Cambrian Explosion - Proof of Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
About the universe’s contingency

It’s not self contingent, science does not even support this notion. It has a source, and origin, a reason for being that is not itself. If it were, scientists wouldn’t be trying to figure out where it came from. It’s circular reasoning which is fallacious.
[/quote]

This isn’t entirely true. There is a school of thought that the Universe (as defined by smh) has always existed. The Big Bang description of a “singularity” isn’t exactly as it’s described in layman’s terms. Simply, no one knows what it is or what it looked like.

Further, we cannot go back pass this time, but if we could, it’s very possible the Universe was expanded and something caused it to contract into what we refer to as the “singularity”. When it contracted as much as it could, it expanded again and here we are.

Check this out. It was very eye opening.

[/quote]

What you’re describing is a closed universe where energy/matter eventually slows down then contracts eventually causing a ‘big crunch’ and the formation of a singularity and then another Big Bang. However the problem still remains as to how the process initially started.

282

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What you’re describing is a closed universe where energy/matter eventually slows down then contracts eventually causing a ‘big crunch’ and the formation of a singularity and then another Big Bang. However the problem still remains as to how the process initially started.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that there must be an uncaused-cause. Something that has always been there or are you referring to the “big crunch”?

283

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What you’re describing is a closed universe where energy/matter eventually slows down then contracts eventually causing a ‘big crunch’ and the formation of a singularity and then another Big Bang. However the problem still remains as to how the process initially started.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that there must be an uncaused-cause. Something that has always been there or are you referring to the “big crunch”?[/quote]

Yes I’m talking about an uncaused cause. I thought you were arguing against it.

284

Evolution does not prove there is not a god, but to say that evolution does not exist seems strange. Subtract a gene from a small group of people by killing one of them and put the remaining people on an island and that gene will no longer exist for as long as the island stays isolated.

285

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What you’re describing is a closed universe where energy/matter eventually slows down then contracts eventually causing a ‘big crunch’ and the formation of a singularity and then another Big Bang. However the problem still remains as to how the process initially started.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that there must be an uncaused-cause. Something that has always been there or are you referring to the “big crunch”?[/quote]

Yes I’m talking about an uncaused cause. I thought you were arguing against it.

[/quote]

Ah no. If the universe is infinite and/or eternal, than itself is the uncaused-cause.

286

[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Evolution does not prove there is not a god, but to say that evolution does not exist seems strange. Subtract a gene from a small group of people by killing one of them and put the remaining people on an island and that gene will no longer exist for as long as the island stays isolated. [/quote]

Until it’s manifests itself again someday via a genetic mutation :wink:

But yes, the idea of evolution is really simple.

Genetic mutation gives something a better chance of survival; therefore, that trait gets passed on. A lot of genetic mutations don’t and typically those mutations get weeded out. I suppose you could argue that is one unintentional issue with our current medical system: Aiding the survival of genes that do not aid in our survivability.

287

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

Genetic mutation gives something a better chance of survival; therefore, that trait gets passed on. A lot of genetic mutations don’t and typically those mutations get weeded out. I suppose you could argue that is one unintentional issue with our current medical system: Aiding the survival of genes that do not aid in our survivability. [/quote]

Aye. The survival of our species (if that is ones imposed subjective/opinion standard) doesn’t require us to spend resources on maladaptive traits, the elderly past their reproductive value, etc.

288

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What you’re describing is a closed universe where energy/matter eventually slows down then contracts eventually causing a ‘big crunch’ and the formation of a singularity and then another Big Bang. However the problem still remains as to how the process initially started.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that there must be an uncaused-cause. Something that has always been there or are you referring to the “big crunch”?[/quote]

Yes I’m talking about an uncaused cause. I thought you were arguing against it.

[/quote]

Ah no. If the universe is infinite and/or eternal, than itself is the uncaused-cause. [/quote]

Infinite and/ or eternal? You mean like turtles all the way down(infinite regress)?

289

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

Genetic mutation gives something a better chance of survival; therefore, that trait gets passed on. A lot of genetic mutations don’t and typically those mutations get weeded out. I suppose you could argue that is one unintentional issue with our current medical system: Aiding the survival of genes that do not aid in our survivability. [/quote]

Aye. The survival of our species (if that is ones imposed subjective/opinion standard) doesn’t require us to spend resources on maladaptive traits, the elderly past their reproductive value, etc.[/quote]

Correct. This appears to be true inherently; however, perhaps our desire to care about other people is also genetically driven (whether one gene or a combination of genes which end up controlling or emotions and behaviors) and this behavior has and will continue to aid in the continuous of our species survival.

How different of a world we would live in if those who can’t fend for themselves due to genetic issues OR even results of accidents were just thrown to the sharks. Perhaps we would destroy ourselves without this trait?

290

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What you’re describing is a closed universe where energy/matter eventually slows down then contracts eventually causing a ‘big crunch’ and the formation of a singularity and then another Big Bang. However the problem still remains as to how the process initially started.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that there must be an uncaused-cause. Something that has always been there or are you referring to the “big crunch”?[/quote]

Yes I’m talking about an uncaused cause. I thought you were arguing against it.

[/quote]

Ah no. If the universe is infinite and/or eternal, than itself is the uncaused-cause. [/quote]

Infinite and/ or eternal? You mean like turtles all the way down(infinite regress)?
[/quote]

Eternal meaning always.

Infinite meaning it is everything. There’s nothing “outside” of it. Even if there were other dimensions, that would be part of the Universe, just not our observable universe.

291

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What you’re describing is a closed universe where energy/matter eventually slows down then contracts eventually causing a ‘big crunch’ and the formation of a singularity and then another Big Bang. However the problem still remains as to how the process initially started.
[/quote]

I think we’ve established that there must be an uncaused-cause. Something that has always been there or are you referring to the “big crunch”?[/quote]

Yes I’m talking about an uncaused cause. I thought you were arguing against it.

[/quote]

Ah no. If the universe is infinite and/or eternal, than itself is the uncaused-cause. [/quote]

Infinite and/ or eternal? You mean like turtles all the way down(infinite regress)?
[/quote]

Eternal meaning always.

Infinite meaning it is everything. There’s nothing “outside” of it. Even if there were other dimensions, that would be part of the Universe, just not our observable universe.
[/quote]

“…the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” - Stephen Hawking

292

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

How different of a world we would live in if those who can’t fend for themselves due to genetic issues OR even results of accidents were just thrown to the sharks. Perhaps we would destroy ourselves without this trait? [/quote]

Like pre-welfare/entitlement history?

293

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

How different of a world we would live in if those who can’t fend for themselves due to genetic issues OR even results of accidents were just thrown to the sharks. Perhaps we would destroy ourselves without this trait? [/quote]

Like pre-welfare/entitlement history?
[/quote]

I think there is a difference b/w community “welfare” vs State “welfare”.

I’m assuming you are referring to State welfare/entitlement?

294

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Evolution does not prove there is not a god, but to say that evolution does not exist seems strange. Subtract a gene from a small group of people by killing one of them and put the remaining people on an island and that gene will no longer exist for as long as the island stays isolated. [/quote]

Until it’s manifests itself again someday via a genetic mutation :wink:

But yes, the idea of evolution is really simple.

Genetic mutation gives something a better chance of survival; therefore, that trait gets passed on. A lot of genetic mutations don’t and typically those mutations get weeded out. I suppose you could argue that is one unintentional issue with our current medical system: Aiding the survival of genes that do not aid in our survivability. [/quote]

I believe macroevolution is what is usually being argued against in these debates. I don’t believe anybody(well, I’m sure someone does, somewhere) argues against microevolution. Has macroevolution ever been observed? If not, then evolution remains a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis requiring an almost incomprehensible time frame combined with a belief that given enough time, random chance will produce mutations totally different than what have been observed.

I’m not a scientist, but this has always been my understanding of evolution. A belief in macroevolution requires faith.

295

[quote]pat wrote:

-Things exist uncaused that are not the Uncaused-cause.
-An infinite regress is possible.

The former point, I think can be worked out as false. But it does take work.
[/quote]

As we touched on about a page ago, this was the question around which that other sprawling thread revolved. It wasn’t proved then, and I contend that it will continue to go unproved by either relying on circularity or relying on equally unprovable assertive maxims. If you look into what, for example, Craig writes about the causal principle, you will note that this contention of mine is consistent with his choice of words on the subject (i.e., if I am recalling correctly, you will note the absence of the words “logical impossibility”). This from one of the most confident theist philosophers in the public eye, bar none. And, glancing around at the work of others, you will find similar evidence (“GOD IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE” is a line often tossed around: Note the absence of words like “only” or “proved” or “must.”)

It–my contention–is also consistent with the most fundamental material prefatory to the philosophy of science. (Note that I’m talking about the philosophy of science, not science itself.) There is serious literature on the subject, but for a very simple illustration, see this:

These are called assumptions because that is exactly what they are. They cannot be proved by deductive arguments that do not circle around each other or reduce to further assumptions, which will reduce to further assumptions. Strong assumptions; assumptions whose negations are nearly unthinkable–but assumptions.

note also that you will see reputable material speak of “attempts to prove the causal principle/the principle of determinism” (like Kant’s), rather than “proofs of the causal principle.”

Of course, all this talk is really just that. If we really want to duke that one out again, we should just get into it.

296

[quote]NickViar wrote:
A belief in macroevolution requires faith.
[/quote]

A belief that you are not plugged into the Matrix requires faith.

As for observation, a very fast Google search will illuminate the issue and dispel much of the nonsense grounded in misinterpretations of the scientific method.

297

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
A belief that you are not plugged into the Matrix requires faith.
[/quote]

Yes, it does. Any explanation of the beginning requires religious faith-that’s why these things have no place in schools(especially government schools).

298

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
A belief that you are not plugged into the Matrix requires faith.
[/quote]

Yes, it does. Any explanation of the beginning requires religious faith-that’s why these things have no place in schools(especially government schools). [/quote]

Emphasis mine, and relevant: No it doesn’t. At least not under any common definition of the word “religious.”

Anyway, epistemologically necessary uncertainty (against which scientific evidence is collected and set up) and religious faith are two very different things, and only one of them doesn’t belong in a science classroom.

299

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
A belief that you are not plugged into the Matrix requires faith.
[/quote]

Yes, it does. Any explanation of the beginning requires religious faith-that’s why these things have no place in schools(especially government schools). [/quote]

Emphasis mine, and relevant: No it doesn’t. At least not under any common definition of the word “religious.”

Anyway, epistemologically necessary uncertainty (against which scientific evidence is collected and set up) and religious faith are two very different things, and only one of them doesn’t belong in a science classroom.[/quote]

Religion, as defined by Merriam-Webster, can mean: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

“A scientific theory,” according to livescience.com, "summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step-known as a theory-in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

The next two paragraphs, of livescience.com, go on to state:

"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."

This experiment seems to be an important one for evolutionists: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/01/key-step-in-evolution-from-single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

-Again, at the end of the day, it seems the yeast was still yeast. It appears that microevolution is what was observed.

Can you explain(maybe there’s a good explanation that I know nothing of) why that is a better foundation for a theory than the fact that no species has ever been observed evolving from another(Really, if observation has any relevance, more evidence-if it can be called that-exists for creation that evolution, right?)?

*I’m not claiming that my belief should be taught in science classrooms, either. I’d like to live in a world where science is about…science.

300

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’d like to live in a world where science is about…science.[/quote]

Me too. Which is why I want the scientific community’s honest consensus taught in, you know, science classrooms. Surely you know the scientific community’s consensus on the question of evolution.

As for your specific points, I repeat that the question of macroevolution’s observation is a single Google search away. Of particular interest to you is the role and location of observation among the scientific method’s progression, the kinds of observation that are considered scientific, and the kinds of evidence that are considered legitimate. You may also want to look into what other “unobserved”–(the inverted commas are not accidental)–things you “know” about the world.

In other words, I enjoy debating these things only when the debate is interesting. It is not interesting for me to regurgitate basic information that can be found in a hundred thousand reputable places, and it is most certainly not interesting for me to debate weak arguments. That you haven’t seen security camera footage of macroevolution–this is as weak an argument as I can imagine. Surely you’ve come across evolution’s temporal scope before, yes?