Cambrian Explosion - Proof of Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:

The questions are these:

  1. What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”

Most calculations I have seen put the odds at 1 in 4 x 10^17 chance of happening accident.

And they are darts launched by blind men at invisible targets in the pitch dark. The odds that the universe would be as it is are incalculable without our old friends, grossly monumental assumption and groundless guessing.
[/quote]
Sure there are assumptions in place, for instance that there was a pool of ‘material’ to work with in the first place, but I wouldn’t consider it blind guessing. It’s actually a pretty well thought out theory. It considers the amount of variables given the initial conditions of the early universe and calculates the various possible outcomes given the amount of possible variations of those conditions.It’s basal premises are that which science agrees on with regards to the initial conditions of the universe. Sure assumptions are in play, but they are not monumental or made up assumptions. The assumptions on which it’s based are scientific assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

Well your question was asked in such a way that the existence of God was affirmed as true in the question. It wasn’t a question whether God exists, but whether or not He ‘…caused things to turn out so well for us’.
As an aside, God’s existence is not an ‘enormous assumption’. There are still valid arguments for the existence of God which have not been disproven.
That does not mean that objections have not been made, or that everyone holds the arguments in high regard, only that they have not been disproven.

The calculation does not assume God’s existence, agency, or causal input. It only calculates the amount of possible outcomes based on the initial conditions of the universe. At least considering the initial conditions which have thus far been determined as scientifically likely.
It doesn’t consider the cause of it at all.

[quote]

  1. Which set of odds is likelier?

Well clearly the latter.

Neither, because neither set of odds is calculable, or even exists at all.[/quote]
Well they calculated it, so I don’t think it’s incalculable. Doesn’t mean they are spot on accurate, necessarily; doesn’t mean more variables cannot be considered in the future as more discoveries are made. But given enough variables and their possible outcomes, calculations can be made and have been. It’s just data, and data can be calculated.

[EDIT: Cleaned up ‘quotes’][/quote]

Two points, and a request.

  1. When I spoke of the odds that God created the physical parameters of the universe, I meant implicitly that part of that (incalculable) calculation would include the odds that God exists. But you’re right, my wording was imprecise, so add that in there.

  2. It is indeed an enormous assumption, to do any “calculation” after assuming that God either exists or does not exist. It is the largest question that man has ever asked, and to assume one way or another in order to do some kind of equation is to make blind guesses. As for valid arguments for God’s existence, there is a very important difference between valid arguments and sound proofs. (The following is a valid argument: 1. All men are shoes. 2. Pat is a man. 3. Therefore, Pat is a shoe.) Furthermore, it is not that the arguments have been or will be disproved, it is that they rely on assumptions that cannot be proved or disproved either way, at least as of now.

Most importantly: As for whether the odds that you’re speaking of are calculable or not, can you cite the particular calculation or study or whatever you’re referencing? I would rather we know we’re talking about the same thing.

102

To reply to the OP, in no way does the Cambrian explosion prove intelligent design. OP is lazy for starting a topic without providing any context into his conclusion and what he wants discussed.

You tell us how the Cambrian explosion proves intelligent design and then we can discuss from there. I have a hard time believing the OP even understands what intelligent design and the Cambrian explosion are.

Intelligent design is NOT the idea that God exists or “set the wheels in motion”. That is an entirely different discussion and its not a scientific discussion. It just so happens some “old earth creationists” believe in the concept of intelligent design. Intelligent design is being posited as a SCIENTIFIC theory as an alternative to evolution. It is not a theological argument.

This actually could have been a decent and focused scientific discussion had the OP put any effort into it. Now it’s largely just another “does God exist” debate. The Cambrian “explosion” is actually pretty interesting.

103

Holy shit I have never laughed louder following a theological debate than I did having read this line.

Too perfect

104

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?[/quote]

You’re way too smart to be making these silly statements. There’s no way this is what you are really getting hung up on. No freaking way.

Instead of the dome stumbling block please deal with the following:

"theist view – conventionally accepted evolution (macro), of course, posits that death has existed since the first life and was part of the original (secular) “plan;” it is inherent that life forms die – trillions of deaths over billions of years.

Judaism/Christianity/Islam teaches that creation was originally perfect and all death is a direct result of man’s original sin. For one to mix the two (macro-evolution and creation) is to pull the legs out from under the creation model. In other words, how could Adam – fully formed, perfect and sentient – have committed the original sin which began the cascade of death ever since…and yet be the result of billions of years of prior death?" [/quote]

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

I personally don’t care if a Christian is a young-earth creationist.
And, I wouldn’t care if I was an atheist, either. It’s not like there’s some moral value either way on the issue in a godless/purposeless universe. One could live/believe any way one chooses, and not be morally wrong. Therefore, I wouldn’t be “morally outraged” as others are here, despite my own conclusions.

105

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

[/quote]

It’s been far too long since I’ve thought about how original sin is compatible with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis so I’m not going to jump into that debate. But as you alluded to, there are certainly theological arguments for it.

There are no debates about the dome because most people haven’t read Genesis or their recollection of Genesis is poor. Everyone remembers God breathing life into clay to create man and that Eve came from a rib. It’s probably more interesting for people to debate the origin of man than it is celestial bodies. It’s just more accessible and relevant for people, IMO.

106

[quote]c.m.l. wrote:

Holy shit I have never laughed louder following a theological debate than I did having read this line.

Too perfect[/quote]
That’s because you are unintelligent. Those things called words have meanings. Did Jesus prove he was the son of God? No, he did not. He may have performed miracles but they were not done to prove anything. Everything he did still required faith in order for them to be seen as acts of a divine being. In fact, when asked to prove he was the Messiah he refused.

108

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

[/quote]

It’s been far too long since I’ve thought about how original sin is compatible with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis so I’m not going to jump into that debate. But as you alluded to, there are certainly theological arguments for it.

There are no debates about the dome because most people haven’t read Genesis or their recollection of Genesis is poor. Everyone remembers God breathing life into clay to create man and that Eve came from a rib. It’s probably more interesting for people to debate the origin of man than it is celestial bodies. It’s just more accessible and relevant for people, IMO.[/quote]

Which is bass-ackwards.

Space flight. Moon-landing. How many Young earth Creationists deny the moon-landing? Both are outright impossible with a literal interpretation (Genesis as scientific text). Every space mission would either crash into the dome, or reported on how they had to pass through the same ‘gates’ the rain waters enter from.

So why is it always evolution?! Aaaargh!

109

Again, I actually don’t care. For me, the question has no moral impact. And if I were atheist, I’d ultimately believe there was no “wrong” way of being. The dumb universe has no rule saying one must accept evolution or lose objective value (since ultimately there is none). I just don’t understand why it’s always evolution vs. Genesis.

112

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

It’s been far too long since I’ve thought about how original sin is compatible with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis so I’m not going to jump into that debate. But as you alluded to, there are certainly theological arguments for it.

[/quote]

I’d like to hear them.

[/quote]

I thought you were gonna be tied up?

113

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way there is a “dome” above the earth. It is made up principally of nitrogen, oxygen and water at lower levels and cosmic dust, asteroids, planets, stars, meteors, comets, galaxies, space, etc. further away.

I don’t understand what your dome deal is and why it vexes you so.[/quote]

That’s not at all a literal translation.

“The following is the order of Creation as given in Gen. 1.: (1) the heaven; (2) the earth; (3) the plants; (4) the celestial bodies; (5) the animals; (6) man. The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse”

Genesis isn’t a scientific text. It is imparting other things through imagery already familiar to ancient Hebrews. The idea of the dome/firmament wasn’t new, by the way. As for outside of the dome…water.

And the celestial bodies you speak of are set IN the dome/valut/firmament.

14 And God said, â??Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.â?? And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsâ??the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1

115

The thing is, I don’t even care how YOU feel about it. It’s not a morally weighted issue either way from my view. Nor am I concerned about your view of my own position. I’m a Papist in the south, so I’ve heard it all. I don’t care if a man believes in or teaches creationism to his children. I don’t care that there is a sect that eschews modern technology and calls the rest of us “the English.” Nor, do I think the deaf, dumb, cold universe of the Atheist values the Evolutionary Biologist or Physicist more than the founder(s) of Young Earth Creationism museum. They all have the same objective value. None. I could turn away from science, technology, and whatnot myself, and no evil would have been done in such a universe.

I chimed in because I have no idea why non-believers are solely fixated on evolution/age-of-earth stuff while there are certain matters a bit easier to demonstrate. It’s true, I can’t point to a man and say “watch, he’ll evolve a vastly larger head and eyes.” Or, while I can view a series of fossils, I can’t point out an ape evolving right before our eyes into a human being. But they could say “well, do the shuttles have to pass through rain gates or whatever in the dome in order to reach the vacuum of space?” Buuuut, noooo, it’s always evolution vs creationism. Always.

118

Don’t want to create a new thread-this seems as good a place as any for this.