Evolution (I'm talking about the origin of all life and not the variation within a species) is widely accepted and is considered (by some) "scientific truth". Yet real science is gained through observation and experimentation. Did we observe the first form of life come into existance? Did we observe one form of life change into a completely different form of life? No..according to evolution that takes millions of years. Are there any fossils that show this slow million year process? No..this isn't true science. It's a theory a mere speculation on the origin of life.
Me: This type of evolution is an interpretation of historical data as opposed to a result of the scientific method.
M.W.: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
M.W.: I assume this is coming from your belief in creationism?If so, please show me some of your evidence for creationism... preferably not from the bible.
Me: M.W., perhaps first you would explain how something can come from nothing. Before there was photons, gravity, or matter, before the Big Bang, where did stuff come from? And perhaps you can answer without the obligatory denigration of those who believe in god or gods.
A.R.: So should we even consider evolution a theory? Once a hypothesis is verified through experimentation and observation it becomes a theory. There are HUGE gaps in the fossil record. You'd think that if evolution were true there would be a continuous flux in the organic world instead of a very stable set of species.
A.R.: There are no sub species or transitional species. If we all evolved from one form of life why can't we interbreed? Sure in a lab we can produce a catdog but it's sterile it can't reproduce another catdog on its own can it? Not only that but where did DNA come from? It's information, a blueprint for every living organism. Information doesn't just pop out of no where.
M.W.: Here is some good information on the subject, If I had more time i would craft my own argument but i need to leave. I am by no means trying to offend anyone who may be religious.http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/do-gaps-fossil-record-disprove-descent-with-modification
M.W.: James S Trotter- A scientific theory is not the same as our everyday usage of "theory." A scientific theory is sound, backed by evidence, and demonstrable, like the theory of gravity. Evolution has more evidence than any other scientific theory to date. It is an incontrovertible fact of our universe; evolution happens.
A.R.: This movie doesnt prove creation but really no one can prove evolution or creation. It leads you to think though can random unthinking processes really be our true origin?
M.W.: Also, the tactic of elevating the super rational barrier is pointless in regards to proving any creator/disproving physics as it leads to an infinite regress of "what created that?" You ask a question that is a paradox, a trick of language.. Like the liar's paradox (google it). That is to say, if you posit that something simply had to create what came before the big bang as a rule, then your axiom also posits that something had to make that creator/creation system, then the creator of that, and so on into infinity. Now to stop at your personal creator de jour is to imply that it adheres to different axioms which implies that such an omnipotent already exists. That is no form of proof or disproof, whatsoever. Example: Saying the bible is true because God wrote it is not proof that it is true as it is predicated on the belief in which it insists exists. If this is logically acceptable then I am a potato and that is true because I said so and I should know, right... I am the one who is the potato and clearly as the potato I am most qualified to discern as to whether I am a potato or not.
A.L.: It's not the "theory" of gravity, it's the LAW of gravity. Also webster's defines "theory" as a PROPOSED explanation whose status is still CONJECTURAL. Contemplation or speculation. Guess or conjecture.
Me: M.W., the commonly accepted definition of God is a being who is not created. Therefore, your suggestion of infinite regress is a Category Error.
No one has posited that "something had to create what came before the Big Bang..." In fact, you are the one who injected gods into the discussion.
I asked you directly to account for a process where something can come from nothing. Why don't you answer that before we move on to god or gods.
M.W.: Rich, do we now have to define something and nothing? At what point did anyone say that something came from nothing? I may have made an assumption and read between lines, perhaps. I think it is quite reasonable to infer, though, that your comment carried the heavy implication that a god created the "something". You asked, "where did stuff come from?" An answer to that implies that you are looking for something that created it as you chronologically went through a cursory history of matter. If you are trying to use set theory to shroud an honest discussion, then we are at a stand still as your questions implies a certain group of sets in which one could answer. I was trying to dismiss the irrational sets wholly and confine myself to the reasonable ones. I think you may need to do a bit more research on the nature of matter and astrophysics. Again, I refer to the infinite regress that comes from raising the rational barrier as one sees fit. If a god does not require a creator logically, why does matter? This is what I am saying, these are rhetorical questions.. Any explanation for how such a god could exist is just as applicable for the nature of matter but lacks all the other evidence that physics has, ergo, physics seems to be more accurate and likely to predict an unseen truth. Also "And perhaps you can answer without the obligatory denigration of those who believe in god or gods"-- I did not inject gods initially. I am simply trying to remove such a notion that is fruitless and has no place in any scientific discussion. Really, if the linear (and generally considered antiquated now) concept of time is removed, why did anything have to "happen" " before" the big bang? Existence is manifold...
Me: M.W., I am asking a question. If you cannot answer, simply say so. Admitting your ignorance does not diminish you in any way.
M.W.: Again, this is like the liar's paradox. I cannot seem to provide an answer you find satisfactory. What, exactly is the question?
Me: Before we talk about gods, can you tell me what happened before the Big Bang, before anything existed? You have yet to give an answer, let alone a satisfactory one.
M.W.: I realize my responses are verbose and a bit long winded, but I answered that in both rational and irrational capacities in my response of 25 minutes ago.
M.W.: Nothing "happened" before the big bang. That is the simplest way I can answer that.
Me: Your last response is succinct and cogent. Thank you. If I understand you correctly, the Big Bang was the first thing that happened. Various particles of matter were floating around and reacted in such a way as to precipitate a huge explosion, creating an event where stars and galaxies formed, is this correct?
M.W.: Honestly, not to be rude, but no. There are some confusing areas when it comes to quantum dynamics at this level. For example, let’s say a photon and its behavior. It exhibits both wave and particle like behavior. But it is considered mass-less. Outside of relativistic properties and energy-mass relationships, it is hard to use our common words of particle or energy with Bosons when we are contemplating them macroscopically. I imagine you picture something more akin to a chemical reaction, which is not at all what happened in the big bang in this regard.
Me: No rudeness discerned. We are simply conversing on FB, not preparing a treatise. You have a propensity to obfuscate with minutiae when we are discussing general concepts. I am fully aware of the properties of photons, but it is tangential to the discussion. As are bosons. As is any distinction between what kinds of reaction may have happened.
If I may summarize, you appear to think that there never was a state where nothing existed. Matter has always been around. So the only real difference between you and a theist that I can see is that the events of creation were perpetrated by an unconscious, always existent, powerful force as opposed to a conscious, always existent powerful force.
Me: Your last response is succinct and cogent. Thank you. If I understand you correctly, the Big Bang was the first thing that happened. Various particles of matter were floating around and reacted in such a way as to precipitate a huge explosion, creating an event where stars and galaxies formed, is this correct?
M.W.: Honestly, not to be rude, but no. There are some confusing areas when it comes to quantum dynamics at this level. For example, let’s say a photon and its behavior. It exhibits both wave and particle like behavior. But it is considered mass-less. Outside of relativistic properties and energy-mass relationships, it is hard to use our common words of particle or energy with Bosons when we are contemplating them macroscopically. I imagine you picture something more akin to a chemical reaction, which is not at all what happened in the big bang in this regard.
Me: No rudeness discerned. We are simply conversing on FB, not preparing a treatise. You have a propensity to obfuscate with minutiae when we are discussing general concepts. I am fully aware of the properties of photons, but it is tangential to the discussion. As are bosons. As is any distinction between what kinds of reaction may have happened.
If I may summarize, you appear to think that there never was a state where nothing existed. Matter has always been around. So the only real difference between you and a theist that I can see is that the events of creation were perpetrated by an unconscious, always existent, powerful force as opposed to a conscious, always existent powerful force.
No comments:
Post a Comment