Evolution versus Creationism

[Perfection]

Ok, so you don't like the popular science press.

I don't mind Scientific American, it actually sorta tries to no be filled with stupid stuff.

Why don't you like biocentrism?

It's part of this quantum consciousness crap that bases its ideas in bad philosophical musings rather then any actual doing of science.

 

[warpus]

does not the creator create the laws?

Well, not all the laws. I can build a snowman - but I don't get to control all the laws that govern the snowman.

It will melt if it gets too warm, for example.

So, no. The creator does not always create all the laws.

 

[Moss]

Well, not all the laws. I can build a snowman - but I don't get to control all the laws that govern the snowman.

It will melt if it gets too warm, for example.

So, no. The creator does not always create all the laws.

yes, but that assumes that God started with an outside environment.

Most people that I know that are religious believe that God created everything (space, time, ect.) and therefore he would be outside the laws.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't mind Scientific American, it actually sorta tries to no be filled with stupid stuff.
It's part of this quantum consciousness crap that bases its ideas in bad philosophical musings rather then any actual doing of science.

I'm not so sure that Biocentrism is based on bad philosophy. Perhaps it can lead to a philosophical position that you disagree with, but that is a different problem. Do you have a link that supports your contention?

Regardless of its truth or not, its those "unfounded musing" that can drive the more pointed scientific work into areas that break new ground like "scaled-up superposition". It's the hair-brained ideas that provide for the significant change in how we see the world and not the guys who stay focused on the safe and practical.

 

[AngryZealot]

These hair-brained ideas generally have supporting evidence. From what I can tell, this biocentrism is set up in such a way that it can't be falsified (much like Intelligent Design). If the experience of the world depends on consciousness, there's no way to probe reality to test such a hypothesis.

 

[Perfection]

I'm not so sure that Biocentrism is based on bad philosophy. Perhaps it can lead to a philosophical position that you disagree with, but that is a different problem. Do you have a link that supports your contention?

Nope, I read books. Basicly, I take this guy to be like Roger Penrose, knows some kinda related crap, makes up a bunch of weird arguments that have gaping flaws, don't ground this in experiment.

Regardless of its truth or not, its those "unfounded musing" that can drive the more pointed scientific work into areas that break new ground like "scaled-up superposition". It's the hair-brained ideas that provide for the significant change in how we see the world and not the guys who stay focused on the safe and practical.

The best policy is to not listen to idiots until they prove themselves non-idiots. Believing every idiotic idiot idea would lead to idiotic idiocy idiotizing your brain leaving you idiotized as an idiotic idiot yourself.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

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.

Things don't need causes, changes do. Uncaused things can exist, but only if they have never changed in any way.

(Of course, Newton's third law and the Hindenburg Uncertainty principle would seem to imply than any such unchanging thing cannot cause changes in any other thing and can never be detected, so this is rather trivial.)

 

[El_Machinae]

By default Evolution explains everything. That's the problem.

It also predicts: Smidlee. What does Evolution predict appeared first, the chicken or the egg? What evidence will there be to show that? Where would you look for that evidence? How will you know when you see it? What type of evidence would disprove the prediction?

yes, but that assumes that God started with an outside environment.

So, what determined that God started with an outside environment, instead of (say) half of an outside environment, our outside two environments?

 

[Flying Pig]

Basically, the only God that you can believe in with a shadow of rationale is a God who can never be experienced (ie; observed) and who acts totally at random. Even then, you run into Ockham's razor (plurality ought not be proposed without neccessity) and conclude that a God as I have outlined creating the world is no different from the universe just coming into being from your end, and therefore is not what you can consider a reasonable explanation.

According to the science of the last half-century, you can have something which exists of its own accord or a process which works 'because it does'; but by Newton's first law (I think) nothing changes unless some force is put on it; so to deviate from the existing state of affairs takes a cause

Example: The world goes round the sun because of gravity, which is a 'self-evident' thing. It can go on like that for as long as it wants, but to go the other way, or to stop moving completely, would take some exertion of energy upon it.

 

[peter grimes]

I think there's some confusion regarding the idea of observation in some of these posts.

It is a mistake to presume that nothing exists in the Universe until some consciousness (whatever that is!!) makes an observation. The Universe itself is incessantly making an unimaginable large number of measurements (observations). There is no need for a humanistic consciousness. Charles Seife wrote a very accessible book discussing the whole idea of the universe as information, and I'd suggest it to anyone who wants to have a better understanding of the notions of quantum uncertainty, entanglement, observation, and information.

 

[AngryZealot]

It also predicts: Smidlee. What does Evolution predict appeared first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, of course. Dinosaurs laid eggs. Birds came from dinosaurs.

 

[Moss]

So, what determined that God started with an outside environment, instead of (say) half of an outside environment, our outside two environments?

I think it's pretty natural to assume that the creator of a universe started outside the universe. After all, before the universe existed, how could a God be inside of it?

If you don't think the God in question created the Universe, then any number of other options apply. But, if one (and again, I don't) think a Creator or a God created the Universe, it seems implied that he is outside of the Universe, at least at the beginning.

Of course, that doesn't answer the question of where God came from, but whatever the answer to that is doesn't mean he must follow the Universe's laws.

 

[Flying Pig]

Correct if your premise that God created the universe holds, but if the premise becomes 'God took an empty Universe and filled it', which is more consistent with the infamous razor, it is flawed

I think irrefutable evidence for evolution has now been presented to you. To argue otherwise is pointless; resistance is futile!

 

[uppi]

I think irrefutable evidence for evolution has now been presented to you. To argue otherwise is pointless; resistance is futile!

We haven't been talking about evolution since...oh...about page 8

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's pretty natural to assume that the creator of a universe started outside the universe. After all, before the universe existed, how could a God be inside of it?

If you don't think the God in question created the Universe, then any number of other options apply. But, if one (and again, I don't) think a Creator or a God created the Universe, it seems implied that he is outside of the Universe, at least at the beginning.

Of course, that doesn't answer the question of where God came from, but whatever the answer to that is doesn't mean he must follow the Universe's laws.

Urk. This sometimes happens. By my definition, God is in the Universe. Maybe not within our dimensions or within our light bubble, but my posts have used this term 'universe' as "all that is". My argument should make more sense with that caveat.

 

[Moss]

Urk. This sometimes happens. By my definition, God is in the Universe. Maybe not within our dimensions or within our light bubble, but my posts have used this term 'universe' as "all that is". My argument should make more sense with that caveat.

Why is God, by definition, in the Universe?

 

[El_Machinae]

Because the universe encompasses all that is. If you don't want to call 'all that is', the universe, then what do you call it?

 

[Flying Pig]

We haven't been talking about evolution since...oh...about page 8

Pardon my attempts to salvage the topicality of this thread

 

[Moss]

Because the universe encompasses all that is. If you don't want to call 'all that is', the universe, then what do you call it?

But the definition of the Universe is all that physically exists.

Obviously there are others out there too, but I don't consider the Universe to be everything that exists...

but by your definition, then God would be part of the universe and we have no disagreement.

 

[Smidlee]

It also predicts: Smidlee. What does Evolution predict appeared first, the chicken or the egg? What evidence will there be to show that? Where would you look for that evidence? How will you know when you see it? What type of evidence would disprove the prediction?

Often evolution predicts after the fact. Also so often it predicts both "A" and "not A" so no matter the results evolutionist can claim later that evolution predicted it.
When I look at all the predictions made in the name of evolution I'm not surprise that evolutionist get some right especially when they cover all pretty much everything. Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

Universal genetic code was evidence of universal common descent until they found out some life forms had a different code. This didn't touch their faith in UCD. The same with the Big Bang Theory predicted that far distance galaxies should be smaller than modern ones. When it was found these galaxies just as big yet it had no effect at all in their belief of the Big Bang.

Now how does evolution handles the chicken or egg paradox is they continue to pass the answer down to the past generation until it come down to the first living cell. Then they tried to separate OOL from evolution so it does not have to address the chicken or egg paradox.