Evolution versus Creationism

[Flying Pig]

Basically, supposing I have a shelf of books arranged at random with an infinite number of books on it. Because it is infinite, it must contain every possible combination of books, and one of these is that the sequence repeats itself every so often. If you looked at my bookshelf, you would say 'Here is a sequence of books which he has put in order and repeated it', but in fact I have done no such thing. That's one example of order from chaos

 

[Murky]

You are arguing from ignorance: because YOU can't understand how order can (locally) come from disorder, you assume that it is not possible unless god did it. Not a valid argument, otherwise particle physics would be an act of god for me, but not for my neighbour who works in that field

Also, if God is what creates order, then god is ordered. And who created THAT order?

I assume no such thing. I was just asking how this can come about without God? What theory or set of theories proves that order naturally emerges from disorder?

 

[warpus]

I assume no such thing. I was just asking how this can come about without God? What theory or set of theories proves that order naturally emerges from disorder?

First of all, theories do not prove stuff.

Second of all, order does not naturally emerge from disorder. It sometimes does..

One example:

Spoiler :

 

[Simple Simon]

I assume no such thing. I was just asking how this can come about without God? What theory or set of theories proves that order naturally emerges from disorder?

As I showed you, god is not a useful answer, so asking 'how can this work without god' is useless.

Order is either created by chance (bookshelf example), as it is only apparent order, or by material properties. Now you can ask 'who made them up?', but that just pushes the answer back further; god is never a sufficient answer.

 

[Flying Pig]

Good! If I pass a hurricane through a scrapyard, I have a 1 in 1 billion billion chance of getting a 747. But suppose I had 2 billion billion scrapyards and hurricanes? Or; I know that in 4.47 billion years half of a Uranium sample will have gone; the odds of a given atom in that half decaying in a given second are minute, but I know for certain that in 4470000000 years that it will be gone. Or even; I have almost no chance of winning the lottery, same for everyone in the country, but someone will win it.

You see? Randomness can look like order.

The problem with God is that it's saying; "Who could have created this order? There must be a God." and neglecting the fact that God is an order - who could have created Him?

 

[El_Machinae]

How do you explain an ordered universe without God? I don't mean the theistic God. Without everything falling into place, in what appears to be perfectly ordered, we would not exist.

Wait, I thought the lack of virtual particles proved God? Now you're saying that macroprocesses prove God?

And how do you explain your god, other than the (obvious) theory that my god created your god for fun.

 

[Flying Pig]

I see what he means, and he can find the answer above - there is no 'essential order' to the universe.

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, my god just makes it seem that way in order to mess with his god's mind.

 

[Murky]

Naw, my god just makes it seem that way in order to mess with his god's mind.

Which God would that be? I made no reference to any specific theistic God.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, my god is the essential component without which any theistic god would be impossible.
Obviously.

 

[Murky]

I see what he means, and he can find the answer above - there is no 'essential order' to the universe.

Living cells are an ordered collection of parts are they not? What ordered them?

A snowflake is the result of water molecules forming crystals due to variations in temperature; which is determined by the laws of physics. Where did the laws of physics come from? Did they just happen to emerge?

 

[W|M]

If god exists, how did he get created in the first place?

 

[warpus]

Where did the laws of physics come from? Did they just happen to emerge?

The laws of physics aren't static - they were much different in the first milliseconds after the big bang.

They evolved and eventually settled into what they are now during Cosmic inflation, I believe.

You seem to be asking the question "Why are things they way that they are?" and attempting to imply that someone must have made them this way, without any sort of steps in between.

If things were different than what they are now, you would be asking exactly the same question.

 

[uppi]

The laws of physics aren't static - they were much different in the first milliseconds after the big bang.

They evolved and eventually settled into what they are now during Cosmic inflation, I believe.

What the...?

Evolving laws of physics? During the big bang, the laws happiliy mutated and were selected by which would give physicists more headaches, or what?

Without the assumptions, that the big bang followed the current laws of physics, there'd be no point in describing it, because you could justify anything by saying "different laws of physics", which would be as scientific as saying "magic".

I wonder what people will come up with next in this thread.

 

[warpus]

What the...?

Evolving laws of physics? During the big bang, the laws happiliy mutated and were selected by which would give physicists more headaches, or what?

Without the assumptions, that the big bang followed the current laws of physics, there'd be no point in describing it, because you could justify anything by saying "different laws of physics", which would be as scientific as saying "magic".

I wonder what people will come up with next in this thread.

Why do you think physicists are having such a hard time describing, explaining, or even imagining what happened microseconds after the big bang?.. or even what happened before it?

The laws of physics as we know them now were shaped during and right after that crazy event - I don't see what's so magical about it.

It is well accepted by most physicists that all the forces (gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear, etc.) were shaped by events during cosmic inflation. I believe the most widely accepted theory is that all the forces were unified in some way, and were split apart during inflation. Such profound changes to the way the Universe operates changes all sorts of "laws" of physics.

 

[Moss]

How do you explain an ordered universe without God? I don't mean the theistic God. Without everything falling into place, in what appears to be perfectly ordered, we would not exist.

What's wrong with excepting that fact that universes, life, ect. evolves and, gasp, changes? Order comes out of chaos because things selectively figure themselves out. The laws of physics come out of the big bang because that's how the universe was so shaped and ordered due to that event. Laws are not constant, and if another event were to happen similar to the big bang, the structure of the universe may change again, thus changing the laws.

At the risk of making no sense:

Life forms at the bottom of the oceans, some just being discovered, are dramatically different in almost all ways than life forms on earth...and they live under dramatically different circumstances than life forms on the surface do, yet they still exist. Life adapts, the universe adapts, why does everything have to be mechanically placed or put in motion by a designer?

 

[uppi]

Why do you think physicists are having such a hard time describing, explaining, or even imagining what happened microseconds after the big bang?.. or even what happened before it?

Because it is difficult to recreate the conditions of a big bang in a lab, and the energy scales are very high and because they lack the mathematical methods to accurately calculate QCD predictions.

And because big bang is formulated as a singularity, and there is no way to know, how the laws of physics behave at a singularity.

The laws of physics as we know them now were shaped during and right after that crazy event - I don't see what's so magical about it.

If you want to calculate anything about big bang, you have to use the current laws of physics (albeit at quite different conditions). If you say the laws of physics were different then, there is no way to know, what they actually were. Thus no calculations, predictions or test can be made and you have left the realm of science.

That the laws of physics were invariant is the assumption that makes any scientific investigation of big bang possible. If they were changing all the time, there would be no way to know what actually happened, so there would be no predictive power of that explanation at all, just like a "It was magic" explanation.

Once you postulate evolving laws of physics, you have left science and entered metaphysics and philosophy.


edit:

It is well accepted by most physicists that all the forces (gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear, etc.) were shaped by events during cosmic inflation. I believe the most widely accepted theory is that all the forces were unified in some way, and were split apart during inflation. Such profound changes to the way the Universe operates changes all sorts of "laws" of physics.

You misunderstood the concept of unifying the forces. There was no difference between the laws of physics of then and now. The forces are still unified, but the usual energy scales are not high enough, so that we don't notice the unification, because of the broken symmetry at low energy scales. The assumption is, that if we get to the same energy levels as in the big bang, there would be no difference. That is the whole point of experiments like ALICE at the LHC.

 

[warpus]

Hey, if the laws of physics are indeed dynamic.. That's reality.

The big bang singularity is much like a black hole singuarity - in the sense that laws of physics "break down" in these cases.

Maybe we'll figure out ways to explain this stuff, or maybe we won't.

There are some things we can't figure out and explain. Maybe the creation of the Universe is one of them. So what?

 

[uppi]

Hey, if the laws of physics are indeed dynamic.. That's reality.

The big bang singularity is much like a black hole singuarity - in the sense that laws of physics "break down" in these cases.

Maybe we'll figure out ways to explain this stuff, or maybe we won't.

There are some things we can't figure out and explain. Maybe the creation of the Universe is one of them. So what?

Of course, it could be reality, that they're dynamic, and therefore there are investigations in that directions. But unless you can prove that they're dynamic now and extrapolate, you have to assume that they're not.

At one point, the laws indeed break down. And that's were the realm of physics and science end (unless you can discover underlying laws, that don't break down).

 

[warpus]

At one point, the laws indeed break down. And that's were the realm of physics and science end (unless you can discover underlying laws, that don't break down).

until we figure out what the other laws are and/or how to work with dynamic laws of physics.

I agree that there are things science will never be able to answer, but it'd be silly to 1. draw up boundaries or 2. bring in the supernatural to explain gaps.