Evolution vs. Creation

[cuppajoe_9]

Right, sorry. Long day.

[ShoutGrace]

Just for Redzeppelin's sake. But it is getting late, at that . . .

[Redzeppelin]

Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?"

There's a difference: if I'm wrong, I've lost little. I die with an illusion and am never conscious of my delusion; but, my life was of value to others (if I lived out my convictions properly). If you're wrong, your loss is eternal. As to the listing of deities, well, I never denied they existed. Whether they do or not doesn't change anything. Why do you think God says in Commandment #1 "thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Those "gods" may be figurative, but neither I nor C.S. Lewis have ruled out the existence of other "gods."

What problem? All circles are much the same. They have a common ratio between the circumference and the radius. The word (or rather letter) for that ratio is pi. Pi, expressed mathematically, happens to be an irrational number. I'm not sure which part of this implies the existence of deities."

Again: I did not post that the existence of this number implied any deity. The presence of the "golden ratio" in biology, art, and mathematics points to something beyond simple chance. That the ratio "just happens" to show up in such varied areas strikes me as suggestive of something guiding the universe beyond blind force.

If you are a gene which builds more efficient structures, you are more likely to propogate yourself. Give it a few hundred thousand generations, and the best genes win out by building more efficient snail shells. 'More efficient', in this context, means 'closer to phi'.

OK - but why pi? Why not some other ratio? Why is pi more efficient? Why should the blind forces of nature construct along these lines?

Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.

Fine. But explaining how something happened does not necessarily mean that the origin of that event is a settled thing. If I walked into a room that had never before been entered by another person and saw a spinning ball that perpetually spun, I could explain what it's doing, but I'd have no idea but mere guesses as to what got it moving in the first place. (And personally, I'm not much interested in how weak that analogy is, so deconstructing it - in my opinion - won't accomplish much.) I think my point is clear.

[cuppajoe_9]

There's a difference: if I'm wrong, I've lost little. I die with an illusion and am never conscious of my delusion; but, my life was of value to others (if I lived out my convictions properly). If you're wrong, your loss is eternal.

Pascal's Wager? Surely you jest. My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.

The presence of the "golden ratio" in biology, art, and mathematics points to something beyond simple chance. That the ratio "just happens" to show up in such varied areas strikes me as suggestive of something guiding the universe beyond blind force.

The laws of physics guide the universe. I've explained the prevalence of phi twice now, and you have simply repeated that you don't understand. It's an efficient ratio, so evolution selects those genes which build stuctures which employ it. As to art: I would imagine that it's considered beautiful precisely because it appears so often in nature.

OK - but why pi [sic]? Why not some other ratio?

Meaningless question. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what number value of phi happened to be.

If I walked into a room that had never before been entered by another person and saw a spinning ball that perpetually spun, I could explain what it's doing, but I'd have no idea but mere guesses as to what got it moving in the first place.

I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before. Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.

[Redzeppelin]

Pascal's Wager? Surely you jest. My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no [sic] that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.

It's different if you die and that's the end than if you die and "wake up" to find that eternal life could have been yours. And, God does not "send" anybody to hell. He allows you to choose (there's that pesky word again!) your destination. One theologian put it nicely: he said that the people who will be in heaven will be people who would enjoy what heaven has to offer. C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce contends that not everybody would like what heaven has to offer. It's a great (quick) read.

The laws of physics guide the universe. I've explained the prevalence of phi twice now, and you have simply repeated that you don't understand. It's an efficient ratio, so evolution selects those genes which build stuctures which employ it. As to art: I would imagine that it's considered beautiful precisely because it appears so often in nature.

You're right - I don't understand. That may be due to my ignorance, or your inability to offer me something that answers my question in an effective, convincing way. I'm not sure which it is - I'm not a math guy, so I should probably step away from the phi debate. My initial comments were in support of Silv's comments. I'm not sure I buy that physics - as a non-sentient natural force - explains the prevalence of phi, but I'm not going to debate that point because I have no authority in that area.

Meaningless question. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what number value of phi happened to be.

Perhaps it is "meaningless", but it was meaningful to me. The number doesn't matter - it's its reoccurrence as a pattern that interests me. Physics can explain some patterns - can it explain them all?

I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before. Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.

Well, as much as you feel you repeat yourself, I feel the same. If you examine my posts, I am not drawing a syllogistic conclusion that the "unknowability" of the origin of the universe points to the existence of God; rather, I'm pointing out that your position is just as etherial as mine - but your language suggests that science's speculations point to a certainty. Like yourself, I think the universe offers clues as to its origins. I'm asking you (or whomever wishes to pick up the argument) to explain why certain things should be the way they are if there is no guiding intelligence to the universe. Finally, who says the Big Bang happened at all? Your statement implies that you do know how at least part of our universe "started."

[Silv]

cuupajoe, I hope you didn't miss out my response to your arguments earlier on - at the bottom of P.78

Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.

So could Ptolemy. I don't see a point here. Pinker can explain to you how those things happened based on human intelligence - what we believe to be true, even the simplest things. He also uses simple theories and concepts which were formulated by us humans. We take a lot of things for granted, believing in our reasoning. Who's to say our reasoning is correct, perfect, and flawless? Is it not just how our brain interprets things in such a way as to make sense out of the world? Unless you're willing to say for sure that human knowledge is absolutely flawless and perfect, then that point is invalid.

My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.

Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?

How do you know whose loss is eternal, and whose isn't? For that matter, how do you know God exists and that he would "send you to hell anyway"? That is a consequence that you believe in - who's right? who's wrong? Do we know for sure?
..Hence the reason I advocate that either of the two theories could work, and that it could be anything.

OK - but why pi? Why not some other ratio? Why is pi more efficient? Why should the blind forces of nature construct along these lines?

The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.

I think what cuppajoe is saying is that we're just using pi as an example, and that it would be the same case for any other theory or model.

I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before.

All the underlined bits already show uncertainty. We have no more proof of how the universe started than of God existing, or of Evolution having done that. Even the simple notion of believing in the Big Bang is already casting your faith on Evolution, when either of the two cannot be proven valid over the other.

Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.

The above is what Wintermute said earlier:

I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion.

To which I replied:

I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe. It could be Evolution, or it could be Intelligent Design. My point is that it could be anything, and we don't have to restrict ourselves to either Evolution or Creationism.

I also re-explained this point later on:

Hm...well, we have to acknowledge that it [life, the world, the universe] exists*, don't we? o.o
If we acknowledge that somehow the universe got here, then it follows that we're acknowledging that something happened, whether it was evolution, creationism, or anything else.

Basing something on our hopes and fears is silly, but in this case we're basing it on what we know: we didn't create the Universe. If we didn't, something, someone, or some process must have. I think that's where we agree, in that it could be anything - anything is possible.

..It is not an argument from ignorance that we did not create the universe. We know humans didn't do it. Therefore, it follows that something, someone, or some other process did it.

As I said before and I'll repeat again, there is not a reason for us to believe strictly in either Evolution or Creationism: anything is possible.

[cuppajoe_9]

One theologian put it nicely: he said that the people who will be in heaven will be people who would enjoy what heaven has to offer.

Well it that's all it takes, then what does it matter whether or not I believe in God?

If you examine my posts, I am not drawing a syllogistic conclusion that the "unknowability" of the origin of the universe points to the existence of God; rather, I'm pointing out that your position is just as etherial as mine - but your language suggests that science's speculations point to a certainty.

You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that it is certain that no gods exist, I simply do not believe that no gods exist and, furthermore, all the empirical evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that it is very likely that no gods exist. Nothing is certain.

I'm asking you (or whomever wishes to pick up the argument) to explain why certain things should be the way they are if there is no guiding intelligence to the universe.

That question lends itself more to an encyclopaedia than a message board, but I think I've been giving it a shot. Evolution is one important part of the answer. Simple structures combine to form complex structures when their environment demands that they do so.

Finally, who says the Big Bang happened at all? Your statement implies that you do know how at least part of our universe "started."

The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre. We do know a bit about the origins of the universe, but nothing at all about the actual moment at which the universe began to exist.

[Silv]

*doubletakes* You're an AP ENGLISH TEACHER?

[cuppajoe_9]

From earlier (I did, in fact, miss that response, and I apologize):

[Concerning pi]By that statement, you are already accepting the fact that "things work because that's how they are", and therefore are assuming that our theories are to be trusted.

Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.

At the time before we could understand and appreciate his theory, we believed Ptolemy's system to be the valid one, and that Copernicus was crazy. Later, we accepted Copernicus's as opposed to Ptolemy's since it soon became evident from our studies. Now, what's to stop someone from coming along and proving us otherwise?

I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.

So could Ptolemy.

Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.

Who's to say our reasoning is correct, perfect, and flawless? Is it not just how our brain interprets things in such a way as to make sense out of the world? Unless you're willing to say for sure that human knowledge is absolutely flawless and perfect, then that point is invalid.

You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show why it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.

How do you know whose loss is eternal, and whose isn't? For that matter, how do you know God exists and that he would "send you to hell anyway"?

Well if he wouldn't then Pascal's Wager is invalid anyway, and I remain entirely without a reason to believe in God.

That is a consequence that you believe in...

The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.

Hence the reason I advocate that either of the two theories could work, and that it could be anything.

Of course it could be anything, but it only is one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?

We have no more proof of how the universe started than of God existing, or of Evolution having done that.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, oh so very emphatically wrong. We DO have evidence for evolution. Mountains of evidence. Huge piles of evidence. Large museums filled with evidence. Wonderfully thick, lucid, well-written books filled with evidence. I can't prove that there is no God, or that there is no Thor, or that there is no Flying Spaghetti monster, true, but do you want me to accept that all of those things are equally likely just because I can't meet your impossible standard of proof?

It is not an argument from ignorance that we did not create the universe. We know humans didn't do it. Therefore, it follows that something, someone, or some other process did it.

Correct. However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.

[Redzeppelin]

In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.

Well it that's all it takes, then what does it matter whether or not I believe in God?

*Sigh* - for the sake of brevity I spoke thusly, so as not to turn this thread into a sermon. "Believing in God" is kind of a prerequisite since He's the landlord. The point was about being "sent" to hell - not the requirements for getting into heaven.

You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that it is certain that no gods exist, I simply do not believe that no gods exist and, furthermore, all the empirical evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that it is very likely that no gods exist. Nothing is certain.

Sorry if I've done this - but my post did not say the "certainty" was connected to the existence of gods. The "certainty" applies to your assertion of the evolutionistic beginnings of the universe.

The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre. We do know a bit about the origins of the universe, but nothing at all about the actual moment at which the universe began to exist.

The red shift of which you speak I am aware of - but that expansion does not definitively suggest the Big Bang as an exclusive source of that expansion; it suggests a highly probable source. And, it does not suggest that God was not behind the origin of that Bang.

[cuppajoe_9]

*doubletakes* You're an AP ENGLISH TEACHER?

Me? Why yes, as a matter of fact.

[Silv]

BOTH OF YOU? *faints and slides away*

[cuppajoe_9]

"Believing in God" is kind of a prerequisite since He's the landlord.

Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.

The "certainty" applies to your assertion of the evolutionistic beginnings of the universe.

Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.

The red shift of which you speak I am aware of - but that expansion does not definitively suggest the Big Bang as an exclusive source of that expansion; it suggests a highly probable source.

And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.

And, it does not suggest that God was not behind the origin of that Bang.

And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.

[Redzeppelin]

Man, you're energetic. How do you keep up?

Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.

Again: I don't want to turn this into a theological seminary, so I will have to be content with saying that the God you're describing is not one that the Bible describes. Everyone is given a chance (probably more likely many, many chances) to "find" God. Nobody who dies the "second death" (because I don't believe in eternal suffering either for sin that was committed during a finite lifetime) will do so without having been given ample chance to choose otherwise.

Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.

Again: I was only responding to your charge of "putting words" in your mouth. You're quibbling over terminology that I did not attempt to pick up. If I'm a little loose with my terms, forgive me - I'm not even slightly scientifically literate. And, I'm not "demanding" anything - I'm simply asking for clarification. Christians will generally admit that we cannot "prove" God exists - but you rarely hear an atheist admit the same; many speak of evolution and/or cosmological origins as if science has all but nailed them down - a "certainty" so to speak.

And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.

Yep.

And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.

I didn't say it did. I'm pointing out that the process we observe as "red shift" has a number of possible origins besides a spontaneously occurring explosion.

[Silv]

*le sigh* XD I still have a bunch of rhetorical précis to write for Monday. Oh and um, cuppajoe (oO 19? I doubt you're an AP English teacher)..you spelled my sn wrong in all the quotations..o.o

In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.

Actually, I'm just an AP Lang student.

Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.

Yes but taking again from my earlier example of Copernicus and Ptolemy: both their calculations always led to the same conclusions. However, now we believe in Copernicus's. What I'm saying is that our reason cannot always be trusted.

I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.

You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show why it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.

Of course it could be anything, but it only is one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?

We've got to work with what we have - That I agree with. But we don't have to choose to believe in either of the theories we come up with. We can work with them, but we don't have to pick one and stick to it. That's the whole point of working and investigating on them: to come up with further explanations. In order to do that, we should not reject one theory for the other, but should rather keep both in mind.

Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.

We DO have evidence for evolution.

Evidence yes, and all of it is valid only IF we describe it to other humans. Suppose now there is a being of another species and we explain the laws of physics to him and he goes: nono, we believe it works this way..
So we work it out using his methods, and voilà: we arrive at the same conclusion. What then? For that is exactly what happened with Ptolemy and Copernicus until further knowledge was discovered. It's not supernatural thinking per se, it's that "explaining morality" is all taking place in terms of human reasoning. If we believe in human reasoning as being absolute and flawless, then there's no problem. The point is that this evidence is also created for and based on our understanding. You could say, then, that all of this is just models for us to interpret the world - not that the world really and truly works this way. That is something we don't yet know. There's no way of ruling out every single thing that Creationism OR Evolution brings up. Mentioning earlier that you chose Evolution because it's the likelier of the two to have happened doesn't really stand in itself, because you're ignoring all the other points of Creationism that could be valid.

The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.

Apologies. Was probably getting my facts mixed up over who believed in what.

However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.

Don't recall implying God did it - if I did, that wasn't my intended meaning. What I do imply is that something, someone, or some process did it (and it could be any of the three, I'm not holding either one of them above the others). It could be anything.