If you do ever get the time I would love to see your response to MrIndigo's question(s).
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Evolution vs Intelligent Design
- Thread starter cookie
- Start date
If you do ever get the time I would love to see your response to MrIndigo's question(s).
The Creator has always been there, there was nothing before him.
How am I using the quote in the wrong context? If Darwin said it himself, how do you suppose he is the audience?
Regardless of where gills come from, why dont we see the hybrid organs?
How would these partially evolved organs even survive?
One off topic question- how do you quote from two separate posts?
Because Darwin goes on to explain, over the course of several pages, exactly how the eye could have evolved.
click multiquote on the first post then click quote on the second post
You are misunderstanding what evolution is. There is no such thing as "partially evolved" or "fully evolved" there are just features on animals that give them a slight advantage over the rest, and in future generations new features could be added on top of those advantages, and then more mutations keep adding advantages and eventually (after millions of years) you have a "complected" organ which is superior to its "incomplete" predecessors. And there is nothing stopping that organ from becoming more or less advanced (or "complete") in the future. It all depends on what works.
Even a 'partially-evolved' organ can confer an advantage. Primitive creatures had only a spinal cord, then as they evolved, they began developing a centralized brain. Even though their brain wasn't as advanced or developed as ours, it still let them engage in more thinking, which led to more ways to get food and breed and stuff.
This argument? Really? This should be easy.
Let's call whatever created the first-being-on-the-evolutionary-line/earth/universe/etc "X". Now, how did "X" come into existence? Using logic, there can only be four answers on how something can come into existence. If there are any more, please, enlighten me.
1. It came from something.
2. It came from nothing.
3. It existed forever.
4. It never existed.
So, how did "X" come into existence? We can say that 2 and 4 can't happen, since it obviously existed and something cannot come from nothing (Although I'd love to see somebody disprove this for lols). Now, that only leaves us with 1 and 3. If you answer 1, the process repeats itself. The only logical answer is 3. It existed forever.
Now that we've established that whatever created the universe existed forever, we have two options. Either it happened by chance, or there was an intelligent mind behind it all.
You kids have fun.
Option 3 is misleading, since it assumes the existence of time. But time is a property of the Universe. A creator, if one exists, may well not experience time, or at least not the same time that we experience.
Thus, option 3 should be rewritten as "It just exists, with no cause". Now, this can be applied to a creator, but it can just as well be applied directly to the Universe itself. This is what I believe, that the Universe just exists, in and of itself, without cause, and without any need for an intelligent creator.
Exactly what constitutes "the Universe" I am not certain on. It may be little more than we observe, or 'more of the same'. But it may be something far vaster and more varied than anything we know. I hope that a unified theory of physics will shed light on the matter.
Even if you think that the Big Bang had to have a cause, the Big Bang is a very simple thing. The early Universe was simple; today's complexity has arisen from that early simplicity as a consequence of physics. (Gravity being always attractive makes matter clump together, which plays the major role in creating astronomical structures.) Since the beginning of the Universe was simple, there seems to be no need to postulate great intelligence in any creator. Some sort of chance fluctuation could do it.
An intelligent creator is thus only required if you think the complexity of the Universe has to have been created directly by intelligent action. This is what the ID proponents argue is the case for biological systems, but to be honest, their arguments don't seem to hold up.
You can't cross out option 2. The universe has examples of somethings coming from nothing, and even if it didn't, that doesn't rule out the possibility that something (the universe, a creator) could.
Also, using that argument to infer the existence of a creator falls to Occam's Razor. The question changes to "where did the Creator come from?" and whatever answer you apply to the creator can also apply to the universe itself. Hence any creation myth is automatically making one more assumption and is less valid than one without a creator.
Also, using that argument to infer the existence of a creator falls to Occam's Razor. The question changes to "where did the Creator come from?" and whatever answer you apply to the creator can also apply to the universe itself. Hence any creation myth is automatically making one more assumption and is less valid than one without a creator.
This thread is ridiculous.
This is NOT "Random chance vs. definite purpose". If I drop a pen, it's going to fall down every single time. It will never fall up. Why? Because it is governed by natural laws, same as the atoms and molecules that make up life.
This is NOT "Random chance vs. definite purpose". If I drop a pen, it's going to fall down every single time. It will never fall up. Why? Because it is governed by natural laws, same as the atoms and molecules that make up life.
Due to the random motion of air molecules it is possible that at the exact second you drop your pen all of the air molecules in the room move under it and push it up
Actually, the Universe does not examples of something coming from absolutely nothing. Certainly, something can come about by random chance, without any physical cause. But take for example the virtual particles of quantum mechanics. They don't come from nothing, they come from a Universe with 3 (large) space and 1 time dimensions, and certain physical laws, with certain fields present. ABSOLUTELY nothing is very hard to conceive - no space, no time, no physical laws, no matter, no energy, no anything. And I think it is indeed the case that no thing can be said to have 'came from' nothing.
The religious doctrine of creatio ex nihilo merely means that God created the matter and energy (and probably space and time and physical laws) of the Universe - creation absolutely and fully from nothing would by definition eliminate God.
Membrane Theory renders arguments about the Big Bang irrelevant.
Also, scientists have demonstrated that life (or parts of it) arising out of certain non-living combinations of chemicals is possible:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
Also, scientists have demonstrated that life (or parts of it) arising out of certain non-living combinations of chemicals is possible:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
That's a good point; however there's still no reason to discount the something-from-nothing option.
I don't know if M-theory accounts for the origin of the universe, but correct me if my rather small understanding of it is incorrect. The most I know is that M-theory is an extension of string theory, where the strings governing the basic particles and laws can actually grow infinitely large and collide with each other to create universes. The question then shifts to "where did these strings come from?" And yeah, constituents of life arising from certain conditions is not new; it's in the theory of abiogenesis.b0b3rt said:
You discredited #2 without really a good explanation, as Mr. Ingdigo said. You're assuming that the universe (or multiverse for that matter) necessarily exhibits the exact same properties as normal matter within it, namely the property of causality. If I'm correct, this is the fallacy of composition, assuming that a whole has the same properties as its basic parts. This is like saying that a computer is unfunctional (doesn't work to say, surf the internet) because its basic parts are independently unfunctional when in fact, the parts are cohesive together to give the whole machine different properties, namely, being functional. For those arguing about space and time's dependence on a universe- the universe is or may be in fact defined in terms of those dimensions.Basically, as MrIndigo said, there's no reason to necessarily say that a universe could not have spontaneously existed. If mathematics is not an intrinsic property and could exist without cause, then it may possibly give rise to the quantum mechanics needed to spontaneously create a universe the same way atoms and electrons create virtual photons. Take note that I have no idea if my "hypothesis" is logically sound or discussed among physicists, but only a possibility yet to be confirmed or rejected to me.In an attempt to steer this back on topic:
It's rather easy. The evolution of the eye, which you ironically referred to Darwin's quote about to disporve evolution, has been shown to progress through various stages. Planaria (I think, the kind of goofy looking platyhelminthes) have light-sensitve eye spots that can steer it toward or away from concentrations of light. I believe some mollusks (scallops?) have blurry, barely focused eyes. And animals of other kinds have varying levels of eyesight, from a dog's relatively poor vision to an owl's keen, prey-finding eyes.
The membranes in M-theory exist in an infinite and eternal 11th dimension. There would be no need for them to "come" from anywhere, they would have always just existed...
From what I've picked up from pop science about M-Theory, the branes themselves are the 11th dimension, and effectively constitute the basic platform on which the universe exists. It is the intersection of two branes that created the universe as we know it (and perhaps many more besides), but that doesn't explain the origin of the whole universe (branes included) any more than current theories explain the origin of the universe without branes.
You guys take physics too literally. Physics are an attempt at abstracting the observations we make into a framework that is as simple and predictive as possible. In general, any extrapolation of a theory beyond what it is meant to account for is nothing more than mental masturbation. Take quantum physics for instance: the Copenhagen interpretation tells you they are not deterministic. The Bohmian interpretation tells you that they are. The many-worlds interpretation tells you all possible worlds exist with a certain amplitude or probability. Take special relativity: you don't actually need a Minkowski space to make it work - an Euclidean space with length contraction exhibits the exact same apparent properties, and then nothing particularly weird happens if some strange particle travels faster than light. If the laws of physics are reversible and one can compute the past exactly from the present, what's to say the universe isn't actually running backwards and that "where did the universe come from" is a meaningless question since the past has yet to happen? It's not like we could tell. And so on. Basically, my point is that physics are not something you should interpret - any observations can be interpreted, quite literally, in an infinity of ways, all subtly different in their "predictions" about what we cannot observe and thus cannot verify.
Science can never tell you how the universe came to be or for how long it existed any more than it can tell you whether time is running forwards using the laws of physics, or backwards using the inverse laws of physics. All it can do is tell you what the best model is to summarize the world we live in, explain its past as we perceive it and predict its future as we foresee that we will experience it. Science is useful and that's pretty much it. The thing is, no matter how you put it, something exists, yet the existence of something is not logically necessary. Whatever exists, just does. Neither science nor God nor anything at all can tell you why or how, and I would argue that there is no possible answer to these questions: on one hand, "why" is relative to a purpose and a purpose requires a perspective, on the other, "how" is a procedure, which is something whose existence, in turn, cannot be explained. So no matter what exists, both "why" and "how" imply the existence of something else to explain (an entity or a procedure) and it just never ends.
Essentially, "the universe just exists" is as good as you'll ever get (and I would say a lot of people here are well aware of this). Personally, I just see the universe as a sort of computer or Turing machine running some program on some data, and science as the process of reverse-engineering that program from its output. It is a nice metaphor if you wrap your head around the fact it's pointless to try to interpret it literally.
Science can never tell you how the universe came to be or for how long it existed any more than it can tell you whether time is running forwards using the laws of physics, or backwards using the inverse laws of physics. All it can do is tell you what the best model is to summarize the world we live in, explain its past as we perceive it and predict its future as we foresee that we will experience it. Science is useful and that's pretty much it. The thing is, no matter how you put it, something exists, yet the existence of something is not logically necessary. Whatever exists, just does. Neither science nor God nor anything at all can tell you why or how, and I would argue that there is no possible answer to these questions: on one hand, "why" is relative to a purpose and a purpose requires a perspective, on the other, "how" is a procedure, which is something whose existence, in turn, cannot be explained. So no matter what exists, both "why" and "how" imply the existence of something else to explain (an entity or a procedure) and it just never ends.
Essentially, "the universe just exists" is as good as you'll ever get (and I would say a lot of people here are well aware of this). Personally, I just see the universe as a sort of computer or Turing machine running some program on some data, and science as the process of reverse-engineering that program from its output. It is a nice metaphor if you wrap your head around the fact it's pointless to try to interpret it literally.
The phrase "it came from" assumes causality (though it could be probabilistic causality).
Maybe there's confusion because nothing can be a troublesome concept. The phrase "it came from nothing" means something different to the phrase "it didn't come from anything". The latter is certainly reasonable, and my own belief. The former I do not consider possible, but that's in the context of how I'm treating the word 'nothing'.
A mechanism is "something". A literal "nothing" would exclude the very presence of a mechanism to change that state of affairs, so in a sense "nothing" perpetuates itself. If by "nothing" you mean a void or an absence of matter but not necessarily an absence of rules or mechanisms handling the transition from a state to the next, then yes, something could arise from nothing. This said, there is no reason to think that there ever was a complete void.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=player_embedded
In case this interests anyone. I find it to be pretty relevant to the topic: "A Universe from Nothing", by quantum physicist Lawrence Krauss-- it's rather humorous, too.
Lols.
I think my favorite line is: "Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today." People complain atheists are cold, and uncaring... but hell, our stories are far more majestic than any religious kinds. We are star-stuff.
"Nothing. By nothing I don't mean nothing... I mean nothing. If you take empty space-- and that means get rid of a ll the particles, all the radiation... absolutely everything! So there is nothing there, if that nothing weighs something, then it contributes a term like this. Now, that sounds ridiculous, why should nothing weigh something? Nothing is nothing! And the answer is nothing isn't nothing anymore in physics: because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity on extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in-and-out of existence in a time-scale so short you can't see them."
Krauss does an excellent job at delivering this to those not deeply steeped in physics, I highly recommend a watch despite its long run-time.
And lastly, for your enjoyment--- the big bang theory from an artist's point of view:
http://www.wimp.com/bigbang
In case this interests anyone. I find it to be pretty relevant to the topic: "A Universe from Nothing", by quantum physicist Lawrence Krauss-- it's rather humorous, too.
Lols.
I think my favorite line is: "Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today." People complain atheists are cold, and uncaring... but hell, our stories are far more majestic than any religious kinds. We are star-stuff.
"Nothing. By nothing I don't mean nothing... I mean nothing. If you take empty space-- and that means get rid of a ll the particles, all the radiation... absolutely everything! So there is nothing there, if that nothing weighs something, then it contributes a term like this. Now, that sounds ridiculous, why should nothing weigh something? Nothing is nothing! And the answer is nothing isn't nothing anymore in physics: because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity on extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in-and-out of existence in a time-scale so short you can't see them."
Krauss does an excellent job at delivering this to those not deeply steeped in physics, I highly recommend a watch despite its long run-time.
And lastly, for your enjoyment--- the big bang theory from an artist's point of view:
http://www.wimp.com/bigbang
As of right now, M-theory is nowhere near science. It's awesome and mind-blowing to think about, but it's not science. It makes no predictions, it is untestable, and it's all conjecture.
Are you responding to my video, or another post? Because I don't recall Krauss mentioning anything about dimensions, string theory, or M-theory in general.
Actually, I don't even think I've ever even heard Lawrence Krauss and M-theory in the same sentence until this one.
We do, it's simply not in the school curriculum yet so you don't hear about it (in a manner of speaking).