1. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    08 Jan '09 13:062 edits
    ...just to avoid God?

    I've been watching a well-produced program called, "What We Still Don't Know." The subject matter is fascinating, though I've been rolling my eyes throughout.

    I find it amusing, for instance, that when faced with the discovery of the Cosmological Constant, a newly discovered law of nature which supposedly makes it too difficult to accept that the universe was fine-tuned for life by accident, scientists, unable to bear the relatively simple possibility that the universe had a Creator, fumbled around for a different explanation; namely, that there exist an infinite number of other universes besides our own, each with its own unique "big bang" established natural laws, making the apparent fine-tuning of our universe unsurprising, even inevitable. This gives rise to the possibility that a vastly superior intelligence exists within another universe, with the added possibility that our universe may be a computer simulation created by said superior intelligence.

    Oh, the irony.
    __________

    Here's the video for interested parties:

    http://video.google.fr/videosearch?q=what%20we%20still%20don%27t%20know#
  2. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    08 Jan '09 14:15
    I think it's quite the faulty generalization and a faulty assumption that scientists come to their conclusions to avoid god.

    Especially when there are a great number of scientists who do believe in god.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '09 16:541 edit
    If, by christians, god is the creator of the universe and everything, he must also be the creator of the laws of physics, right? So by doing research of physics, then this is the ultimate research about god, right? To know the inner essence of god must be to know the whats and whys of phsycis, right?

    And the opposite, by denying physics in every detail, and further, to to ridicule physicists, is to deny the knowledge of the true god and his intentions with his creation, shortly to deny god in his entirety.

    So wanting to know about the constants of nature, is wanting to know god. If this god is not the one described in the bible, then the god of the bible must be an invention by ignorant people, who not want to know about the real god, the one who actually created the universe, right?

    Everyone believing in intelligent design must agree with me here.
    To believe in intelligent design and, at the same time, distrust the evolution - is an oxymoron.
  4. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    08 Jan '09 17:47
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    ...just to avoid God?

    I've been watching a well-produced program called, "What We Still Don't Know."
    How can we know what we still don't know?
  5. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    08 Jan '09 18:161 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Oh, the irony.
    Actually, I consider the irony to be that anyone still feels "fine tuning" to be any sort of valid argument that requires investigation or hypotheses. Fine, the conditions in the universe led to, but will not end with, our species in this tiny corner of an immense galaxy in this ever-expanding universe. It did not, however, lead to talking lions or sentient bananas, dragons, leprechauns, a fog that will turn you inside out, a six-eyed blue Jabberwocky, or anything else that does not actually exist...here, anyway.

    Do you know how close we came to not existing? Doesn't matter, the tiny chordates found in the Burgess Shale did somehow survive. I tire of theists that want to ascribe a mathematical formula to our existence, i.e. "there's a one billion to the trillionth power that we evolved from some primordial soup". Wrong. There's a one in one chance, because we are here.

    All I can do is quote one of my favourite authors on this point, the whimsical, but profound Douglas Adams...and hope you read and comprehend:

    posted by Douglas Adams
    ". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "


    ..
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '09 18:25
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    How can we know what we still don't know?
    Easy. There are a lot of things we don't know - yet.
    Example: The 45th mersenne number has been discovered ( 2^32,582,657-1 ) but the 46th we have not discovered yet. But there is a 46th, that has been proven.
    So there are things we know that we still don't know - the 46th meresenn number.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    08 Jan '09 18:351 edit
    with all due respect, yes when we observe the physical universe and the wonderful laws that guide its mechanisms, we are in awe, and thus as you have stated those advocates of intelligent design in creation would agree with what you are saying, however its not the science that is the problem, but the theory of evolution is in itself unscientific.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '09 18:38
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    with all due respect, yes when we observe the physical universe and the wonderful laws that guide its mechanisms, we are in awe, and thus as you have stated those advocates of intelligent design in creation would agree with what you are saying, however its not the science that is the problem, but the theory of evolution is in itself unscientific.
    The theory of evolution is in indeed scientific. Anyone stating it is unscientific is himself either ignorant of science and its methods, or evolution.
    Creationism, or intelligent design on the other hand, is religious, and therefore unscientific.
  9. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    08 Jan '09 18:44
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    If, by christians, god is the creator of the universe and everything, he must also be the creator of the laws of physics, right? So by doing research of physics, then this is the ultimate research about god, right? To know the inner essence of god must be to know the whats and whys of phsycis, right?

    And the opposite, by denying physics in every detail ...[text shortened]... To believe in intelligent design and, at the same time, distrust the evolution - is an oxymoron.
    This is fine with me
    😵
  10. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    08 Jan '09 18:45
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The theory of evolution is in indeed scientific. Anyone stating it is unscientific is himself either ignorant of science and its methods, or evolution.
    Creationism, or intelligent design on the other hand, is religious, and therefore unscientific.
    My Gota Enemy

    this is fine with me
    😵
  11. Joined
    17 Jul '08
    Moves
    155
    08 Jan '09 20:32
    Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc, is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
    From Talkorigins.

    "Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

    - Theodosius Dobzhansky
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    08 Jan '09 21:541 edit
    i am not going into it Fabian, it is built on a premise, cannot be subject to falsification and the scientific model, its tenets are flimsy to say the least, mutations are essentially destructive, there is no, and i repeat there is no evidence for the transmigration of one species to another, the fossil record does not show a gradual transmigration of one species to another, therefore punctuated equilibrium was invented, there have been numerous attempts, as in the case of the notorious ramapithecus and others to provide a so called missing link, which were nothing more than falsehood and pure fabrication despite the fact that there is more than 100 million extant fossils, and so it goes on and on, please it is very disrespectful to constantly harp on about ignorance when it is simply not true, we have examined the evidence and it simply not satisfactory,believe it if you want to, but do not term others ignorant simply because they do not, based on the available 'evidence'.
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '09 22:25
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i am not going into it Fabian, it is built on a premise, cannot be subject to falsification and the scientific model, its tenets are flimsy to say the least, mutations are essentially destructive, there is no, and i repeat there is no evidence for the transmigration of one species to another, the fossil record does not show a gradual transmigration o ...[text shortened]... but do not term others ignorant simply because they do not, based on the available 'evidence'.
    There is no scientific theory that better explains the variety of species scientifically than the theory of evolution, starting with Darwin.
    Creationism, and Intelligent Design is not science, but religion, and cannot explain the diversity, and ancestry of species better than the theory of evolution can.

    This is Spiritual Forum, not Science Forum, so you can belive anything, but you cannot say that the theory of evolution is not scientific. If you do that you either don't understand evolution, or you don't understand science and its methods.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    08 Jan '09 22:35
    i have in the past went to great lengths to show, with reference! that it is indeed unscientific, believe what you will.
  15. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    09 Jan '09 00:501 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    ...just to avoid God?

    I've been watching a well-produced program called, "What We Still Don't Know." The subject matter is fascinating, though I've been rolling my eyes throughout.

    I find it amusing, for instance, that when faced with the discovery of the Cosmological Constant, a newly discovered law of nature which supposedly makes it too difficu ted parties:

    http://video.google.fr/videosearch?q=what%20we%20still%20don%27t%20know#
    I was and still am a fan of Carl Sagan (RIP) and have an old copy of his series COSMOS on VHS.

    It's dated now of course, but there was one espisode in which he was is a research institute where the science team there were investigating the origin of life of earth through incidental causes.

    As part of there work they were running an experiment in a big glass sphere in which they were trying to re-create the conditions of the "primeaval soup" in order to see if a basic organism would develop and had managed to get long chains of amino acids to appear up the sides of the sphere.

    I wasn't a christian in those days, but I had to keep rewinding the section as I couldn't believe what I was seeing:

    Scientists were trying to disprove 'creation' by demonstrating that they could creat basic life!
Back to Top