widespread.

 

Now, as for the finely tuned universe, I'm trying to think of an analogy to give you a good perspective:

 

Think of it this way, even a broken watch is right twice a day. If you were to look at that watch only in those 2 seconds of the day when it's right, you're argue it's finely tuned, perfect watch, when in reality it's not. This is the way people look at the universe when they argue it's finely tuned. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

So your saying, given the size of the Universe its no surprise that life came about somewhere?

 

But your illustrations of how vast the universe are only helping to show how even more unlikely life coming about is. All the odds are stacked against life arising, and yet here we are. You seem to like analogies so I'll give you this one to consider;

 

Imagine your brought before a firing squad, sentenced to death. So the guards bring you out infront of 100 trained shooters. They all aim their guns at your heart, ready, aim, fire! , all the guns go off. But to your amazement you're still alive. You owuld conclude that it was all a conspiracy and they meant to miss. See what i'm getting at?

 

 

Your second point about the watch. I already said that the temporal duration of something existing doesn't discredit whether it was designed or not. The question isn't does the watch work, the question is; Was the watch designed?

 

So, do you have any other explanations for the fine tuning of the life permitting conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the vastness of the universe makes life arising much more likely. A bigger universe means more possible places for life to arise, a smaller universe means less places.

 

 

Honestly I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you, I'm not the best person to try really, and I'm not an expert in any of these fields.

 

if you have time, have a read of this article on wikipedia, about the Anthropic principle http://en.wikipedia....ropic_principle

 

Also, this is a video by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a very famous astrophysicist, who will also be presenting the new Cosmos series that should be coming out soon.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

Edited by bootlegapparel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the vastness of the universe makes life arising much more likely. A bigger universe means more possible places for life to arise, a smaller universe means less places.

 

 

Honestly I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you, I'm not the best person to try really, and I'm not an expert in any of these fields.

 

if you have time, have a read of this article on wikipedia, about the Anthropic principle http://en.wikipedia....ropic_principle

 

Also, this is a video by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a very famous astrophysicist, who will also be presenting the new Cosmos series that should be coming out soon.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

Let us know when it does!

 

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Edited by Shark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine your brought before a firing squad, sentenced to death. So the guards bring you out infront of 100 trained shooters. They all aim their guns at your heart, ready, aim, fire! , all the guns go off. But to your amazement you're still alive. You would conclude that it was all a conspiracy and they meant to miss. See what i'm getting at?

Sounds a wee bit like a certain Pulp Fiction I watched the other day :lol:.

 

And just like in that movie, they both have different views on the matter yet get over it.

Probably time for everyone in here to let this die out slowly. Either that or turn it into another goat thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the vastness of the universe makes life arising much more likely. A bigger universe means more possible places for life to arise, a smaller universe means less places.

 

 

Honestly I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you, I'm not the best person to try really, and I'm not an expert in any of these fields.

 

if you have time, have a read of this article on wikipedia, about the Anthropic principle http://en.wikipedia....ropic_principle

 

Also, this is a video by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a very famous astrophysicist, who will also be presenting the new Cosmos series that should be coming out soon.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

 

Hey, I know what you mean about being able to convince someone, I often hear convincing arguments and then have trouble articulating them myself!

 

I've heard the anthropic principle argued a few times before, but I read the wiki article to be sure I'm answering it directly.

 

Anthropic principle seems to say, We can only observe universes that are compatible with our existence, so we shouldn't be surprised

because if it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

 

But , I've already dealt with this in my firing squad illustration.

 

The anthropic principle fails to recognise the massive odds ( that you've already mentioned ) that were against life coming about.

 

If you can respond to this I'm more than willing to be convinced, but many philosophers today don't hold the anthropic principle anymore because of the refutations I've offered here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine your brought before a firing squad, sentenced to death. So the guards bring you out infront of 100 trained shooters. They all aim their guns at your heart, ready, aim, fire! , all the guns go off. But to your amazement you're still alive. You would conclude that it was all a conspiracy and they meant to miss. See what i'm getting at?

Sounds a wee bit like a certain Pulp Fiction I watched the other day laugh.png.

 

And just like in that movie, they both have different views on the matter yet get over it.

Probably time for everyone in here to let this die out slowly. Either that or turn it into another goat thread.

 

So we should just agree to disagree ? I don't think the issue of God is a subjective one, he exists or he doesn't so I do think these things are worth discussing and what you believe about God will ultimately shape you.

 

I know what you mean about things dragging and you'd be thinking "are you guys STILL going on about this", but consider that there are serious implications to this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthropic principle seems to say, We can only observe universes that are compatible with our existence, so we shouldn't be surprised

because if it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

 

That's an excellent summation of the principle.

 

 

The anthropic principle fails to recognise the massive odds ( that you've already mentioned ) that were against life coming about.

 

I need to correct you on this one, It's not that the odds are against life arising, It's the opposite. The odds are life is almost inevitable in the universe, and will be soon found throughout. Yes there are very few locations in the universe where life can arise, and that makes it rare. Yes, in the vast majority of the universe life cannot exist or would be killed instantly. But think of it this way (and these are made up numbers just to illustrate the point); if the chance of life arising is 0.0000000000001%, but the universe has 100,000,000,000,000 planets or moons that can sustain life (and it's actually got a lot more than that) it's a 100% probability of life arising in the universe somewhere. It's just that the distances between the locations of life arising seem to be very far apart, so it's hard to discover them, and thus we consider life to be extremely rare, but still extremely likely.

Edited by bootlegapparel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean about things dragging and you'd be thinking "are you guys STILL going on about this", but consider that there are serious implications to this topic.

 

Yes and no. If we Atheists are correct, then no harm done; you've wasted an amount of your life and freedom adhering to the doctrine of one of many primitive fantasies that have evolved in our culture over time. I have not.

 

If religoius folk are correct and there is some form of God being, then the outcome is realistically the same.

There are hundreds of religions and world views, many of which are conflicting or contradictory. There is no way for you or any other member of any other religion to know for certain that the doctrine they decided to follow (or more accurately, were indoctrinated into at birth) is in line with the God being's will, or whether the God being even cares. Something may happen, or nothing, and no religion can provide anything remotely convincing beyond their word.

 

As I see it, if you haven't personally determined the what/why/how/where/when by your own means, then you're probably better off doing nothing at all.

None of my time or thought is occupied by theism, and I feel great.

 

So in conclusion, the topic 'God vs No God' in many ways does NOT have serious implications. It's just an opinion.

The confirmation of life on another planet does NOT have serious implications. Belief is an opinion held despite the evidence or lack thereof; just talk to a Holocaust-denier.

Finding damning proof of evolution does NOT have serious implications. People simply re-write the book every time it fails to match reality.

 

It all ultimately comes down to the question of "will you cage your mind and follow the rules and commands created by another human, with no evidence to vindicate their claims?".

The day everyone says no, is the day we can start to advance as a species.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw in a curveball and just ask something of the religious mob, as I am unaware of the bible's preachings. [no I'm not looking to attack it]

At any stage does the bible seek to talk about protecting the earth and the environment, and not mankind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean about things dragging and you'd be thinking "are you guys STILL going on about this", but consider that there are serious implications to this topic.

 

Yes and no. If we Atheists are correct, then no harm done; you've wasted an amount of your life and freedom adhering to the doctrine of one of many primitive fantasies that have evolved in our culture over time. I have not.

 

If religoius folk are correct and there is some form of God being, then the outcome is realistically the same.

There are hundreds of religions and world views, many of which are conflicting or contradictory. There is no way for you or any other member of any other religion to know for certain that the doctrine they decided to follow (or more accurately, were indoctrinated into at birth) is in line with the God being's will, or whether the God being even cares. Something may happen, or nothing, and no religion can provide anything remotely convincing beyond their word.

 

As I see it, if you haven't personally determined the what/why/how/where/when by your own means, then you're probably better off doing nothing at all.

None of my time or thought is occupied by theism, and I feel great.

 

So in conclusion, the topic 'God vs No God' in many ways does NOT have serious implications. It's just an opinion.

The confirmation of life on another planet does NOT have serious implications. Belief is an opinion held despite the evidence or lack thereof; just talk to a Holocaust-denier.

Finding damning proof of evolution does NOT have serious implications. People simply re-write the book every time it fails to match reality.

 

It all ultimately comes down to the question of "will you cage your mind and follow the rules and commands created by another human, with no evidence to vindicate their claims?".

The day everyone says no, is the day we can start to advance as a species.

 

1248815409588.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you're going to refute the fine tuning argument you need offer another explanation other than design, for the fine tuned initial conditions permitting life.

 

It's not really unlikely for life to exist. Although it's rare, it's not unlikely. You have to realise just how vast the universe is. That's just the nearest star. Now let's talk numbers, the number of galaxies estimated in the observable universe is around 100 billion (possibly more), that's 100,000,000,000 and inside each of those galaxies there can be around 300 billion stars. The estimated number of stars in the observable universe in total is around three hundred sextillion, or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Many of those will have planets, many will have multiple planets like our solar system, many of those planets will have moons, and many of those bodies will support life.

 

While life is rare, the sheer magnitude of the universe makes it incredibly likely. It's just that the distances between each object are so vast. The nearest star (just the nearest star) is 39,900,000,000,000 kms away. Life will be found (very soon in fact) throughout the solar system. I don't know if we'll be able to discover life outside of our solar system in the near future, but we will be able to discover and confirm life sustaining planets very, very soon, which will imply the existence of life is very widespread.

 

Now, as for the finely tuned universe, I'm trying to think of an analogy to give you a good perspective:

 

Think of it this way, even a broken watch is right twice a day. If you were to look at that watch only in those 2 seconds of the day when it's right, you're argue it's finely tuned, perfect watch, when in reality it's not. This is the way people look at the universe when they argue it's finely tuned. It's all a matter of perspective.

Imagine your brought before a firing squad, sentenced to death. So the guards bring you out infront of 100 trained shooters. They all aim their guns at your heart, ready, aim, fire! , all the guns go off. But to your amazement you're still alive. You owuld conclude that it was all a conspiracy and they meant to miss. See what i'm getting at?

This is actually a very good analogy.

 

Yes from your limited perspective it would appear that there was some kind of conspiracy for them all to miss and it was intended to happen.

Then when you remove your blindfold and look around you, and you see the trillions of other firing squads around you, all of which successfully killed their target and you were the only one to survive, suddenly the numbers look more convincing.

Then when you investigate the guns used by your firing squad and you see that they each suffered perfectly plausible malfunctions, the theory looks even more credible still.

 

The point is, holding un-questionable belief in a diety is akin to standing there refusing to remove your blindfold, assuming they simply chose to spare you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×