Evolution and Creationism (Page 5)

Lack of evidence does not equal proof.

Many non-believers are quick to explain unexplainable things with science.  Not hard science but, "somehow it must have happened naturally" based on A, B & C.  It's easy to explain away things with some basis in science.

Now ask yourself how did natural laws of physics come into being?  If the strong and weak nuclear forces were 1% stronger or weaker the university would never have formed.  If the attraction of gravity were 1% different the universe would have been VERY different than it was right now.  There are ENDLESS forces of nature, that is every so slightly different would result in us not having this conversation.

And it just so happened these billions of permutations all randomly aligned?  Remember there were no laws of physics before the big bang.  There was nothing (that's the current theory).  So in an instant all of these natural forces were created in PERFECT harmony to create a universe?  Nature rolled a billion 7s in a row?

That's quite a leap of faith for me.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy


Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-13 9:54 AM

of course they were.  most people outside of science would not have ever seen the spaghetti and meatballs and know the intention behind it. 

eta: glad you are not the uncle of my kids! 

Edited by rayd 2010-10-13 9:55 AM

The acceptance of either the big bang theory without a god or god creating the heavens and stars is accepting the "something out of nothing".  both theories create something out of nothing and hence should be equally difficult or easy to accept.

Not sure how dismissing faith as an "easy" answer is contributing to the discussion.  Yes, some people believe without questioning, but for many that conclusion has been a very difficult one to reach.  "Easy" is relative and is simple to dismiss when it's not you.  And that has nothing to do with my personal beliefs on the subject.

What's interesting to me too is that some will dismiss religious faith while still needing some faith of their own to support the opposite conclusion.  If you haven't done the experiments, collected the data, analyzed it, etc., then you're relying on a bit of faith that others did it properly and are to be believed.  I have lots of patients who don't question a thing I say and will do whatever I tell them they should without questioning why.  Am I wrong sometimes?  Absolutely.  And our knowledge base changes over time as more and more information is available.

I don't post that to dismiss the scientific process (as that is a large part of what I do, and my background is science), but we all do need to be reminded that a little faith is required to believe in anything.

I'm not familiar with the Random Perfect Harmony scientific theory. Which scientist offers this as an explanation for all the matter and forces that we observe in the universe?

If the multiverse (which is one of the models for why there is something instead of nothing) means that every possible permutation has it's own moment of coming into being and then going out, then the fact that one of those models of the universe WILL come into existence.  Sort of like the inifinte monkeys with infinite typewriters coming up with shakespeare.  Of to use a more common example - how many times do grilled cheese sandwiches get burned?  And then at least some of the time, you get a grilled Cheesus.  Does that prove anything other than that is how the chances lined up that one time?

That's a strong argument and I recognize the unlikeliness of all of this coming together on it's own.  Then again, had it not all come together, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.  If it had occured differently, there probably wouldn't have been a different species or existance asking the same questions!  Gotta love the anthropological argument!



Edited by AndrewMT 2010-10-13 10:00 AM

have there been any spontaneous creations of life on earth anytime lately?
how can we actually give an age to something when nothing was around to tell us that this piece of rock was squeezed together from dirt 20 million years ago?  how do we know that what we hold in our hand as a rock is really 20 million years old?  what do we have to compare it to?  a hieroglyph of a caveman holding the same rock with the date below it? 
is dating things that old a bit of a guess/estimate and require a bit of "faith"?
is gauging something that we didnt create with things that we created, going to have room for error?

People to reject any possibility of a Creator do have one problem...They live in a universe that can create life, but that life does not evolve to the point of God. That is a rather narrow window given what humans have learned and accomplished in 6,000 short years. What would we look line in, lets say... 6 million years? And that has never happened in the history of the universe and any potential universes preceding, along side or after ours?

No, the dating process is very much based in science.  I'm certainly not an expert, but between rock formations and radio isotope dating and other process, no faith is required.

So how does science explain the following series of events:

1.  Nothing (no laws of physics, no natural forces, no anything)
2.  Big Bang
3.  Something (with natural laws in place that describe the moments of planets, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, wave-particle duality of light..)

And Gearboy I'm familiar with the multiverse theory (there was a good RadioLab Podcast on this subject).  Frankly I see the acceptance of an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities just as much relying on faith as a belief in a higher being.  It seems like a convenient way to explain how things work. 

Even within the scientific community this theory is plagued with detractors.


Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-13 10:06 AM

how many bombs would have to explode in a junk yard until we got a fully functioning 747 airliner?

Was this supposed to have a point?  If your intent is to make a bomb going off in a junk yard sound similar to the big bang theory, I suggest doing some research. 

I love this analogy.  Apparently an infinite #.

I concur that there are some HUGE questions marks surround those supposed events!  With our linear view of time and space, it's impossible to conceive what could have happened before the big bang and how the whole process got started.  I'll even admit that some form of diety or outside force is the most logical arugment for how that process got started!

Science welcomes scrutiny. Science does not want to build upon false understandings; that only leads to more false understandings and even dead-ends. Science doesn't mind a dead-end because that requires science to return to the drawing board and reexamine the assumptions that led to the dead-end. The ideas are either valid or they are not. Science has no use for invalid assumptions or theories.

If you don't understand the science of dating matter, then I can see why it would be a mystery and require your "faith" to accept.

is the difference between the two REALLY that much?

That's very open minded of you.  It is NOT my intent to try to convince people that a higher power IS the answer.  Only that it IS a possible answer.

...and, getting back to the OPs topic, that the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Great debate!  Thanks!

i understand it for sure.  and i do have a higher edumacation.  i just dont agree with its claims of accuracy in extreme age dating.  there is a bit of skepticism around it.

Indeed.  The Big Bang being the initiator for an environement that eventually allowed a process to developed that turned into love that over time developed more complexity all of which happened over billions of years.  That's very different than an weak explosion in a junk yard spontaneously creating a very complex airplane.  Can you really not see the differences there?

It was my understanding that dating doesn't claim precise accuracy. Dating is usually qualified, I thought, with "give or take" language.

What part of the assumptions or computations do you dispute?

Discussing the energy content of the Big Bang with someone other than a quantum theorist is not going to do anyone any good. You just have to have faith that there was a whole bunch of energy stored in a really hot and dense space.