09 Mar 07
Originally posted by Ruppster1So your argument boils down to "I don't understand it, so it must be God".
I stated that the existence of God could be inferred, not proved and cited examples. I f you have a better explanation, I would love to hear it.
The claim of supporters of ID is "According to random chance we should get the following numbers, but we observe a different set of numbers therefore God." The problem with their claim is that they have been unable to show what numbers random chance would give and instead simply make vague statements to the effect that "it is obvious" when it most definitely isn't.
Science on the other hand has been able to show that observed reality fits very well with the expected results of random chance and so no inference of God can be made.
Let me give an example:
I roll a dice 10 times and get 10 sixes. I can infer (though not prove) interference (God maybe?). This is because I know the probability for each roll and can work out how unsightly 10 sixes in a row really is.
But what you are saying is that you roll the dice and get a random string of numbers ending with 4. You then say "I cant figure out why the last number was a 4 so I infer the existence of God."
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Well, it doesn't happen that way exactly. Okay, let's look at a specific group, let's say the primates. The primates all had a common ancestor, the chances of getting exactly the same bone structure, biochemistry, genetics etc are tiny otherwise, impossible. Essentially, what happens is that you have one species but in multiple environments. For example, a plant which grows in Europe, but after the last glaciation some of them got marooned on the British Isles. No longer can the UK plants swap genes with the European ones, and the two groups diverge genetically. Random chance (mutations) throws up many different organisms each slightly different to the others. Some organisms (gene configurations) do better than others. We see it all the time in nature, the animals that can compete and win harems or territories, or whatever the case is for that organism. Anyway, the two groups live in different environments, and it may well be that the plants which are thrown up by mutation that survive better in low temperature conditions grow and thrive in the UK. Thus, low temperature adapted plants come to dominate the population. Once enough genetic difference builds up between the two populations they would be unable to breed and produce viable offspring, becoming two separate species.
I'm ignorant about the theory of evolution. I want to ask this question for quite a while now. All this evolution stuff happened over billions of years. But I am having difficulties to fathom the very specific nature of the process. For example, why not a crab evolves into a man; a crocodile evolves into a dog?
I can only guess that lifeforms started fr ...[text shortened]... ns are humans. We didn't come from the same source. Is there any scientific evidence of this?
All mammals share a common ancestor, as do all reptiles and birds. Further back, mammals, reptiles, birds and fish had a common ancestor. Still further back, we shared common ancestry with worms and slugs. If you go far enough back you come to common ancestry with plants, although that's taking you back probably more than 3 and a half billion years.
Think of it like branching, based on genetic diversification as organisms, over generations, come to adapt to their environments.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by Kindred SpiritI disagree, unless you saying God can prove it, because man cannot.
Assertion: The existence of God is PROVABLE TODAY. Just as it was in Jesus' time...and even prior to his mission.
I have good reason to believe this is true.
Is there anyone who might be interested in exploring this critical topic?
All are welcome.
Kelly
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzHmmm... sounds like quite far-fetched to me. Essentially, what you are saying is like, if we humans are separated, say one group to the north, and another to the south, then after a long, long time, we may end up very different from one another?
Well, it doesn't happen that way exactly. Okay, let's look at a specific group, let's say the primates. The primates all had a common ancestor, the chances of getting exactly the same bone structure, biochemistry, genetics etc are tiny otherwise, impossible. Essentially, what happens is that you have one species but in multiple environments. For exa ...[text shortened]... genetic diversification as organisms, over generations, come to adapt to their environments.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Possibly, but only if the environmental conditions in those two regions are such that they essentially 'force' adaptive change, and only if those two populations are reproductively isolated.
Hmmm... sounds like quite far-fetched to me. Essentially, what you are saying is like, if we humans are separated, say one group to the north, and another to the south, then after a long, long time, we may end up very different from one another?
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965No, the divergence of species like you're considering ahppened much later.
I'm ignorant about the theory of evolution. I want to ask this question for quite a while now. All this evolution stuff happened over billions of years. But I am having difficulties to fathom the very specific nature of the process. For example, why not a crab evolves into a man; a crocodile evolves into a dog?
I can only guess that lifeforms started fr ...[text shortened]... ns are humans. We didn't come from the same source. Is there any scientific evidence of this?
We can see for example, that all reptiles, birds and mammals share a common ancestor since we all have the basic 4 legged anatomy (varied a bit of course with wings and arms and legs and so forth.)
Insects on the other hand don't - so our common ancestry with them is significantly further back in time.
All mammals share a common ancestor, by virtue of their mammalian characteristics.
And so on ...
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Actually, it requires only 3 things, mutations, which we know happen, differential survival, which we know happens, and time, and the earth is well over 4.5 billion years old. Life has been around for over 3.5 billion.
Hmmm... sounds like quite far-fetched to me. Essentially, what you are saying is like, if we humans are separated, say one group to the north, and another to the south, then after a long, long time, we may end up very different from one another?
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965Yes. And that matches observation. There are a number of different groups of people with fairly significant differences (we call them races). Their adaptations such as a darker skin pigment for groups living in the tropics and higher resistance to certain tropical diseases for groups living in the tropics etc is also evidence of divergent evolution in humans.
Hmmm... sounds like quite far-fetched to me. Essentially, what you are saying is like, if we humans are separated, say one group to the north, and another to the south, then after a long, long time, we may end up very different from one another?
However due to modern travel, the groups are no longer separated and will slowly converge again though cultural differences is slowing down that convergence.
09 Mar 07
What caused the Big Bang. We know it happened. Was it a random flucuation in the fabric of timespace? It is not within the realm of reasonable probability that such an event would only occur once in the 15-20 billion years. Why has it not occurred again?
Look at all the physical constants that control the universe.( strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, etc) A slight deviation in the value of any one of those constants and life as we know it would not exist.
You can believe that it is all the product of random chance, or you can assume some intelligence
is behind it. I prefer the latter.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateHand: No, really, Berkeley is as close as you can come to a philisophical proof of God's existence.
Bishop George "Georgey Porgey" or "Pork Pie" Berkeley used idealism to prove that God exists.
While grossly simplified, from what I've read, he argued that all knowledge is based upon our perceptions. He then made the leap to conclude that there is nothing exists without being perceived. Essentially, he stretched the concept of 'perception is rea ...[text shortened]... m Theories, but, it does "prove" the existence of God if you can accept his premises.
Spirituality retards: Really, Hand? That's amazing.
Hand: Thanks, idealism rocks.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell life on EARTH has been around 3 and a half bil...
Actually, it requires only 3 things, mutations, which we know happen, differential survival, which we know happens, and time, and the earth is well over 4.5 billion years old. Life has been around for over 3.5 billion.
10 Mar 07
Originally posted by Ruppster1It may well have happened again, but that would create another universe, not ours and we would likely have no knowledge of such events.
What caused the Big Bang. We know it happened. Was it a random flucuation in the fabric of timespace? It is not within the realm of reasonable probability that such an event would only occur once in the 15-20 billion years. Why has it not occurred again?
Look at all the physical constants that control the universe.( strong and weak nuclear forces, grav ...[text shortened]... roduct of random chance, or you can assume some intelligence
is behind it. I prefer the latter.
Your mention of the physical constants and such says nothing other than what is. The universe has these particular values which suit life - so what> If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be here. But since we're here, it must be the case.
all that says is that the universe has these particular physical constants.
Why do you prefer the latter?
What does it matter whether there's intelligence behind it or not?
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think we're a little beyond that now, don't you. You've been spouting the same basic point for a year or more.
This is a question which doesn't logically make sense. You question assumes causality, which requires time, which requires the existence of the universe.
We get the gist of it now.
However, a rational approach would seem to suggest that something is needed to 'seed' the universe. Some event, or process, or energy field, or quantum fluctuation, or something that creates the processes that begin our universe. Obviously, time is dependent on the creation of our universe - but that's only 'our' time; local time if you like, or internal time.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by amannionThat's how I think of it, a setting of a local clock to zero. According to some TOE's, our universe is not the only one and there may even be a continuity of laws, slightly changing from universe to universe, like the conditions that caused our universe to erupt may have come from another universe that had slightly differant laws, speed of light slightly differant, fine constant a tiny bit off, etc. But proving it may be on the same order of magnitude as proving or disproving the existance of a god. That said, scientists continue to make headway probing back in time and may be in the middle of going past the CBR, which started about 400,000 years after the 'big bang', so we may yet be able to figure it all out. News at 11. Maybe 11 centuries but what the hey.
I think we're a little beyond that now, don't you. You've been spouting the same basic point for a year or more.
We get the gist of it now.
However, a rational approach would seem to suggest that something is needed to 'seed' the universe. Some event, or process, or energy field, or quantum fluctuation, or something that creates the processes that begin o ...[text shortened]... of our universe - but that's only 'our' time; local time if you like, or internal time.