Evolution versus Creationism

[uppi]

I like this rebuttal as well, because it's a little more direct: The universe is NOT tuned for life. All life on the planet would fit into about 70 km^3. According to Wikipedia, Earth has a volume of about 1,083,207,317,374 km^3. In other words, life makes up about 6 billionth of a percent of the planet's volume. Now consider that there is no more life in the solar system, and the solar system is magnitudes larger than the planet. On the galactic scale, life is such an inconsequential part of the universe that it seems to me more of an accident. If you were going to design a system to support intelligent life, surely there are more efficient ways to go about it.

This isn't a convincing argument in any way, unless you show, that there indeed is a possible system that can support intelligent life more efficiently.

As it is, the fact that life (as we know it) is possible at all does require some significant fine-tuning. Even the formation of atoms requires fine-tuning of the relevant constants. There has to be an energy source (fusion). Then molecules have to be possible and then the formation of very complex molecules has to be possible.

You cannot argue fine-tuning away that easily.

 

[AngryZealot]

I wasn't trying to. It's meant to supplement the argument outlined by BasketCase. Statistically, there is no basis for arguing the universe is or is not fine tuned for life, so it's a useless argument either way. If life weren't possible in this universe, we wouldn't be here talking about it; if life were possible in a different universe, we'd be over there talking about the same thing. There's a name for it that I can't remember.

 

[Simple Simon]

wow, BasketCase, that is indeed a good metaphor!
and I guess that is the first time ever that I write something positive about a post of yours. Wow again!

 

[peter grimes]

...If life weren't possible in this universe, we wouldn't be here talking about it; if life were possible in a different universe, we'd be over there talking about the same thing. There's a name for it that I can't remember.

I *think* that would be the Strong Anthropic Principle.

 

[Murky]

Isn't it is impossible for something to exist without cause in our universe? If that is the case, there has to something external that created it that itself was without cause, otherwise you end up with infinite regression.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the simpler idea is that "Cause & Effect" are just macroscale biases. We also think that blue is significantly different from yellow, but that's only because of the way we see the world.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't see why the two can't go together; if you're a Christian you could belive that God created goo which could evolve and the biblical account was somebody's way of explaining it

 

[warpus]

Isn't it is impossible for something to exist without cause in our universe? If that is the case, there has to something external that created it that itself was without cause, otherwise you end up with infinite regression.

As far as I know virtual particles exist without cause. (for the duration of their short existence, anyway)

 

[Flying Pig]

Welcome to post-war physics, kid. Chaos is just the order of the day.

 

[Murky]

As far as I know virtual particles exist without cause. (for the duration of their short existence, anyway)

Virtual particles can not be observed. It is a favorite muse of atheist because it gives them a reason to think that the Universe can exist without God.

 

[AngryZealot]

Isn't it is impossible for something to exist without cause in our universe? If that is the case, there has to something external that created it that itself was without cause, otherwise you end up with infinite regression.

No. We know space does not exist without time and time does not exist without space. Time began with space, which began with the big bang. Without time, there can be no cause and effect. So, the normal laws of cause and effect don't apply before the big bang. Asking what "caused" the big bang, or what came before the big bang, is gramatically correct, but not philosophically correct. It's like asking what's south of the South Pole. You can ask the question, but there's no correct way to answer it, because the question is wrong.

 

[Murky]

No. We know space does not exist without time and time does not exist without space. Time began with space, which began with the big bang. Without time, there can be no cause and effect. So, the normal laws of cause and effect don't apply before the big bang. Asking what "caused" the big bang, or what came before the big bang, is gramatically correct, but not philosophically correct. It's like asking what's south of the South Pole. You can ask the question, but there's no correct way to answer it, because the question is wrong.

That's a cop out and circular logic.

 

[uppi]

Virtual particles can not be observed. It is a favorite muse of atheist because it gives them a reason to think that the Universe can exist without God.

Actually they can be observed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

[Smidlee]

Here's a great video on the origin of life (with a few more details). This is my favorite theory.

About the only math I see in this cartoon is "mutation + natural selection = increased information." Yet just how much information can natural selection and mutations produced? So far natural selection has not shown to have more power than artificial selection.
Often it seems evolutionist is really referring to supernatural selection when it comes to natural selection.

Here is a ID video which at least involved a little more math that just plain M+NS = Information

Measuring functional information
I(Ex)=-log2[M(Ex)/N]

 

[El_Machinae]

Virtual particles can not be observed. It is a favorite muse of atheist because it gives them a reason to think that the Universe can exist without God.

Here's the important part: the theory predicted them before they were observed. Modern physics doesn't know everything about physics. Various formulas are not complete. But they're pretty damned good. Good enough to know about things that we haven't observed yet.

A good theory not only has to explain all of what you've seen, but also has to predict what you haven't observed yet. Every single storm in history can be explained with the theory "Thor did it". But this doesn't predict tomorrow's weather. A proper meterological model will be much better at predicting tomorrow AND explaining previous storms.

You seemed to think that the lack of observed vacuum particles helped prove that there was a God. Well, what does it mean know that you know they've been observed? (Or, at least, their influence is observed, as predicted).

 

[BasketCase]

This isn't a convincing argument in any way, unless you show, that there indeed is a possible system that can support intelligent life more efficiently.

You're still getting it backwards. The universe is not designed to support life. In fact, no universe anywhere is designed to support life. It is LIFE that is designed for the UNIVERSE.

Side note: your proposal is unprovable because there's no way to test it. We can't ever know if there's a "better" universe out there, because the minute we crossed into it, our ship would explode and our bodies would vaporize into subatomic particles as the laws of physics changed around us.

As it is, the fact that life (as we know it) is possible at all does require some significant fine-tuning. Even the formation of atoms requires fine-tuning of the relevant constants. There has to be an energy source (fusion). Then molecules have to be possible and then the formation of very complex molecules has to be possible.

Only in order to create a universe LIKE OURS. If the mathematical constants were different, something else would exist--a different universe, in a different form. And life would exist in a different form as well. Maybe instead we would exist as clouds of cohesive energy--and we would be wondering, in the same way, how the universe around us could be so perfectly arranged that we can exist.

The first five dimensions--space, time, and probability (the set of all possible histories)--are infinite. From the moment of the Big Bang, there are an infinite number of ways the Universe can be arranged. But we can only have one past and one future; we only occupy one line in space-time (each of us has ONE future) and we occupy only one point in the dimension of probability. Only one of our many possible futures (of which there are an infinite number) can happen at once. The real truth is that no matter which line we follow in probability, the chance of us following that one particular line is infinitely small.

It's meaningless to marvel at how unlikely human evolution is. It's like tossing a quarter into the middle of the room and being amazed at how it managed to land in THAT particular spot on the carpet. No matter where the quarter lands, its chances of landing there were infinitely small. But it MUST land somewhere, so one of those infinitely many possibilities WILL happen.

 

[Smidlee]

.....
It's meaningless to marvel at how unlikely human evolution is. It's like tossing a quarter into the middle of the room and being amazed at how it managed to land in THAT particular spot on the carpet. No matter where the quarter lands, its chances of landing there were infinitely small. But it MUST land somewhere, so one of those infinitely many possibilities WILL happen.

In the life's fine tune argument it's more like tossing 4 quarters in the middle of the room and all of them stands vertically on top of each other.

 

[AngryZealot]

That's a cop out and circular logic.

No, it's the way the universe works. You're asking what came before there was time. I ask what is south of the South Pole. They're the same type of question.

In the life's fine tune argument it's more like tossing 4 quarters in the middle of the room and all of them stands vertically on top of each other.

More specifically, from the anthropic principle (thanks peter grimes), it's like tossing 4 quarters in the middle of a room over and over again until they all land on each other, then being amazed they landed on each other and how it was exactly what you were looking for.

About the only math I see in this cartoon is "mutation + natural selection = increased information." Yet just how much information can natural selection and mutations produced? So far natural selection has not shown to have more power than artificial selection.
Often it seems evolutionist is really referring to supernatural selection when it comes to natural selection.

Here is a ID video which at least involved a little more math that just plain M+NS = Information

The video's too long for me to watch, and it won't let me fast forward, so I haven't watched it. I see this thing about information a lot, but I've never seen a definition of information. I've seen creationists wave their hands around and talk about how evolution can't increase information, but never with a definition. It's been proven time and time again that the genetic content of a population can and does increase through natural processes. Please explain to me why this math about information is so important, and what your definition of information is. And why does natural selection need to be a stronger force than artificial selection?

 

[Perfection]

Isn't it is impossible for something to exist without cause in our universe?

Logically, absolutely not (that is it is conceivable [though difficult because of our intuitive notions of time] that events occur without cause). Scientifically, probably not as various non-causal interactions are theoretically supported in quantum mechanics. A very good example is particle decay. A particle will decay at a random time with no prior cause or warning.

So, the first link in your argument is wrong (or at least completely unfounded), since your entire argument rests on that I can consider your argument defeated. However, I like arguments to bits, so lets look at your other misteps.

If that is the case, there has to something external that created it that itself was without cause, otherwise you end up with infinite regression.

Here you face another problem, you say "otherwise you end up with infinite regression" and dismiss that as impossible. There's no reason to think that it isn't (logically) possible for time to extend infinitely backwards or that it loops back on itself.

It is a favorite muse of atheist because it gives them a reason to think that the Universe can exist without God.

And here's the whopper of the misstep! Even if we require some universe-external uncaused causer, it need not be God! It is not a property of uncaused causers that they must care about the gender of person I place my genitals into!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Another option might be that "consciousness" is somehow programmed to "see" or "experience" an arrow of time that does not exist outside of it. Is there a reason that such an arrow must operate at the cosmic level rather than something lesser?

No. We know space does not exist without time and time does not exist without space. Time began with space, which began with the big bang. Without time, there can be no cause and effect. So, the normal laws of cause and effect don't apply before the big bang. Asking what "caused" the big bang, or what came before the big bang, is grammatically correct, but not philosophically correct.

The Universe does not have exactly the right conditions for human life. Human life has exactly the right conditions to exist in the Universe. It is human life that evolved itself to match the mold, not the other way around.
You're still getting it backwards. The universe is not designed to support life. In fact, no universe anywhere is designed to support life. It is LIFE that is designed for the UNIVERSE.

Modern science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for animal life to exist. For example, if the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together. Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just three of more than 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a defense of intelligent design.

Think for a minute about time flowing forward into the future and how extraordinary it is that we are here, alive on the edge of all time. Imagine all the days and hours that have passed since the beginning of time. Now stack them like chairs on top of each other, and seat yourself on the very top. Science has no real explanation for why we’re here, for why we exist now. According to the current physiocentric worldview, it’s just an accident, a one-in-a-gazillion chance that I am here and that you are there. The statistical probability of being on top of time or infinity is so small as to be meaningless. Yet this is generally how the human mind conceives time.

Robert Lanza is vice president of research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology and a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has written 20 scientific books and won a Rave award for medicine from Wired magazine and an “all star” award for biotechnology from Mass High Tech: The Journal of New England Technology.

He is a proponent of Biocentrism. I discovered him tonight in this month’s “Discover Magazine”. Below I have quoted bits and pieces from here:

http://www.dynamicdata.com.au/biocentrism.htm

The full article is very interesting.

Spoiler :

In classical science, humans place all things in time and space on a continuum. The universe is 15 to 20 billion years old; the earth five or six. Homo erectus appeared four million years ago, but he took three-and-a-half million years to discover fire, and another 490,000 to invent agriculture. And so forth. Time in a mechanistic universe (as described by Newton and Einstein and Darwin) is an arrow upon which events are notched. But imagine, instead, that reality is like a sound recording. Listening to an old phonograph doesn’t alter the record itself, and depending on where the needle is placed, you hear a certain piece of music. This is what we call the present. The music before and after the song you are hearing is what we call the past and the future. Imagine, in like manner, that every moment and day endures in nature always. The record does not go away. All nows (all the songs on the record) exist simultaneously, although we can only experience the world (or the record) piece by piece. If we could access all life—the whole record—we could experience it non-sequentially. We could know our children as toddlers, as teenagers, as senior citizens—all now. In the end, even Einstein admitted, “Now [Besso—one of his oldest friends] has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us . . . know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” That there is an irreversible, on-flowing continuum of events linked to galaxies and suns and the earth is a fantasy.

Spoiler :

It’s important here to address a fundamental question. We have clocks that can measure time. If we can measure time, doesn’t that prove it exists? Einstein sidestepped the question by simply defining time as “what we measure with a clock.” The emphasis for physicists is on the measuring. However, the emphasis should be on the we, the observers. Measuring time doesn’t prove its physical existence. Clocks are rhythmic things. Humans use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to time other events (like the rotation of the earth). This is not time, but rather, a comparison of events. Specifically, over the ages, humans have observed rhythmic events in nature: the periodicities of the moon, the sun, the flooding of the Nile. We then created other rhythmic things to measure nature’s rhythms: a pendulum, a mechanical spring, an electronic device. We called these manmade rhythmic devices “clocks.” We use the rhythms of specific events to time other specific events. But these are just events, not to be confused with time.

Spoiler :

Quantum mechanics describes the tiny world of the atom and its constituents with stunning accuracy. It is used to design and build much of the technology that drives modern society—transistors, lasers, and even wireless communication. But quantum mechanics in many ways threatens not only our essential and absolute notions of space and time, but indeed, all Newtonian-Darwinian conceptions of order and secure prediction.

“I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics,” said Nobel physicist Richard Feynman. “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.” The reason scientists go down the drain is that they refuse to accept the immediate and obvious implications of the experimental findings of quantum theory. Biocentrism is the only humanly comprehensible explanation for how the world can be the way it is. But, as the Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg admits, “It’s an unpleasant thing to bring people into the basic laws of physics.”

Spoiler :

To more fully grasp a universe of still arrows and disappearing moons, let’s turn to modern electronics. You know from experience that something in the black box of a DVD player turns an inanimate disc into a movie. The electronics in the DVD converts and animates the information on the disc into a 3-D show. Likewise your brain animates the universe. Imagine the brain as the electronics in your DVD player. Explained another way, the brain turns electrochemical information from our five senses into an order, a sequence—into a face, into this page—into a unified three-dimensional whole. It transforms sensory input into something so real that few people ever ask how it happens. Stop and think about this for a minute. Our minds are so good at it that we rarely ever question whether the world is anything other than what we imagine it to be. Yet the brain—not the eyes—is the organ sealed inside a vault of bone, locked inside the cranium, that “sees” the universe..

Biocentrism can refer to the scientific position that life and consciousness form the basis of observable reality, and thereby the basis of the universe itself. The biocentric theory proposed by Robert Lanza builds on quantum physics by putting life into the equation. His theory places biology above the other sciences in an attempt to solve one of nature’s biggest puzzles: the theory of everything that other disciplines have been pursuing for the last century. In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several major puzzles of mainstream science, and offers a new way of understanding everything from the microworld (for instance, the reason for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the double-slit experiment) to the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe