Some food for thought..

thedjjudah
thedjjudah's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2009-09-27
User is offlineOffline
Some food for thought..

Hello, guys.

 

First off I would like to genuinely apologize for the rudeness, hatefulness, and general lowness of character in some of the responses via email you have been getting from my "Christian" friends. While I admittedly have sinned in my life, and am not perfect in any way, I don't believe that the cursing, hate, and most of all the (it seems) desire for any of you to burn in hell is reflective in any way of the God that I serve.

With that being said,

I have some things for you to think about and I hope that you truly mull them over and realize that it takes a lot more faith to believe in pure materialism then to believe that we were put here. I realize that quite a few of you will get angry and flame me simply because I believe in God (I have read just as many posts where the OP is considerate and genuine and you curse him/her out as there are hate mail letters from the "Christians&quotEye-wink 

A common argument from theists for the existence of God is that everything must have a first cause, and that cause is God. Of course that doesn't follow rational logic because God has not been caused by anything. What caused God? The problem is that same logic could apply to the stream of thought regarding a universe excluding a creator. Where did our universe come from, if not God? The Big Bang. Oh? What caused the big bang? Various gases combining at extreme heat to produce massive reactions that filled the universe at that time with matter, and that universe is constantly expanding. But what caused the presence of the various hydrogen (among other) atoms in the first place? And if we found a cause for that, we would look for the cause for THAT, and so on, and we would never be satisfied, because we would never get the final answer (I know now a little more why the Underground man said that excessive conscience is a curse, because some things must be grasped on faith or we will never be satisfied).

Eventually the chain of questioning will continue back until we will have to come to a point , no matter how many trillions upon trillions years back, where we will have to admit that physical matter appeared from nothing (for if it didn't than the causal chain must continue), which, if we claim to be scientists, is impossible, as proved centuries ago by Louis Pasteur. If spontaneous generation has been disproved for life forms, can we honestly expect to apply the theory for celestial bodies? (The Christian, however, already has the answer, for they know that God can create something out of nothing..) The fact is that time itself must have a beginning because our existence in time is completely relative to the other points in time (e.g., our past, and future. the only thing that makes the present present is the fact that the past existed). If time itself was infinite then it would be infinite in both directions, which means at the very least that other dimensions exist, and they exist outside of time. So, whether or not time itself is infinite we can say that this 3-dimensional (actually 4, if you include time) existence is not all there is. I myself believe that time has a beginning, and God exists outside of it, in an ever-present moment of now ,  (hence I AM). In this state it is no different to do something instantly or to wait 1000 years to do it, hence, as the bible says (I know you guys don't believe in scripture and this will be the last time I quote it, I'm just using it in this case because an explanation of this state has already been given) , a day is like a 1000 years to the Lord, and a 1000 years as a day. This is how God can know both the ending and beginning of something. (Why he does, or allows certain things, like the problem of evil,  I cannot completely know, but my inability to explain anything's actions do not nullify its existence)

 

Regarding the problem of evolution, I am not arguing against abiogenesis (the supposed formation of  DNA, amino acids, and eventually proteins and life structures, from simple elements. I argue, that those elements had to be there in the first place for this to occur, and we know that matter cannot appear from nothing, it is against the laws of physics. While I believe that the second law of thermodynamics is a good response to the theory of evolution, there are many people who state that the law of entropy does not apply to biological systems, so I won't go there..

What I will say is that the theory of evolution states that the origin of a new species is based upon a series of genetic mutations over an extremely large period of time to the original species, where each tiny mutation would have resulted in an adaptation that would allow the organism an increased survival probability.

The first thing we must realize is that these mutations do not need to take billions of years. We see mutations all the time, from frogs born with an extra leg to postmortem mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA) to the tragedy that is cancer. The second is that the chances of an adaptive mutation is much lower than a maladaptive, or even neutral one. The fact is that we see much more maladaptive mutations all the time, and even neutal ones (albinos, (which are a mutation of the gene that controls pigmentation) etc). When was the last time we saw an adaptive mutation (or mutagenesis)? In bacteria and virii, maybe, but extremely rare in human beings.  And even if this were true, when have we seen mutation that would progress us toward another species?

 

Would such a mutation even be advantageous? How many mutations would have to occur at the same time for the 4-legged creature to walk on two? I know there must have been changes to the various parts of the skeletal and muscular system and they must work together. How many mutations would have to occur at the exact same time to form an adaptive organ (such as an eye)? These must occur at the same time because having less than the full organ (i.e. just the lens of an eye) in any place other than the perfect one (a hole in a part of the body - in the case of human beings, the head) is pointless at best, maladaptive at worst, beneficial, never.  For in order for it to be an adaptive mutation it must completely in the precise place necessary. The lens of an eye would be no good on a creature's leg or back (pointless), and an extra leg in the leg or back would just be an appendage to latch on to, making the creature easier to kill (maladaptive).

The fact is a mutation that would move us toward a new species (and not just be a variation) would have to be adaptive, and therefore fully functional (or else the organism would be killed off by natural selection)  and most likely active (non-passive, such as wing color or skin color)..

 

The chances of that combination occurring just once is so astronomically high that for all statistical purposes it is impossible. The chances of it happening over and over again are about the same (as my philosophy teacher said) as winning the lottery 150 million times in a row.

 

As are the chances of even harmful mutations occurring in the same species as many times as takes to move a species forward.

I ask you to please think (as I love to, and I believe most of you do) and realize that evolution is at least directed by God, if not a complete fallacy.

 

If either of these is true, then God must exist. If you still believe he doesn't, feel free to poke holes in my summary of evolution (as no doubt you will), but in your post I also want you to explain to me how the universe started.

 

Just some food for thought...

 

Your friend,

 

Emmanuel

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:Hello,

thedjjudah wrote:

Hello, guys.

 

First off I would like to genuinely apologize for the rudeness, hatefulness, and general lowness of character in some of the responses via email you have been getting from my "Christian" friends. While I admittedly have sinned in my life, and am not perfect in any way, I don't believe that the cursing, hate, and most of all the (it seems) desire for any of you to burn in hell is reflective in any way of the God that I serve.

With that being said,

I have some things for you to think about and I hope that you truly mull them over and realize that it takes a lot more faith to believe in pure materialism then to believe that we were put here. I realize that quite a few of you will get angry and flame me simply because I believe in God (I have read just as many posts where the OP is considerate and genuine and you curse him/her out as there are hate mail letters from the "Christians&quotEye-wink 

Hello

Quote:

A common argument from theists for the existence of God is that everything must have a first cause, and that cause is God. Of course that doesn't follow rational logic because God has not been caused by anything. What caused God? The problem is that same logic could apply to the stream of thought regarding a universe excluding a creator. Where did our universe come from, if not God? The Big Bang. Oh? What caused the big bang? Various gases combining at extreme heat to produce massive reactions that filled the universe at that time with matter, and that universe is constantly expanding. But what caused the presence of the various hydrogen (among other) atoms in the first place? And if we found a cause for that, we would look for the cause for THAT, and so on, and we would never be satisfied, because we would never get the final answer (I know now a little more why the Underground man said that excessive conscience is a curse, because some things must be grasped on faith or we will never be satisfied).

Eventually the chain of questioning will continue back until we will have to come to a point , no matter how many trillions upon trillions years back, where we will have to admit that physical matter appeared from nothing (for if it didn't than the causal chain must continue), which, if we claim to be scientists, is impossible, as proved centuries ago by Louis Pasteur. If spontaneous generation has been disproved for life forms, can we honestly expect to apply the theory for celestial bodies? (The Christian, however, already has the answer, for they know that God can create something out of nothing..) The fact is that time itself must have a beginning because our existence in time is completely relative to the other points in time (e.g., our past, and future. the only thing that makes the present present is the fact that the past existed). If time itself was infinite then it would be infinite in both directions, which means at the very least that other dimensions exist, and they exist outside of time. So, whether or not time itself is infinite we can say that this 3-dimensional (actually 4, if you include time) existence is not all there is. I myself believe that time has a beginning, and God exists outside of it, in an ever-present moment of now ,  (hence I AM). In this state it is no different to do something instantly or to wait 1000 years to do it, hence, as the bible says (I know you guys don't believe in scripture and this will be the last time I quote it, I'm just using it in this case because an explanation of this state has already been given) , a day is like a 1000 years to the Lord, and a 1000 years as a day. This is how God can know both the ending and beginning of something. (Why he does, or allows certain things, like the problem of evil,  I cannot completely know, but my inability to explain anything's actions do not nullify its existence)

Which why the honest answer of "I do not know" is far more better than god did it. However there is quantum mechanics which so far it appears that on that level causes occur randomly, without prior cause, which takes your god out of the equation.

Quote:

Regarding the problem of evolution, I am not arguing against abiogenesis (the supposed formation of  DNA, amino acids, and eventually proteins and life structures, from simple elements. I argue, that those elements had to be there in the first place for this to occur, and we know that matter cannot appear from nothing, it is against the laws of physics. While I believe that the second law of thermodynamics is a good response to the theory of evolution, there are many people who state that the law of entropy does not apply to biological systems, so I won't go there..

No please use the Second law of thermodynamics, I mean really this is massive hitch for science to over come this ONE major problem. I mean after all if only the earth had a massive ball of fire sending energy to it, which in turn that source is heading towards entropy some 4 or 5 billion years in the future.....oh wait we do it's called the sun. Plus here is the link to a paper from the Royal Society (Scientific organization) regarding the second law of thermodynamics and evolution and why that argument again is debunked by science http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2099/3055.abstract

Quote:

What I will say is that the theory of evolution states that the origin of a new species is based upon a series of genetic mutations over an extremely large period of time to the original species, where each tiny mutation would have resulted in an adaptation that would allow the organism an increased survival probability.

The first thing we must realize is that these mutations do not need to take billions of years. We see mutations all the time, from frogs born with an extra leg to postmortem mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA) to the tragedy that is cancer. The second is that the chances of an adaptive mutation is much lower than a maladaptive, or even neutral one. The fact is that we see much more maladaptive mutations all the time, and even neutal ones (albinos, (which are a mutation of the gene that controls pigmentation) etc). When was the last time we saw an adaptive mutation (or mutagenesis)? In bacteria and virii, maybe, but extremely rare in human beings.  And even if this were true, when have we seen mutation that would progress us toward another species?

You want to compare the life span of a bacteria or virus to that of a human, where humans can live on average over 3 decades if not more and viruses and bacteria which can live as short as 20 minutes and maybe as long as a few hours or weeks? Come on now, if you can't see the error in your thinking well I can't really help you then (Think of dogs and how quickly we can over just a few generation breed out various genetic problems , or even create a new species of dogs, and they have a far longer life span that bacteria and virus) Of course if you bothered with evolution and not ancient DNA you would have seen there are a few other causes for our genetic variation, not just mutation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Quote:

Would such a mutation even be advantageous? How many mutations would have to occur at the same time for the 4-legged creature to walk on two? I know there must have been changes to the various parts of the skeletal and muscular system and they must work together. How many mutations would have to occur at the exact same time to form an adaptive organ (such as an eye)? These must occur at the same time because having less than the full organ (i.e. just the lens of an eye) in any place other than the perfect one (a hole in a part of the body - in the case of human beings, the head) is pointless at best, maladaptive at worst, beneficial, never.  For in order for it to be an adaptive mutation it must completely in the precise place necessary. The lens of an eye would be no good on a creature's leg or back (pointless), and an extra leg in the leg or back would just be an appendage to latch on to, making the creature easier to kill (maladaptive).

The fact is a mutation that would move us toward a new species (and not just be a variation) would have to be adaptive, and therefore fully functional (or else the organism would be killed off by natural selection)  and most likely active (non-passive, such as wing color or skin color)..

 

The chances of that combination occurring just once is so astronomically high that for all statistical purposes it is impossible. The chances of it happening over and over again are about the same (as my philosophy teacher said) as winning the lottery 150 million times in a row.

 

As are the chances of even harmful mutations occurring in the same species as many times as takes to move a species forward.

I ask you to please think (as I love to, and I believe most of you do) and realize that evolution is at least directed by God, if not a complete fallacy.

 

If either of these is true, then God must exist. If you still believe he doesn't, feel free to poke holes in my summary of evolution (as no doubt you will), but in your post I also want you to explain to me how the universe started.

 

Just some food for thought...

 

Your friend,

 

Emmanuel

 

This argument is really outdated, most creationist don't even use this anymore as scientist have already shown how the eye most likely evolved

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

There is enough research on this that the whole Eye could not have evolved is debunked by science

As for how the universe started, well the big bang is a good start, but the exact origins, we do not know, which is the best answer we have at this point. Far better than god did it, because god did it, does not answer the question, just raises so many more which can never be answered. As well even if the possibility is on the improbable side, it's not impossible. Remember improbable is not impossible. With over 100 billion galaxies each having on average 100 billion solar systems which you make the calculations on just that it is an astronomically HIGH number of solar systems, that chances that it might occur are there, it's improbable, but not impossible. I will take improbable over god any day when it comes to explaining this universe and life.

 


thedjjudah
thedjjudah's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2009-09-27
User is offlineOffline
Hey again.  I'm only going

Hey again.
 

I'm only going to respond to your points really briefly and then I have to go to bed (I have school tomorrow and it's 11:40 where I'm at). I promise I'll try to respond in more detail later.

1. I'm not going to even address the 2LOT right now because that would take way too much time.

2. Of course I know that we also propagate our genes through sex, I expected that to be a logical given. Yes I know that by choosing who we have sex with we can pass on certain genes and not pass on other ones. What I am talking about is a series of random mutations that are adaptive, active, and must be at least semi-functional (or else they serve no purpose but to be a hindrance). On top of that they must occur over and over again.  Please do not imply that I am not familiar with the theory of evolution at more than just face value. Even Darwin himself realized that the mathematical probabilty of this happening in ONE species was astounding (I'm not, as some theists do, suggesting that Darwin later believed in God or creation), let alone in creation itself. Unfortunately I feel that some people have already closed their minds to the idea of a God and then simply hear what they want to hear.

Couple the mathematics with the fact that

 

3. We still cannot explain what caused the components of the big bang, or what caused them. I know you realize that if you do chose to go down that path (of asking, not of atheism), you will have to eventually admit that something came from absolutely nothing, which is impossible (not improbable) if you are a scientist. Not only has it been proven (see Louis Pasteur earlier), but it goes against common sense.

and I believe that atheism does in fact take way more faith than to believe in God . To believe in God we simply have to accept his answer on how he (and we) got here and accept the fact that we are not going to understand some of the things he does (however,the beautiful thing is, I believe, when we get to heaven we'll be able to ask him). As an atheist you have to accept just as many things with equal amounts of intellectual weight to them on the basis of faith, with no answer of how some of them occured.

I do have to go to bed now, but I will try to respond tomorrow, and feel free to email me at emmanueltbrowne@aol.com if you want to talk more in private.

 

P.S. Again, if I said anything in my post that you feel ridiculed you or was insulting, please let me know..


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
thedjjudah wrote:realize

thedjjudah wrote:

realize that it takes a lot more faith to believe in pure materialism then to believe that we were put here.

it was my understanding from various passages in the gospels and the epistles that faith is a virtue (one of the three spiritual virtues in medieval scholasticism) and that one of the gospel's characteristics is that it's "foolishness in the eyes of the world" (i'm paraphrasing).

doesn't it contradict scripture to imply that the gospel is so empirically obvious that it takes more faith to believe in generally accepted science?  in a way, wouldn't that make believing in scientific evidence contradictory to scripture and dogma more virtuous, since it requires more "faith"? 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:Hey again.

thedjjudah wrote:

Hey again.
 

I'm only going to respond to your points really briefly and then I have to go to bed (I have school tomorrow and it's 11:40 where I'm at). I promise I'll try to respond in more detail later.

1. I'm not going to even address the 2LOT right now because that would take way too much time.

2. Of course I know that we also propagate our genes through sex, I expected that to be a logical given. Yes I know that by choosing who we have sex with we can pass on certain genes and not pass on other ones. What I am talking about is a series of random mutations that are adaptive, active, and must be at least semi-functional (or else they serve no purpose but to be a hindrance). On top of that they must occur over and over again.  Please do not imply that I am not familiar with the theory of evolution at more than just face value. Even Darwin himself realized that the mathematical probabilty of this happening in ONE species was astounding (I'm not, as some theists do, suggesting that Darwin later believed in God or creation), let alone in creation itself. Unfortunately I feel that some people have already closed their minds to the idea of a God and then simply hear what they want to hear.

Couple the mathematics with the fact that

Except that adaptive mutations once they occur are not on a massive scale, like growing a third arm fully functioning, or that eyes need lens to function (which I assume you didn't bother to read the links regarding the eye as it gives a very detailed explanation about the gradual evolution of the eye) It's on a smaller scale usually, something such as in humans, such as for example more strength (as a family in Austria, if I remember reading correct and once I have time to search for it I will, who's son was born with enhanced strength which doctors are studying which gene got activated for this enhanced strength). But it's those mutations that survive which might get mutated further down the road due to selective environmental pressures.

Quote:

3. We still cannot explain what caused the components of the big bang, or what caused them. I know you realize that if you do chose to go down that path (of asking, not of atheism), you will have to eventually admit that something came from absolutely nothing, which is impossible (not improbable) if you are a scientist. Not only has it been proven (see Louis Pasteur earlier), but it goes against common sense.

Nope don't need to, as you simply asked the beginning of this universe, not the beginning of energy/matter 2 different things altogether. With that said energy has always existed in one form or another, why not just say energy and on a quantum level causes are random, no prior cause required, god after all if your going to use this logic that everything needs a creator, needs a creator, and saying that he doesn't is called special pleading. God can't be the exception to the rule, otherwise hey so can energy then (and it kinda does at this point as energy cannot be created nor destroyed). The only people to advocate really that anything comes from nothing are theists, most scientists that I have read about or spoken to do not agree that everything came from nothing.

Quote:

and I believe that atheism does in fact take way more faith than to believe in God . To believe in God we simply have to accept his answer on how he (and we) got here and accept the fact that we are not going to understand some of the things he does (however,the beautiful thing is, I believe, when we get to heaven we'll be able to ask him). As an atheist you have to accept just as many things with equal amounts of intellectual weight to them on the basis of faith, with no answer of how some of them occured.

I do have to go to bed now, but I will try to respond tomorrow, and feel free to email me at emmanueltbrowne@aol.com if you want to talk more in private.

 

P.S. Again, if I said anything in my post that you feel ridiculed you or was insulting, please let me know..

that's great that you believe that, but you have to make special pleading, massive leaps of logic, and ignore all the evidence to the contrary for god to exist. For me that takes a lot more faith than trying to understand the natural world. I will take the I have no answer for it now and might never have an answer than the illogical, impossible god. I take improbability over impossible. I hope I don't come off to sarcastic or insulting either.


thedjjudah
thedjjudah's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2009-09-27
User is offlineOffline
Do you not realize that we

Do you not realize that we are saying the exact same thing, except i choose to recognize the source as God and you say that these energies were always (key word here) there? So I am stating that something cannot come from nothing and you say that they came from certain energies who then must have a cause themselves, upon which you state that the energies may have been eternal as well? I being a Christian, am the one who is supposed to believe in the eternal, not the atheist.

 

regarding evo..

 

I did read the article on the eye.. and I absolutely believe that these changes do not occur on a massive scale. That's exactly my point. The mutations that would classify as a jump to another species (not an interspecies variation, which I would include the Austrian family under - I will have to do more research on that- but a whole new set of cells that serve a function not relevant to the previous species,which I would NOT consider enhanced strength to be)  are not even of a big enough significance to change the survival probability of a species at all.

 

Futhermore the fact is that our DNA is so complex and yet so precise that a series of mutations over time would cause too much damage to the original code and end up killing the host.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:Do you not

thedjjudah wrote:

Do you not realize that we are saying the exact same thing, except i choose to recognize the source as God and you say that these energies were always (key word here) there? So I am stating that something cannot come from nothing and you say that they came from certain energies who then must have a cause themselves, upon which you state that the energies may have been eternal as well? I being a Christian, am the one who is supposed to believe in the eternal, not the atheist.

Except that any original 'cause' need not be anything but the tiniest possible energy fluctuation, the sort of thing which triggers radioactive decay all the time. 

Quote:

regarding evo..

I did read the article on the eye.. and I absolutely believe that these changes do not occur on a massive scale. That's exactly my point. The mutations that would classify as a jump to another species (not an interspecies variation, which I would include the Austrian family under - I will have to do more research on that- but a whole new set of cells that serve a function not relevant to the previous species,which I would NOT consider enhanced strength to be)  are not even of a big enough significance to change the survival probability of a species at all.

Futhermore the fact is that our DNA is so complex and yet so precise that a series of mutations over time would cause too much damage to the original code and end up killing the host.

There is no absolute boundary between species - two lineages of life-forms are classified as separate species based on a number of items, inability to interbreed being an important one, but not the only one. There are species which form a 'ring' such as certain bird families around the Arctic circle. If you look at the birds sufficiently far apart they seem to be clearly separate species, although obviously closely related.  Neighboring families are not clearly identifiable as separate species, and if you progress around the ring comparing such neighboring families you will never find clear species boundaries.

New species do not arrive as a jump. The offspring of one species will never look any more different from their parents than normal, even if some of their distant descendants do eventually come to be very different.

Typically they arise when two groups from a single species become separated in some way, say onto two separate islands or deep valleys so that they no longer interbreed significantly, and slowly drift apart genetically by an accumulation of small changes, due to small differences in the two environments plus the basic random genetic drift which we know happens. Eventually they will be recognizable as separate species. This is what Darwin observed in the Galapagos, and one of the things which started him thinking about how new species could arise.

Any small mutations in one generation that are significantly harmful will obviously be filtered out as those offspring fail to reproduce, so harmful mutations will never persist. This allows the neutral and beneficial mutations to accumulate, until they build up to the point where they present some significant advantage to the creature. Sometimes it just requires a significant change in the climate or environment that gives some particular variation a major advantage, which will cause that version to become the dominant form.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
There are huge difference

There are huge difference between energy, and a sentient being you call god that can create, suspend physical laws etc, etc, etc.

As for survival significance there is a change that it can help it it will, is being able to distinguish light from dark better than being blind, yes it is. Then the next ability to distinguish movement in the light (not actually being able to focus but see shadows) give a species more advantage than one that can only see light and dark? Then of course a moving up, able to see figures as opposed to just shadows not more advantage than seeing just shadows? It's small changes over a long period of time that makes new species. Dogs do not give birth to cats if that's the type of analogy you are going for, as it seems from your argument there. New species evolve over long periods not short ones.

Mutations do not damage DNA all the time and adaptive mutations are not damage to the DNA at all.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:Of course

thedjjudah wrote:
Of course that doesn't follow rational logic because God has not been caused by anything. What caused God?

It's more than that. 

You need to provide a coherent definition for God; otherwise, the claim is meaningless. You also need to provide positive evidence for God instead of simply relying on God of the gaps arguments. Even if there is no alternative explanation, it does not follow the the current explanation is correct.

thedjjudah wrote:
there are many people who state that the law of entropy does not apply to biological systems, so I won't go there..

Overall entropy in an isolated system increases over time. The Earth is not an isolated system.

thedjjudah wrote:
The first thing we must realize is that these mutations do not need to take billions of years.

Of course not.  

A mutation is a just mistake in genetic replication. The mutation would occur almost instantly.

I think you're confusing mutations with evolution in general.

thedjjudah wrote:
The mutations that would classify as a jump to another species

You're not making any sense. Mutations, by themselves, cannot produce speciation.

thedjjudah wrote:
The second is that the chances of an adaptive mutation is much lower than a maladaptive, or even neutral one

Most mutations are neutral.

I'm not sure, if we include all organisms, whether beneficial or harmful mutations are more common, but it depends on the environment and circumstances.

thedjjudah wrote:
When was the last time we saw an adaptive mutation (or mutagenesis)?

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

thedjjudah wrote:
are not even of a big enough significance to change the survival probability of a species at all.

Even a seemingly subtle and mundane mutation can make a difference in the right environment, such as a small change in color or height. 

thedjjudah wrote:
Futhermore the fact is that our DNA is so complex and yet so precise that a series of mutations over time would cause too much damage to the original code and end up killing the host.

Duh.

Even a single harmful mutation can lead the victim's demise through natural selection, but this means that its genes are not passed on. This is why life doesn't go extinct, and evolution can continue.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


thedjjudah
thedjjudah's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2009-09-27
User is offlineOffline
in regards to the links you

in regards to the links you sent, I consider those variations of the species.

 

I guess the question would be regarding the austrian family with increased strength, are they Homo Sapiens? I would say so.. what do you think?

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I guess you haven't really

I guess you haven't really bothered with how evolution actually works and still assume that a dog should be able to give birth to a different species all together in one shot. Not gradually over generations. The Austrian example is that, it's a change, a possible beneficial mutation, if it continues on should the boy one day have children, if the child dies before this occurs then this mutation is filtered out. However the boy is still human.  A different species could appear 100's if not 1000's of generations later with the accumulation of various different mutations that are beneficial to it's survival for it's environment. We as a species are transitional species, to what who knows.

To give you an idea of the time line we are dealing with here, from the first mammals to the first primates we are talking about 191 million years it's been estimated between what is considered the first appearance of mammals to the appearance of the first primates.  From the aquatic fishes and species to mammals about 100 million years. New species do not evolve from one generation to the next, but a gradual evolution over many many many generations. Which is where your thinking is going completely wrong on the mechanics of evolution.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
It's tough to reply when

It's tough to reply when these subjects are things you're clearly not familiar with. "Big bang" physics and its mathematics aren't for the faint of heart. Before providing a critique of something, it's best to learn a bit about it.

As I mentioned in your other thread, consider the idea of space-time: you can't get from point A to point B without taking some time to get there. That's essentially why space and time are interlocked. Time is usually modeled as just another dimension, which makes sense if you followed what I just wrote. Time is simply another coordinate.

So when we go back in time towards the beginning of space-time, space is narrowing, and so is time. "Before" and "after" get difficult, so causality gets difficult, and thus, regular conversations about what is cause and effect break down.

Since Bob already illustrated a more accurate version of the process of mutation and selection, I'll leave it said.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:Futhermore

thedjjudah wrote:

Futhermore the fact is that our DNA is so complex and yet so precise that a series of mutations over time would cause too much damage to the original code and end up killing the host.

Many mutations do kill the organism. Many mutations, however, do not. Mutations are either harmful, benificial, or neutral. Most mutations are to introns and do nothing at all to an organism. The remainder are mostly neutral in that they have no effect on the organism's survival. Then there are mutations that simply kill the organism right away. Then there are mutations which have a measurable affect on the organisms performance -- either positive or negative.

The precise point is that "a series of mutations over time" that led to a dead lineage would not be selected for. These organisms would die before they could reproduce, so their genetic diversity is not passed on through the species. Only the organisms which just so happen to NOT die, and just so happen to be able to reproduce end up passing on their genetic variation. Of these, DIFFERENCES in reproductive ability lead to a TREND, in which organisms which produce more offspring end up representing more and more of the population in each generation -- until practically the entire population is made of high-producers.

 

Now imagine this algorithm running for thousands and thousands of generations, and in each generation we have tiny, minute mutations which DO NOT kill the organism, and which, on a whole, lead to BETTER REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS in a given environment. What we have is an optimizing algorithm, in which the POPULATION of animals approaches optimal survivability in their environment. Now, imagine that along with this optimization algorithm, imagine that this population of organisms is moving about in the environment, and encountering NEW CHALLENGES. Imagine that the environment is changing over time. Then, the algorithm is optimizing for DIFFERING conditions over time. This leads to radically different subsets of the population, often living in different areas, or with different niches, which eventually, after many thousands of generations, become a new species.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:and I

thedjjudah wrote:

and I believe that atheism does in fact take way more faith than to believe in God . To believe in God we simply have to accept his answer on how he (and we) got here and accept the fact that we are not going to understand some of the things he does (however,the beautiful thing is, I believe, when we get to heaven we'll be able to ask him). As an atheist you have to accept just as many things with equal amounts of intellectual weight to them on the basis of faith, with no answer of how some of them occured.

Except you are not "accepting his answer on how he and we got here," you're accepting the stories told in an ancient book of myths written by goat herders 5,000 years ago. You have to realize that we atheists treat the claims of religion just like the claims of science: they are hypotheses, just like any other. The Bible explains X using Y. Is Y a good explaination for X? Can we devise experiments to test to see if Y applies in all cases? Are there any other theories which explain X better than the Bible does?

That isn't faith, that's skepticism. That's empiricism. We take all hypotheses -- including the "hypotheses" presented by the Bible, at face value. We see what evidence fits what hypotheses, and adjust our models accordingly. If we don't have a good hypothesis for a given set of evidence, we don't arbitrarily pick the one that feels the best, or which makes us happiest, we pick the NULL HYPOTHESIS, that is, "I don't know!"

This is a much more honest way of doing things.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Tisk, tisk. Poor form again.

Tisk, tisk. Poor form again. Some people just don't learn...

Quote:
It's tough to reply when these subjects are things you're clearly not familiar with. "Big bang" physics and its mathematics aren't for the faint of heart. Before providing a critique of something, it's best to learn a bit about it.

Ad homenim. In other words, irreleant.

Quote:
As I mentioned in your other thread, consider the idea of space-time: you can't get from point A to point B without taking some time to get there. That's essentially why space and time are interlocked. Time is usually modeled as just another dimension, which makes sense if you followed what I just wrote. Time is simply another coordinate.

OK, Space-time. Got it.

Quote:
So when we go back in time towards the beginning of space-time, space is narrowing, and so is time. "Before" and "after" get difficult, so causality gets difficult, and thus, regular conversations about what is cause and effect break down

OK, you don't know. Got it.

Quote:
Since Bob already illustrated a more accurate version of the process of mutation and selection, I'll leave it said.

I'm guessing you refer to this statement:

Quote:
Except that any original 'cause' need not be anything but the tiniest possible energy fluctuation, the sort of thing which triggers radioactive decay all the time. 

Soo... by tiniest, i'm guessing you don't mean spatial, right? Since space-time is ineperable?

Got it. Small fluctuation outside of time. What kind of fluctuation? A quantum fluctuation?

So delta E multiplied by delta t approximately equals h over two pi r?

So change in energy multiplied by change in time... wait, energy produced time, right?

To quote wiki, "a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space."

By "point in space", i'm guessing they mean spatial...

Of course, vacuum fluctuations, as defined by wikki,  "Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space." is no improvement.

If we are positing space (for the vacuum to occupy) then why are we not positing time? Since space and time are inseperable? Now, if either space, time or space-time were to approach zero, or infinity; then how exactly have you expalined their occurance at all, without begging the question? It looks as if the origin is neither a quantum fluctuation nor a vacuum whatchyacallit, because they both require space to fluctuate in, which is precisely what we are trying to derive from said equations.

Now if one were to maintain the fluctuation theory, they would have to demonstrate how any given fluctution of energy existed without time or space. That is, if it were a scientific theory, some empirical or mathematical extrapolation would be necessary to elimnate t whilst maintaing E.

What sort of scientific theory are you referring to bobspence1? Could you provide a link?

EDIT: Formatting, spelling.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Since Bob

[edit] double post


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Since Bob

jumbo1410 wrote:

Since Bob already illustrated a more accurate version of the process of mutation and selection, I'll leave it said.

I'm guessing you refer to this statement:

Except that any original 'cause' need not be anything but the tiniest possible energy fluctuation, the sort of thing which triggers radioactive decay all the time.

Soo... by tiniest, i'm guessing you don't mean spatial, right? Since space-time is ineperable?

Got it. Small fluctuation outside of time. What kind of fluctuation? A quantum fluctuation?

So delta E multiplied by delta t approximately equals h over two pi r?

So change in energy multiplied by change in time... wait, energy produced time, right?

To quote wiki, "a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space."

By "point in space", i'm guessing they mean spatial...

Of course, vacuum fluctuations, as defined by wikki,  "Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space." is no improvement.

If we are positing space (for the vacuum to occupy) then why are we not positing time? Since space and time are inseperable? Now, if either space, time or space-time were to approach zero, or infinity; then how exactly have you expalined their occurance at all, without begging the question? It looks as if the origin is neither a quantum fluctuation nor a vacuum whatchyacallit, because they both require space to fluctuate in, which is precisely what we are trying to derive from said equations.

Now if one were to maintain the fluctuation theory, they would have to demonstrate how any given fluctution of energy existed without time or space. That is, if it were a scientific theory, some empirical or mathematical extrapolation would be necessary to elimnate t whilst maintaing E.

What sort of scientific theory are you referring to bobspence1? Could you provide a link?

EDIT: Formatting, spelling.

 

Nice try but no Will was referring to this statement from bob regarding......the process of mutation and selection in regards to evolution

Quote:

There is no absolute boundary between species - two lineages of life-forms are classified as separate species based on a number of items, inability to interbreed being an important one, but not the only one. There are species which form a 'ring' such as certain bird families around the Arctic circle. If you look at the birds sufficiently far apart they seem to be clearly separate species, although obviously closely related.  Neighboring families are not clearly identifiable as separate species, and if you progress around the ring comparing such neighboring families you will never find clear species boundaries.

New species do not arrive as a jump. The offspring of one species will never look any more different from their parents than normal, even if some of their distant descendants do eventually come to be very different.

Typically they arise when two groups from a single species become separated in some way, say onto two separate islands or deep valleys so that they no longer interbreed significantly, and slowly drift apart genetically by an accumulation of small changes, due to small differences in the two environments plus the basic random genetic drift which we know happens. Eventually they will be recognizable as separate species. This is what Darwin observed in the Galapagos, and one of the things which started him thinking about how new species could arise.

Any small mutations in one generation that are significantly harmful will obviously be filtered out as those offspring fail to reproduce, so harmful mutations will never persist. This allows the neutral and beneficial mutations to accumulate, until they build up to the point where they present some significant advantage to the creature. Sometimes it just requires a significant change in the climate or environment that gives some particular variation a major advantage, which will cause that version to become the dominant form.

 


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Nice try but no Will

Quote:
Nice try but no Will was referring to this statement from bob regarding......the process of mutation and selection in regards to evolution

Umm, not quite. Will responded about objections to the BB, so I was referring to him and Bobspence1's post about quantum fluctuations, and TBBT/space-time in general. If you were following the conversation, you would find that it is in two parts, a) Big Bang Theory and b) Evolution. I have no issue with evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(yet)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:Nice

 

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Nice try but no Will was referring to this statement from bob regarding......the process of mutation and selection in regards to evolution

Umm, not quite. Will responded about objections to the BB, so I was referring to him and Bobspence1's post about quantum fluctuations, and TBBT/space-time in general. If you were following the conversation, you would find that it is in two parts, a) Big Bang Theory and b) Evolution. I have no issue with evolution.

(yet)

The reference was to this part of your reponse:

Quote:

Quote:
Since Bob already illustrated a more accurate version of the process of mutation and selection, I'll leave it said.

I'm guessing you refer to this statement:

Quote:
Except that any original 'cause' need not be anything but the tiniest possible energy fluctuation, the sort of thing which triggers radioactive decay all the time.

So you responded to what was clearly referring to evolution, ie talking about 'mutation and selection', with a discussion on quantum level causes? You are one confused dude.

You 'guessed' that 'mutation and selection' was what was being referred to by 'tiniest possible energy fluctuation', etc????

Ok put that bit of confusion aside, your actual response to the quantum fluctuations was:

Jumbo1410 wrote:

Soo... by tiniest, i'm guessing you don't mean spatial, right? Since space-time is ineperable?

Got it. Small fluctuation outside of time. What kind of fluctuation? A quantum fluctuation?

So delta E multiplied by delta t approximately equals h over two pi r?

So change in energy multiplied by change in time... wait, energy produced time, right?

To quote wiki, "a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space."

By "point in space", i'm guessing they mean spatial...

Of course, vacuum fluctuations, as defined by wikki,  "Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space." is no improvement.

If we are positing space (for the vacuum to occupy) then why are we not positing time? Since space and time are inseperable? Now, if either space, time or space-time were to approach zero, or infinity; then how exactly have you expalined their occurance at all, without begging the question? It looks as if the origin is neither a quantum fluctuation nor a vacuum whatchyacallit, because they both require space to fluctuate in, which is precisely what we are trying to derive from said equations.

Now if one were to maintain the fluctuation theory, they would have to demonstrate how any given fluctution of energy existed without time or space. That is, if it were a scientific theory, some empirical or mathematical extrapolation would be necessary to elimnate t whilst maintaing E.

What sort of scientific theory are you referring to bobspence1? Could you provide a link?

First, 'tiniest' means just that - the smallest magnitude of energy variation, as in Planck scale. Nothing requiring 'outside of time' as such. 

I am assuming time. Do you really have such poor comprehension skills?? Your whole confused response seems based on assuming that I was arguing a fluctuation occurring outside space and time, which has nothing to do with my argument.

I am simply pointing out that any assumption from first cause which assumes that the ultimate 'cause' for the Big Bang or anything else need be nothing bigger than the smallest possible energy twitch, which is at the Planck Scale.

From that same Wikipedia article you referred to:

Quote:

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.

which is precisely the sort of thing I was referring to. I am just suggesting that they could also have been involved in triggerring the BB itself. 

We don't actually know the details of the origin of the BB of course, I am just pointing out that original causes for such events need only be this sort of thing, IOW, the very opposite of a 'God' thing, so 'First Cause' arguments are totally without merit as attempts to 'prove' God.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
I was writing a rushed

I was writing a rushed response, so I quoted the wrong paragraph without noticing. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually pointed out. Moving past the confusion, you wrote:

Quote:
I am assuming time...I am just suggesting that they could also have been involved in triggerring the BB itself

Therein lies the problem. The BB was the inception of time and space, so any theory stating that these fluctuations produced the BB is wrong, since a fluctuation requires time and space to... fluctuate... in. Underlying structure assumes the BB, so fluctuations prior to TBB need some scientific basis.

Thanks for providing that link to the scientific theory BTW. Really helped me out some. *ENTER EXTREME SARCASM HERE*

It strikes me as odd that you consider my comprehension the problem though, since your version of origin is clearly nothing more than your opinion.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:... This

thedjjudah wrote:

...

 

This is just a god of the gaps argument, and a poor one since it uses outdated examples.

 

Your second point about first cause is also faulty.  It assumes that magic is an appropriate answer for something humans will probably never know, and it also assumes that it helps your case.  Even if you could prove a supernatural first cause (if you can, you will win a Nobel prize), it doesn't say anything about intelligence or point to *your* god in any way.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:in regards

thedjjudah wrote:

in regards to the links you sent, I consider those variations of the species.

I guess the question would be regarding the austrian family with increased strength, are they Homo Sapiens? I would say so.. what do you think?

That's the whole point.

You won't see a new "species" suddenly appear. That rarely (if ever) happens. It takes tens of thousands of years for most instances of speciation to begin; and even at the end of those tens of thousands of years, you could still squint and say, "Those are the same species."

Y'know why?

"Species" is a sucky term. It hardly means anything at all.

It's a nice shorthand when people understand what they're taking about. It's good to say, "Here's a readily observed instance of speciation, where the blue fish are able to live at greater depths than the red fish." (An actual incident of speciation that occurred recently.)

Really, when you talk genetics, you talk "populations." A population is a set of inter-breeding organisms. That set changes over time, as the organisms move physically apart, or as subsets form that prefer different traits, or other reasons. I highly recommend reading up on modes of speciation -- it's an endlessly-fascinating topic.

Take some time to educate yourself on evolution. Please. Otherwise, you'll just continue to make the same false assertions, the same straw-man version of evolution, that willfully-ignorant creationists make in every single argument. That reflects poorly on you, and irritates us, which is never a good combination.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm reading "The Greatest

I'm reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" right now, by Dawkins.  Really good so far.  I was raised in a fundamentalist home, with a fundamentalist young-earth education, so I never really learned about what evolution really meant until I was an adult.  It was incredibly mind-opening when I found out that evolution had been totally misrepresented over my entire education.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:I was

jumbo1410 wrote:

I was writing a rushed response, so I quoted the wrong paragraph without noticing. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually pointed out. Moving past the confusion, you wrote:

Quote:
I am assuming time...I am just suggesting that they could also have been involved in triggerring the BB itself

Therein lies the problem. The BB was the inception of time and space, so any theory stating that these fluctuations produced the BB is wrong, since a fluctuation requires time and space to... fluctuate... in. Underlying structure assumes the BB, so fluctuations prior to TBB need some scientific basis.

Thanks for providing that link to the scientific theory BTW. Really helped me out some. *ENTER EXTREME SARCASM HERE*

It strikes me as odd that you consider my comprehension the problem though, since your version of origin is clearly nothing more than your opinion.

To repeat, I am merely pointing out that if such random, all but infinitesimal 'sources of action' can be the ultimate 'cause' of things as significant as "origin of the structure of the universe", as per the Wikipedia quote I provided, then something in the same category (ie random, virtually causeless, tiny events) are all that is required to initiate major effects - 'God' is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Now if you want to argue about what started Time itself, whether that really did 'start' in some sense, whether the start was at the Big Bang, or whether the BB was initiated by some other event in a metaverse, such as the collision of multi-dimensional 'surfaces' or 'm-branes', or other ideas, then that is another topic. 'God is still just wild incoherent speculation, intrinsically unknowable and incomprehensible and still requiring some kind of explanation and justification itself. 'God' is not an answer, it is just adding something even less comprehensible to an already difficult problem.

'God' is just a label you put on our shared ignorance of ultimate origins. The moment you start assigning attributes to such an entity, you are totally beyond any ontological justification, IOW you are pulling stuff out of the lower end of your digestive tract. At least science limits itself to extrapolation from current understandings, using logic and math. Speculations within science are recognized as such - they are called hypotheses.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote:Hello,

thedjjudah wrote:

Hello, guys.

 

First off I would like to genuinely apologize for the rudeness, hatefulness, and general lowness of character in some of the responses via email you have been getting from my "Christian" friends. While I admittedly have sinned in my life, and am not perfect in any way, I don't believe that the cursing, hate, and most of all the (it seems) desire for any of you to burn in hell is reflective in any way of the God that I serve.

With that being said,

I have some things for you to think about and I hope that you truly mull them over and realize that it takes a lot more faith to believe in pure materialism then to believe that we were put here. I realize that quite a few of you will get angry and flame me simply because I believe in God (I have read just as many posts where the OP is considerate and genuine and you curse him/her out as there are hate mail letters from the "Christians&quotEye-wink 

A common argument from theists for the existence of God is that everything must have a first cause, and that cause is God. Of course that doesn't follow rational logic because God has not been caused by anything. What caused God? The problem is that same logic could apply to the stream of thought regarding a universe excluding a creator. Where did our universe come from, if not God? The Big Bang. Oh? What caused the big bang? Various gases combining at extreme heat to produce massive reactions that filled the universe at that time with matter, and that universe is constantly expanding. But what caused the presence of the various hydrogen (among other) atoms in the first place? And if we found a cause for that, we would look for the cause for THAT, and so on, and we would never be satisfied, because we would never get the final answer (I know now a little more why the Underground man said that excessive conscience is a curse, because some things must be grasped on faith or we will never be satisfied).

Eventually the chain of questioning will continue back until we will have to come to a point , no matter how many trillions upon trillions years back, where we will have to admit that physical matter appeared from nothing (for if it didn't than the causal chain must continue), which, if we claim to be scientists, is impossible, as proved centuries ago by Louis Pasteur. If spontaneous generation has been disproved for life forms, can we honestly expect to apply the theory for celestial bodies? (The Christian, however, already has the answer, for they know that God can create something out of nothing..) The fact is that time itself must have a beginning because our existence in time is completely relative to the other points in time (e.g., our past, and future. the only thing that makes the present present is the fact that the past existed). If time itself was infinite then it would be infinite in both directions, which means at the very least that other dimensions exist, and they exist outside of time. So, whether or not time itself is infinite we can say that this 3-dimensional (actually 4, if you include time) existence is not all there is. I myself believe that time has a beginning, and God exists outside of it, in an ever-present moment of now ,  (hence I AM). In this state it is no different to do something instantly or to wait 1000 years to do it, hence, as the bible says (I know you guys don't believe in scripture and this will be the last time I quote it, I'm just using it in this case because an explanation of this state has already been given) , a day is like a 1000 years to the Lord, and a 1000 years as a day. This is how God can know both the ending and beginning of something. (Why he does, or allows certain things, like the problem of evil,  I cannot completely know, but my inability to explain anything's actions do not nullify its existence)

 

Regarding the problem of evolution, I am not arguing against abiogenesis (the supposed formation of  DNA, amino acids, and eventually proteins and life structures, from simple elements. I argue, that those elements had to be there in the first place for this to occur, and we know that matter cannot appear from nothing, it is against the laws of physics. While I believe that the second law of thermodynamics is a good response to the theory of evolution, there are many people who state that the law of entropy does not apply to biological systems, so I won't go there..

What I will say is that the theory of evolution states that the origin of a new species is based upon a series of genetic mutations over an extremely large period of time to the original species, where each tiny mutation would have resulted in an adaptation that would allow the organism an increased survival probability.

The first thing we must realize is that these mutations do not need to take billions of years. We see mutations all the time, from frogs born with an extra leg to postmortem mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA) to the tragedy that is cancer. The second is that the chances of an adaptive mutation is much lower than a maladaptive, or even neutral one. The fact is that we see much more maladaptive mutations all the time, and even neutal ones (albinos, (which are a mutation of the gene that controls pigmentation) etc). When was the last time we saw an adaptive mutation (or mutagenesis)? In bacteria and virii, maybe, but extremely rare in human beings.  And even if this were true, when have we seen mutation that would progress us toward another species?

 

Would such a mutation even be advantageous? How many mutations would have to occur at the same time for the 4-legged creature to walk on two? I know there must have been changes to the various parts of the skeletal and muscular system and they must work together. How many mutations would have to occur at the exact same time to form an adaptive organ (such as an eye)? These must occur at the same time because having less than the full organ (i.e. just the lens of an eye) in any place other than the perfect one (a hole in a part of the body - in the case of human beings, the head) is pointless at best, maladaptive at worst, beneficial, never.  For in order for it to be an adaptive mutation it must completely in the precise place necessary. The lens of an eye would be no good on a creature's leg or back (pointless), and an extra leg in the leg or back would just be an appendage to latch on to, making the creature easier to kill (maladaptive).

The fact is a mutation that would move us toward a new species (and not just be a variation) would have to be adaptive, and therefore fully functional (or else the organism would be killed off by natural selection)  and most likely active (non-passive, such as wing color or skin color)..

 

The chances of that combination occurring just once is so astronomically high that for all statistical purposes it is impossible. The chances of it happening over and over again are about the same (as my philosophy teacher said) as winning the lottery 150 million times in a row.

 

As are the chances of even harmful mutations occurring in the same species as many times as takes to move a species forward.

I ask you to please think (as I love to, and I believe most of you do) and realize that evolution is at least directed by God, if not a complete fallacy.

 

If either of these is true, then God must exist. If you still believe he doesn't, feel free to poke holes in my summary of evolution (as no doubt you will), but in your post I also want you to explain to me how the universe started.

 

Just some food for thought...

 

Your friend,

 

Emmanuel

 

 

Why should you apologize for something YOU did not do? If we were that thin skinned as atheists this site would ban anyone who blasphemes us.

Even my Christian friends at work make comments about me burning in hell and think I have more in common with Hitler. If I took everything personally that everyone ever said about atheists, much less me, I WOULD go on a killing spree.

Humans in general need to understand, and even politically correct atheists don't understand this. WE ARE ALL CAPABLE OF THE SAME RANGE OF HUMAN EMOTIONS.

We don't have to like each other. That is an unrealistic utopia for any side, atheist or theist. WHAT IS realistic is that we can accept that we are all human. We all want love, shelter, food, a job and the ability to bitch about things we don't like.

What I expect, and I cant speak for all atheists, is not for you to vent at my label, or criticize my label, or blaspheme my label. What I would want from you, as I would want from anyone making any claim on any issue is EVIDENCE.

Having said that, YOUR GOD as portrayed in the bible is vengeful, especially in the OT and Revelations. Even the Jesus character demands that you abandon those who don't follow him.

Think about this. Strictly from a psychological example.

If someone demanded that you follow them would you without asking questions? If I said you could jump off the Empire State Building without any parachute, would you do it?

I don't serve anyone. I communicate with others and consent to our interactions. Slaves serve, God does not ask for consent which makes him a slave master.

You are merely back peddling from the rightfully frightening litteral tribal interpretation the west has to back away from if it is to remain civil.

If you want to start from scratch and claim a good and just god, you have to give up the Abrahamic concept. This is a dictator who records your every move and expects you to kiss his ass forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Let me add.Even IF evolution

Let me add.

Even IF evolution were debunked, and it hasn't been. Only conspiracy nuts from degree mills attempt this.

EVEN IF we are to take your position ONLY for the sake of argument.

HOW would that prove the existence of the Christian god, vs the Muslim God vs the Jewish god vs Hindu gods?

To accept the virgin birth as claimed in the bible you have to deny the existence of adenine, thymine, cytosine and quanine in that it requires TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote. I find that hard to believe considering that your deity has no body, penis or DNA.

Evolution is about SLOW AND TINY changes over long periods of time. Unlike your "poof" magical virgin births, DNA shows that at one point humans had the same ancestors as other primates at one period of time.

EVEN A MORON, can see this today without even being a biologist. Look at a domestic house cat and a tiger and lie to me and tell me they are not related.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
thedjjudah wrote: in regards

thedjjudah wrote:

in regards to the links you sent, I consider those variations of the species.

Are you talking about my links?

First of all, you requested examples of beneficial mutations, not speciation. I just provided examples, numerous examples.

Second, lol, of course it's still the same species. A single mutation, even in the simplest microorganisms, is rarely sufficient. At the very least, you'll need to wait for the new trait to spread through part of the population and that portion of the population to split off.

Third, your response suggests that you're defining species differently? Do you agree with official biological classifications: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species?     

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Tisk, tisk.

jumbo1410 wrote:

Tisk, tisk. Poor form again. Some people just don't learn...

Quote:
It's tough to reply when these subjects are things you're clearly not familiar with. "Big bang" physics and its mathematics aren't for the faint of heart. Before providing a critique of something, it's best to learn a bit about it.

Ad homenim. In other words, irreleant.

Kindly suggest a better way of saying "you're misrepresenting every scientific position you've mentioned", then. I thought I was being fair, and it's not like I just left it at that -- I did explain why I had difficulty with his position.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Quote:
So when we go back in time towards the beginning of space-time, space is narrowing, and so is time. "Before" and "after" get difficult, so causality gets difficult, and thus, regular conversations about what is cause and effect break down

OK, you don't know. Got it.

Cute. What am I supposed to do, lay out a full course in introductory physics? How is that reasonable?

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Quote:
Since Bob already illustrated a more accurate version of the process of mutation and selection, I'll leave it said.

I'm guessing you refer to this statement:

Bob wrote:
Except that any original 'cause' need not be anything but the tiniest possible energy fluctuation, the sort of thing which triggers radioactive decay all the time. 

Ah, no. I was referring to his comments on evolution. That's why I wrote "process of mutation and selection". Maybe you mixed a couple of the quotes up or something.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I'm reading

mellestad wrote:

I'm reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" right now, by Dawkins.  Really good so far.  I was raised in a fundamentalist home, with a fundamentalist young-earth education, so I never really learned about what evolution really meant until I was an adult.  It was incredibly mind-opening when I found out that evolution had been totally misrepresented over my entire education.

It's weird, isn't it? The media culture really encourages the legitimization of ideas like "something from nothing" and "the odds of life evolving are 150 gazillion to one!" Pure nonsense seems to hold the imagination much better than reliable fact. (I suppose that isn't so weird after all.)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:mellestad

HisWillness wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I'm reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" right now, by Dawkins.  Really good so far.  I was raised in a fundamentalist home, with a fundamentalist young-earth education, so I never really learned about what evolution really meant until I was an adult.  It was incredibly mind-opening when I found out that evolution had been totally misrepresented over my entire education.

It's weird, isn't it? The media culture really encourages the legitimization of ideas like "something from nothing" and "the odds of life evolving are 150 gazillion to one!" Pure nonsense seems to hold the imagination much better than reliable fact. (I suppose that isn't so weird after all.)

 

I specifically remember things like, "You don't think your great great grandparents were monkeys do you?  Hahahahahaha!".  They taught us to mock evolution, to see it as absurd, without ever telling us what we were laughing about.  Now, it sickens me but at the time I was just a little kid, so how would I know any better?

 

Then they would tell us about how there might have been a canopy of water over the planet, which explained where all the flood water came from and it also helped explain why people lived close to a thousand years back in the pre-flood era.  Dead serious.  And this is in an official, accredited private school.  It blows my mind.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Kindly suggest a

Quote:
Kindly suggest a better way of saying "you're misrepresenting every scientific position you've mentioned", then. I thought I was being fair, and it's not like I just left it at that -- I did explain why I had difficulty with his position.

What you wrote just then sounds good. It is stil a moot point though, since it adresses the person, not the problem. Emotive rhetoric can be a good source of psychological persuasion in an argument etc etc but yadda yadda..

My pet rat died yesterday, so I appologise, I was overly grumpy.

Quote:
Cute. What am I supposed to do, lay out a full course in introductory physics? How is that reasonable?

Lol, forgive me for cutting out the garbage. The short answer is yes. If you are making the claim that the following proves God does not exist:

(&@#(r/w-24)``(&*&*&*7)

...without explaining it, well done. Don't expect anyone else to share your enthusiam though. It is almost committing an informal fallacy - an appeal to authority, without anybody being able to object because they have no idea what i'm saying. To insist that it all adds up, so just believe me is definitely an appeal to ignorance, which of course is a fallacy.

Quote:
Ah, no. I was referring to his comments on evolution. That's why I wrote "process of mutation and selection". Maybe you mixed a couple of the quotes up or something.

Yes, I did.

Bob:

Quote:
Speculations within science are recognized as such - they are called hypotheses.

Can you at least support your claim independently? Give me a break here, you're using this argument against the existence of God, If this were reversed, you would expect nothing less than substantial evidence. Your ideas are creative, but I find they lack conviction. The consequences of such extrapolation from flux theory need attention, and when I question, I get insulted. Can (space)time exist before the BB, what type of energy condensed or fluctuated (there are several types), "tiny" without space-time loses all meaning, how do you extrapolate those two equations past (or including) time? If all that is needed to begin a universe is a tiny fluctuation and tiny fluctuations are happening every millisecond, everywhere, why is there not millions of universes being created? Etcetera. In terms of raising more questions than you have solved, you win.

God raises less.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Can you at

jumbo1410 wrote:
Can you at least support your claim independently? Give me a break here, you're using this argument against the existence of God, If this were reversed, you would expect nothing less than substantial evidence. Your ideas are creative, but I find they lack conviction. The consequences of such extrapolation from flux theory need attention, and when I question, I get insulted. Can (space)time exist before the BB, what type of energy condensed or fluctuated (there are several types), "tiny" without space-time loses all meaning, how do you extrapolate those two equations past (or including) time? If all that is needed to begin a universe is a tiny fluctuation and tiny fluctuations are happening every millisecond, everywhere, why is there not millions of universes being created? Etcetera. In terms of raising more questions than you have solved, you win.

God raises less.

The purpose of the two arguments are different. The argument of god is used to describe special creation. The flux origin hypothesis presented by Bob is used to refute the assertion that atheists believe something came from nothing. It is not necessarily true, and we do expect supporting evidence before we accept it as true; it is merely one possible explanation that is not "something from nothing." There are others, of course, such as the instantaneous creation of two universes that are exactly opposite in mass and energy, thereby conserving both mass and energy. (This is conceptually similar to the creation and destruction of pairs of virtual particles.) As another example, Lee Smolin has proposed an evolutionary hypothesis of universe propagation that is simple and interesting. The few testable predictions made by his hypothesis have tested true.

As for the "millions of universes" being created all the time: that is entirely feasible. I'm not sure why you see this as a problem. The more we learn, the more likely this seems to be.

God may possibly raise fewer questions, but the questions raised are insurmountable, and the potential answers are uninteresting and contain no true knowledge. The myth of Adam being made from mud, and Eve from his rib, raises fewer questions than the theory of evolution, but the questions raised by the mud/rib hypothesis completely destroy any possibility of truth. The questions raised by the theory of evolution tend to lead to more knowledge, and the answering of those questions; those raised by the origin myth have no answers that are worth pursuing, and contribute no knowledge.

Thus are the questions of god.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410

jumbo1410 wrote:

Bob:

Quote:
Speculations within science are recognized as such - they are called hypotheses.

Can you at least support your claim independently? Give me a break here, you're using this argument against the existence of God, If this were reversed, you would expect nothing less than substantial evidence. Your ideas are creative, but I find they lack conviction. The consequences of such extrapolation from flux theory need attention, and when I question, I get insulted. Can (space)time exist before the BB, what type of energy condensed or fluctuated (there are several types), "tiny" without space-time loses all meaning, how do you extrapolate those two equations past (or including) time? If all that is needed to begin a universe is a tiny fluctuation and tiny fluctuations are happening every millisecond, everywhere, why is there not millions of universes being created? Etcetera. In terms of raising more questions than you have solved, you win.

God raises less.

The selections you chose to quote continue to be confusing - surely you don't wish me to explain to you what a scientific hypothesis is?

Just in case,from the New Oxford American Dictionary:

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation;

in Philosophy: a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth."

To repeat, I was not really proposing anything specific as an origin of the Big Bang, just pointing out that there is no need for the ultimate cause to be anything beyond the an extremely tiny energy fluctuation. 'Tiny' in this case refers to the measure of energy, not of length or time, such as the energy of a particle, which is a separate property from its size or the time for which it has existed.

There are several speculations on the origin of the Big Bang: at least one matches the general idea I had in mind - see here: Chaotic Inflation Theory.

Several are outlined here.

As to why there are not millions of Universes being created; first of all, there very well could be, we would not necessarily be able to detect them since they would be expected to each form there own closed system. But the idea is that since these fluctuations are inherently statistically random, only the largest such fluctuations are proposed to potentially initiate a 'Big Bang' singularity, so they might well be extremely rare.

'God' may well raise less questions numerically but they are extremely large and unanswerable ones, like where the Hell did God come from or Why would he exist?

It seems pretty basic that the a priori probability of a simple random field of minimal energy is more likely to either just exist or come to exist than a fully formed infinite, all-powerful sentient being - that is the key comparison.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aha - Nigel, you got your

Aha - Nigel, you got your response in while I was still composing mine, but I see you responded upon pretty much the same lines (of course! ).

It just occurred to me to add that we are are not so much arguing against the existence of God, presenting evidence why He does not exist, but merely pointing out that there are no reasons to assume that such a being must exist, in terms of questions of origins in this case. The obligation should be on the Theist to provide evidence for God, since modern cosmology and physics have effectively neutralized the old First Cause argument, just as Darwin effectively neutralized the argument from design, at least as it applied to Life.

In neither case has Science actually disproved God (at least some non-contradictory version, if such is possible), just cut the ground from under what were considered major arguments for God.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Aha -

BobSpence1 wrote:

Aha - Nigel, you got your response in while I was still composing mine, but I see you responded upon pretty much the same lines (of course! ).

Great minds think alike. Of course, fools seldom differ. (I miss The Kids in the Hall.)

Quote:

It just occurred to me to add that we are are not so much arguing against the existence of God, presenting evidence why He does not exist, but merely pointing out that there are no reasons to assume that such a being must exist, in terms of questions of origins in this case. The obligation should be on the Theist to provide evidence for God, since modern cosmology and physics have effectively neutralized the old First Cause argument, just as Darwin effectively neutralized the argument from design, at least as it applied to Life.

In neither case has Science actually disproved God (at least some non-contradictory version, if such is possible), just cut the ground from under what were considered major arguments for God.

I don't think science can possibly disprove the existence of god; it can merely leave less and less room for god to be effective. God is simply not a question that is addressable by science.

If god is disproven, it will be philosophy that does so. I'm pained to say that, as I have increasing disdain for philosophy. But, most of the arguments against the existence of god are philosophic in nature: there's HisWillness's metaphysical question of the incomplete or incoherent nature of god, and my question of the epistemic failure of god, and so on. (That's not even talking about the big boys, like Bertrand Russell. That's just homegrown stuff.) There is the current failure of any theistic philosophy that can stand up to much scrutiny, William Lane Craig notwithstanding.

Anyway, I'm more interested in pursuing scientific inquiry than disproving a god who grows more impotent every day. Part of that is defending the scientific ontology from straw-man versions of it, such as that presented by jumbo1410.

Something from nothing, indeed.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Line by line, I'm not sure

Line by line, I'm not sure what you actually mean.

Quote:
The flux origin hypothesis presented by Bob is used to refute the assertion that atheists believe something came from nothing.

I thought flux theory was the exact opposite of this, i.e. providing evidence that something can come from nothing - lke those virtual particle pairs. If you are using flux theory to object to the statement "Something comes from nothing", how exactly are you apllying the equation?

I think this confusion is echoed in the other example you referred to:

Quote:
it is merely one possible explanation that is not "something from nothing." There are others, of course, such as the instantaneous creation of two universes that are exactly opposite in mass and energy, thereby conserving both mass and energy

What does the word "instantaneous" mean here? I get that the resulting universe(s) has a net energy of zero, but this resultant universe "instantaneously" appeared out of flux theory? I'm still not sure I get it. Your clarification is:

Quote:
This is conceptually similar to the creation and destruction of pairs of virtual particles.

These VPP are, for all intents and purposes, the cause of themselves. How is this not "Something from nothing"?

Quote:
As another example, Lee Smolin has proposed an evolutionary hypothesis of universe propagation that is simple and interesting. The few testable predictions made by his hypothesis have tested true.

Reply pending...

Quote:
As for the "millions of universes" being created all the time: that is entirely feasible.

So now you are saying that something can come from nothing after all? If this is the crux of your argument, I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

Quote:
God may possibly raise fewer questions, but the questions raised are insurmountable, and the potential answers are uninteresting and contain no true knowledge.

Hmmm. This harks back to Will's "definition" obsession with respect to God. As you mentioned earlier, "The purpose of the two arguments are different". IOW, how are you using this idea of "No knowledge in God" thing? I can take a stab at it, but that's the best I can do.

Quote:
The myth of Adam being made from mud, and Eve from his rib, raises fewer questions than the theory of evolution, but the questions raised by the mud/rib hypothesis completely destroy any possibility of truth.

Completely? So you have looked at the alternative interpretations?

"People are made of Mud "- elements are just dust. Take the water out of a human (75% of their mass) and tell me what you see?

The rib thing... well, making an entire person out of cells of another person is now known to be possible. Going back 50 years, this would be impossible in every respect. To quote L. Niven, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

 

Now this is all bollocks, I understand. But to advance the claim that these events "completely destroy any possibility of truth" is quite an extrapolation. I think God has a pretty thorough understanding of human anatomy andthe periodic table, being the creator of these things and all.

Quote:
The questions raised by the theory of evolution tend to lead to more knowledge, and the answering of those questions; those raised by the origin myth have no answers that are worth pursuing, and contribute no knowledge.

I like that joke:

Man: "We don't need you God, we are now capable of creating life"

God: "OK, PROVE IT"

Man: Right, all we need is some dirt, water...

God: "MAKE YOUR OWN DIRT"

 

Quote:
Thus are the questions of god.
...and man.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:The

jumbo1410 wrote:
Quote:
The flux origin hypothesis presented by Bob is used to refute the assertion that atheists believe something came from nothing.

I thought flux theory was the exact opposite of this, i.e. providing evidence that something can come from nothing - lke those virtual particle pairs. If you are using flux theory to object to the statement "Something comes from nothing", how exactly are you apllying the equation?

Actually, I was trying to say that we are mostly ignorant as to the origin of the universe. We know much of the way the universe evolved over time, after the first few picoseconds, but we are completely ignorant of how the universe actually began.

Second, to understand virtual particles (and, by analogy, the flux origin hypothesis), you have to understand that virtual particles don't just create themselves. They are not "something from nothing." There is something there at the base of the universe, which manifests as vacuum energy. This is the ground state of a vacuum. Quantum fluctuations within this vacuum energy cause particles to pop in and out of existence. They come from the vacuum energy, which is not nothing. I hope this clears up the "something from nothing" issue.

But really, any origin hypothesis is simple speculation at the moment. That was my original point. Science is not claiming knowledge it doesn't have. To say that atheists believe in "something from nothing" is patently false. Most of us here have no "belief" in the origin, and we're waiting for evidence to help clarify how the universe came to be.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether we believe matter and energy came from nothing. Even assuming that does turn out to be the leading hypothesis, so what? It's still much easier to believe that unorganized matter and energy came from nothing than to believe that god came from nothing. Or it's easier to believe the universe has always existed in various forms than to believe god has always existed. It just makes more sense.

Quote:

Quote:
God may possibly raise fewer questions, but the questions raised are insurmountable, and the potential answers are uninteresting and contain no true knowledge.

Hmmm. This harks back to Will's "definition" obsession with respect to God. As you mentioned earlier, "The purpose of the two arguments are different". IOW, how are you using this idea of "No knowledge in God" thing? I can take a stab at it, but that's the best I can do.

I believe this transcends Will's definitional issues with god (which is really a metaphysical issue -- fundamentally, there seems to be no coherent, complete concept of a god).

It's not just "no knowledge in god." It's "no knowledge from god." The assumption of god presents an unworkable epistemology. Once you assume an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal entity such as god, you lose all basis of knowledge. God can do literally anything, and is by definition beyond our understanding. As god can interfere at any point, inductive logic falls by the wayside. Deductive logic fairs no better: if god can change the rules at any point (and has, according to most books purporting to be by or about god), logic itself is not universal.

Then there's the problem of observation. There are direct problems, such as god messing with the universe at any point (say, any creation myth at all), and so observations mean little except as a method of watching god at play. Then there are the bias issues, in which simple belief in god (and the absurd belief one understands god, at least a little) skews observation and interpretation. (This last one doesn't need god to exist; the effects of it are everywhere.)

Ultimately, it comes down to a simple problem of our ability to know. Take a look at the conflict between evolution and the fundamentalists who believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. This is a stark example of the massive epistemologic fail of theism. And that's just belief. If god really existed, and really interfered with the universe as told in the Bible, then everything would be dependent on our understanding of god. Which, as you can see by the many different Christian sects (let alone the other religions in the world), we have no consensus.

About the only options left are the gods of Spinoza or Spong -- a pantheistic god of nature, or a panentheistic god of morality and emotion. Neither of these gods are really omnipotent, and they don't interfere in the universe. Rather, for Spinoza, god is the universe (or the universe is god); for Spong, god is the driving ideal of the goodness in human nature.

Quote:

Quote:
The myth of Adam being made from mud, and Eve from his rib, raises fewer questions than the theory of evolution, but the questions raised by the mud/rib hypothesis completely destroy any possibility of truth.

Completely? So you have looked at the alternative interpretations?

"People are made of Mud "- elements are just dust. Take the water out of a human (75% of their mass) and tell me what you see?

The rib thing... well, making an entire person out of cells of another person is now known to be possible. Going back 50 years, this would be impossible in every respect. To quote L. Niven, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

I was going with a literal interpretation. As soon as you move into a figurative interpretation, you could always say, "One of the leading hypothesis on the origins of life states that crystalline regularity in dried clay provided a template for organic molecules to form longer chains, creating life, leading ultimately to man."

The common makeup of man does not fit with the common definition of mud. Nor is the common definition of cell equivalent to the common definition of rib. As written, the Adam/Eve creation myth raises unanswerable questions. Which, in my mind, makes them worthless.

Quote:

Now this is all bollocks, I understand. But to advance the claim that these events "completely destroy any possibility of truth" is quite an extrapolation. I think God has a pretty thorough understanding of human anatomy andthe periodic table, being the creator of these things and all.

We are working with different values of "truth," it seems. There is certainly the ability to gain insight into our past, into ourselves (perhaps), and maybe even insight into nature. But that insight is not inherent in the words, or the tale. Rather, it's inherent in us, and is provoked by the tale.

And here's where the epistemic failure of god becomes apparent. You can invoke god, but does it provide us any real information? You say the literal tale of Adam and Eve is bollocks (and I agree), and then rationalize it by saying god knows everything, and can do anything.

Another Christian will say the tale is literally true, and claim that god knows everything, and can do anything.

How do you judge the truth of either proposition?

Quote:

I like that joke:

Man: "We don't need you God, we are now capable of creating life"

God: "OK, PROVE IT"

Man: Right, all we need is some dirt, water...

God: "MAKE YOUR OWN DIRT"

Heh. That's kinda funny. Thanks.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no "flux origin"

There is no "flux origin" theory.

"Flux" is a quite separate concept from "fluctuation". It implies a more or less continuous flow of some kind.

Either in some sense 'something' can come from 'nothing', or there is simply 'something' permanently present.

Or perhaps Time itself has a boundary, or simply is only meaningful as a dimension within a finite context, by analogy with the surface of the Earth, which is finite but unbounded. Which makes the idea of "starting to exist" problematic when referring to reality itself. Maybe 'before' the Big Bang (or whatever Meta-Creation event may have initiated the larger context within which Big Bangs occur) is a meaningless as "what lies North of the North Pole?".

The most stupid idea that gets raised in this context is of something 'creating itself'.

The 'origin' of those virtual particle pairs is the basic 'fuzzy' background of reality, as manifest in the Uncertainty Principle, and perhaps involving the idea of a "Quantum Foam", which is a particular theory.

Genesis is almost total nonsense, standing proof that the Bible writers had little or no idea of the true nature of the Origin and Attributes of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything'.

Life is not really related to mud or earth. The chemicals of life are more related to gases, such as methane and nitrogen compounds, which many experiments suggest would have formed from the constituents of the early atmosphere, perhaps with the help of lightning discharges, in the presence of water, as in the original Miller-Urey experiments, which showed how compounds central to life, such as amino acids, could be formed.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:HisWillness

mellestad wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I'm reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" right now, by Dawkins.  Really good so far.  I was raised in a fundamentalist home, with a fundamentalist young-earth education, so I never really learned about what evolution really meant until I was an adult.  It was incredibly mind-opening when I found out that evolution had been totally misrepresented over my entire education.

It's weird, isn't it? The media culture really encourages the legitimization of ideas like "something from nothing" and "the odds of life evolving are 150 gazillion to one!" Pure nonsense seems to hold the imagination much better than reliable fact. (I suppose that isn't so weird after all.)

 

I specifically remember things like, "You don't think your great great grandparents were monkeys do you?  Hahahahahaha!".  They taught us to mock evolution, to see it as absurd, without ever telling us what we were laughing about.  Now, it sickens me but at the time I was just a little kid, so how would I know any better?

 

Then they would tell us about how there might have been a canopy of water over the planet, which explained where all the flood water came from and it also helped explain why people lived close to a thousand years back in the pre-flood era.  Dead serious.  And this is in an official, accredited private school.  It blows my mind.

 

I also learned some great things in my private school. My favorite has to be that not only did dinosaurs and humans live at the same time, but all the stories about dragons were true, because dragons were really dinosaurs. That was priceless. There was also a video we watched once where we were told that you could send your social security card back to the government and then you would never have to pay taxes. I'm not sure why we were watching that video or what the actual thrust of the video was (I don't even think it had to do with taxes or the government or anything close to those subjects). The things I learned at that school. Bizarre.

Rill


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There is no

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no "flux origin" theory.

Ouch. You are right. I have been misusing "flux" in that way, without thinking. Thanks for the correction.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10634
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Regarding the apology, don't

Regarding the apology, don't worry: we're used to it. Regarding this, the meat:

"The chances of that combination occurring just once is so astronomically high that for all statistical purposes it is impossible. The chances of it happening over and over again are about the same (as my philosophy teacher said) as winning the lottery 150 million times in a row."

If you play the lottery a billion times per second, over the span of a billion years, you will eventually win it much more than 150 million times in a row. This is what the creationist fails to understand. You don't win 150 M out of 150 M attempts. You win 150 M in a row out of 150 Trillion Trillion attempts.

It is statistically inevitable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no "flux origin" theory.

Ouch. You are right. I have been misusing "flux" in that way, without thinking. Thanks for the correction.

Yeah, I thought I'd better check up on line in case it was a reference to some particular theory, but nothing remotely relevant came up.

Then it looked to me like someone had made the jump from 'fluctuation' to 'flux' based on the similar sound of the first part of the word.

I, uh, assumed Jumbo had come up with it...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I, uh, assumed Jumbo

Quote:
I, uh, assumed Jumbo had come up with it...

Thank you for being diligent and sincere enough to look it up though, it shows how dedicated you are to the topic.

I was using the word "Flux" as shorthand for "fluctuation". By "fluctuation" theory, I mean either (or both) vacuum fluctuation or quantum fluctuation as a theory of origin. I was not aware that "Flux" had some other context, or that fluctuation theory had an official title. It is all news to me.

However, the converstion assumed the former definition and progressed accordingly without any misinterpretation, so the aforementioned quote really is an irrelevant quibble. I am not "making it up", I just can't be bothered writing "vacuum fluctuation or quantum fluctuation (or both) as a theory of origin" every time I want to refer to it. If it makes it easier, I will say VFT or QFT when in the context of origin theory.

 

Quote:
Second, to understand virtual particles (and, by analogy, the flux origin hypothesis), you have to understand that virtual particles don't just create themselves. They are not "something from nothing." There is something there at the base of the universe, which manifests as vacuum energy. This is the ground state of a vacuum. Quantum fluctuations within this vacuum energy cause particles to pop in and out of existence. They come from the vacuum energy, which is not nothing. I hope this clears up the "something from nothing" issue.

I was reading over Aedus' thread and found bob's rhetorical question. "Where would such an 'energy field' 'come from'? Same place 'God' came from. Or maybe it was just always there, just like 'God'."

And in this thread:

Quote:

thedjjudah wrote:

 

Do you not realize that we are saying the exact same thing, except i choose to recognize the source as God and you say that these energies were always (key word here) there? So I am stating that something cannot come from nothing and you say that they came from certain energies who then must have a cause themselves, upon which you state that the energies may have been eternal as well? I being a Christian, am the one who is supposed to believe in the eternal, not the atheist.

 

 

Except that any original 'cause' need not be anything but the tiniest possible energy fluctuation, the sort of thing which triggers radioactive decay all the time. 

I've got a lot to research before I continue. Thanks for your time thus far.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The only 'Flux Theory' I can

The only 'Flux Theory' I can find referenced on-line is a 'unified theory' by a guy called James Clifford Cranwell. It appears to be regarded as a fringe or 'alternative' theory, and I saw no commentary on it from regular science journals, so I don't think it deserves to be taken too seriously, and it doesn't seem to be quite the thing I was thinking of.

As I said earlier, the 'Quantum Foam' idea seems to the best match in ideas with some cred  to what I had in mind.

'Flux' is a flow of some kind, or at least a field, as in 'magnetic flux'. Using it as a short-hand for 'fluctuation' is confusing and misleading.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:'Flux' is a flow of

Quote:
'Flux' is a flow of some kind, or at least a field, as in 'magnetic flux'. Using it as a short-hand for 'fluctuation' is confusing and misleading.

Nigel knew what I meant, and I just want to restate that it was not interpreted by you guys as anything other than "fluctuation." But seriously, is this really a major issue?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:'Flux'

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
'Flux' is a flow of some kind, or at least a field, as in 'magnetic flux'. Using it as a short-hand for 'fluctuation' is confusing and misleading.

Nigel knew what I meant, and I just want to restate that it was not interpreted by you guys as anything other than "fluctuation." But seriously, is this really a major issue?

Apart from indicating a degree of sloppy thinking and/or lack of familiarity with scientific terms, no.

Of course we  knew what you meant, and we have become accustomed to such imprecision from people not really well-informed in the subject they are discussing. There is also the risk of having the ideas confused with other proposed theories which use the same terms, although I could only find one somewhat fringe theory using the same word.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology