Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

a reply to: TzarChasm

I always thought the TOE was sorta like a long E=MC2 equation. And whilst applied you could extrapolate how everything started and will finish but not the processes it creates.

Anyway, is there anything about the TOE that you believe yet struggle with.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The goal is learning, nothing more.
It's not about proving how smart you are or winning an argument.

Just greater understanding.

I feel its important to understand that, for many, this is psychologically impossible. The subconscious foundation is based entirely on confirming bias, so all incoming information will be parsed accordingly. Conflicting data, or even data that introduces uncertainty, is categorized in order to facilitate ease of dismissal. Over time, the neurological constructs become more cemented and integral to any and all incoming information, spanning every topic imaginable. Your request may be likened to asking a bird not to fly.

As this is.. useful.. for certain entities, defense mechanisms such as deflection and hubris are added into the mix. Going into that would be more off topic than I already am though.

All that said, one of problems in my own mythology is that the experimental results are difficult to fit into any cultural story, past or present, and I've yet to see even an obscure story that "fits." So, existing concepts and frameworks have little bits and pieces that can light the way, but as throughout history, it seems to be trial and error more than anything.

This has always been a struggle as we push the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding, but I suspect some shifts might be more dramatic than others.

Another is the uncertainty that such a minor, temporary derivative of the whole process (humanity) is capable of actually understanding the whole picture. Or, much of anything beyond the limited scope of our perception, and the stories/mythologies we use to explain existence.

originally posted by: Noinden

So the problem with those? We don't have the tools yet to measure the things we need to measure.

Do you have an opinion that you question. Or are you a blank slate until we can measure what we need to.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult question. Granted it sounds like the start to an apologetic debate, the typical wordplay stuff. I don't know how to prove it isn't so I won't try.

So, let's say I am doing that.
After a few answer to the initial post I expose myself as a liar and an idiot and everyone moves on.

No big deal, I've set myself up to be unable to win any argument.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I feel its important to understand that, for many, this is psychologically impossible. The subconscious foundation is based entirely on confirming bias, so all incoming information will be parsed accordingly. .

That's interesting, I'm not sure I buy it tho.

I'm 34 if I was a sociopath or something I should have realised by now.

The scientific theories on the universe make less and less sense the more you learn. We don't have the abilities to see everything that is there, so many theories whilst provably correct don't make sense. I don't think this is because of magic or anything, it's just we're in the cave looking at shadows still.

Anyone who has a strong interest in the origins of the universe should be aware of how crazy reality is. And really should have some problems with it. Not understanding it doesn't mean your wrong, it just means your honest.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Here is the thing, I am a professional Scientist (a Process Development Chemist in the Pharma industry) as well as a spiritual person (Neopagan Druid and Gaelic Reconstructionist). So yes I have opinions. However as a scientist (which incidentally does not conflict with my faith) I go where the evidence leads.

It is not a difficult question, I do not know why you are implying it is. I've made my stance clear.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TzarChasm

I always thought the TOE was sorta like a long E=MC2 equation. And whilst applied you could extrapolate how everything started and will finish but not the processes it creates.

Anyway, is there anything about the TOE that you believe yet struggle with.

what processes?

a reply to: Noinden

Sorry, I see you answered and that wasn't meant to be directed at anyone specific.
Just"Or are you a blank slate until we can measure what we need to."
was what I wanted to say to you, then I trailed off into a rant.


Just frustrated at the lack of success in getting answers as if I'm asking a trick question.
Anyway, things to do. I'll have to look up the whole neopagan thing, sounds interesting.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TzarChasm

I always thought the TOE was sorta like a long E=MC2 equation. And whilst applied you could extrapolate how everything started and will finish but not the processes it creates.

Anyway, is there anything about the TOE that you believe yet struggle with.

what processes?

Everything, KFC's secret recipe won't be in the TOE. However run the TOE through a simulation and you'll get the recipe. The TOE sets the initial conditions so everything can follow naturally... I think.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: luthier

PS why would someone debate their own beliefs with themselves on a public forum. It doesn't make sense to me. You would be better off setting up formal rules of academic debating.

To show that they are open-minded, critical thinkers who are able to see both sides.
Anyone who refuses to do that is just insecure in their beliefs, I think.

I think it's a great idea to debate with oneself on a public forum. It encourages others not to be so rigid and adamant and contrary and oppositional and all that negative communication stuff.


I am an agnostic, too, by the way.....

Thanks, I missed this before. That's definitely the spirit I'm looking for.
You have given me a little hope.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

That's interesting, I'm not sure I buy it tho.

I'm 34 if I was a sociopath or something I should have realised by now.

That's certainly fine if you don't buy it! Just don't be surprised when you do not receive the type of response you are seeking. Judging by your sociopath response though, you didn't quite catch my point. Ironically, it does serve to illustrate it!

We interpret what others are saying through our own lenses, and are much quicker to project the faults in our own concepts of what is being said than consider mutual exploration. In my opinion, rather than embrace this as "discourse," we should seek to minimize it. But, it may be too deeply embedded, it may just be who we are.

Anyone who has a strong interest in the origins of the universe should be aware of how crazy reality is. And really should have some problems with it. Not understanding it doesn't mean your wrong, it just means your honest.

Once someone has built a strong enough story, or narrative, it becomes difficult to challenge the internal consistency without doubt being introduced across the board. It opens the possibility of ones own mythology unraveling completely, and people don't like that. Most would rather feign certainty than rebuild their worldview.

Science is a way around this, but it certainly doesn't eliminate it by any means. Once enough internal consistency and predictive ability is reached, most turn from learning "new" things to fortifying existing positions.

Essentially, I think everyone is pretty much "correct," yet limited and that growth of understanding occurs more readily across generations and cultures than in an individual lifetime.

So, in regards to your OP, there is no cultural story or mythology available to accurately relate my stance on our origins. This bothers me, in a way, and probably points to issues in my own understanding.

We certainly agree on Plato's Cave being applicable, but perhaps it is more productive to explore it in a way that takes our inadequacies into account innately, as a given. I think when we continually point them out in others, it becomes far, far too easy to start thinking they do not exist in ourselves. It also leads to thinking that internal consistency equates to accuracy.

We may not even be able to comprehend our origins, but I can't say that means we shouldn't explore it! And, if we just accept that many will perceive their internal logic as indicative of reality as a whole, maybe we can get past that particular semantic hurdle.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Noinden

Sorry, I see you answered and that wasn't meant to be directed at anyone specific.
Just"Or are you a blank slate until we can measure what we need to."
was what I wanted to say to you, then I trailed off into a rant.


Just frustrated at the lack of success in getting answers as if I'm asking a trick question.
Anyway, things to do. I'll have to look up the whole neopagan thing, sounds interesting.

You may want to lead the way a little more with your own situations. I haven't really seen you do that. Accept that you believe the rebuttle to fine tuning even though it's not satisfying. What about the other two things you mention. What are your questions about those?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Good luck looking up Neopaganism, its many different spiritual movements There is no single set of ideas there.

Your post looks, and feels like a set up. Possibly because you have not shared your own ideas here

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

1 struggles with believing that… … … Something actually compressed a large part of the observable and un-observable Universes.

And further 1 finds it hard to believe –that this something had the ability to compress matter so much, that once the process of expansion was initiated,

either from the compressed matter coming in contact with some “expansion medium”?
or from some type of (set time like release) built in component of the compressed energy.

That the initiated processes began to CREATE intelligent beings and habitats for them ironically as the processed EVOLVED?

I cannot believe this material that could of compressed the perceived Universes may even still exist? Somewhere? What could it possibly be used for?

1 still cannot believe all the observable Universe materials that make up galaxy and dark energy clusters for example, were CREATED at the same time? And not some Generated from functions AFTER the expansion processes began by possible mega constructs which would be compared to bubbles of basic universe materials that will eventually burst or join with nearby bubbles to make galaxy clusters with the GREAT ATTRACTORS being the actual exterior of the ancient mega construct universe material bubbles interconnecting…

Think of it like the original compressed matter after initial expansion Creating the highly charged galaxy like bubbles-Galaxy makers that then began to separate over times/periods as these bubbles floated WITHIN THE EXPANSION MEDIUM?

Basically what is proposed unbelievably, is yes some of the galaxies may have formed from the original expansion of energy processes maybe...
But SOME ARE POSSIBLY GENERATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL GALAXY MAKERS? Which came from the original compressed energy process.

I find it hard to believe Galaxy clusters are the remnants of the Galaxy making mega constructs.

I cannot believe the expansion material just evolved? And as the Mega Construct Galaxy maker bubbles of energy made from the original expansion began to expand – separate the processes generated galaxy clusters OF WHICH INTELLIGENT BEINGS BEGAN TO INHABIT?

Everything is so unbelievably subjective, but at least with the process of thinking and exchanging data UNIVERSALLY more Objective TRUTH is found…


Sorry OP if overloaded the thread

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

1 struggles with believing that… … … Something actually compressed a large part of the observable and un-observable Universes.

And further 1 finds it hard to believe –that this something had the ability to compress matter so much, that once the process of expansion was initiated,

either from the compressed matter coming in contact with some “expansion medium”?
or from some type of (set time like release) built in component of the compressed energy.

That the initiated processes began to CREATE intelligent beings and habitats for them ironically as the processed EVOLVED?

I cannot believe this material that could of compressed the perceived Universes may even still exist? Somewhere? What could it possibly be used for?

1 still cannot believe all the observable Universe materials that make up galaxy and dark energy clusters for example, were CREATED at the same time? And not some Generated from functions AFTER the expansion processes began by possible mega constructs which would be compared to bubbles of basic universe materials that will eventually burst or join with nearby bubbles to make galaxy clusters with the GREAT ATTRACTORS being the actual exterior of the ancient mega construct universe material bubbles interconnecting…

Think of it like the original compressed matter after initial expansion Creating the highly charged galaxy like bubbles-Galaxy makers that then began to separate over times/periods as these bubbles floated WITHIN THE EXPANSION MEDIUM?

Basically what is proposed unbelievably, is yes some of the galaxies may have formed from the original expansion of energy processes maybe...
But SOME ARE POSSIBLY GENERATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL GALAXY MAKERS? Which came from the original compressed energy process.

I find it hard to believe Galaxy clusters are the remnants of the Galaxy making mega constructs.

I cannot believe the expansion material just evolved? And as the Mega Construct Galaxy maker bubbles of energy made from the original expansion began to expand – separate the processes generated galaxy clusters OF WHICH INTELLIGENT BEINGS BEGAN TO INHABIT?

Everything is so unbelievably subjective, but at least with the process of thinking and exchanging data UNIVERSALLY more Objective TRUTH is found…

Sorry OP if overloaded the thread

Good stuff. Have you listened to Dr. Luke Barnes? Pretty interesting cosmologist. commonsenseatheism.com...

The podcast is worth a listen and his work is pretty interesting.

I have thought a lot about some of things your writing about. I keep drawing on my philosophy roots. I think our minds are just too small to grasp such large concept without both considerable discipline and considerable open-mindedness and ego control.

I think if we can experience beyound our physical senses it may be possible to surpass the limitation of our senses and the emperical aposteriori knowledge controlling reason in the mind. But most likely the true nature of things are unknowable at least within our current mental faculties and sense limitations. Even with the use of equiptment the mental aspect of interpretation comes into play.

Yes 1 agrees We can only LEARN with our current levels of Awareness of it all... Perhaps as more as they are called here "Spirit Sciences" develop more Astral-Ethereal exploration approaches can be made to determine more Objectivity of that which we only know as much we perceive...
Might be like send advanced bot groups to black hole but have the consciousness technologies to zap human in and out of bots like AVATARS, why doing direct fields surveys, evaluations and exploration of black holes, for example.

reply to: luthier

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
1. We have no idea how the universe began. Something from "nothing" is a hypothesis not a theory and even Lawrence Krauss says that he is unable to prove it and may never be able to. Just that his take on it is plausible.
The big bang theory doesn't explain how it started as physics break down the closer we get to the actual start.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Nothing to do with evolution.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
2. We are not sure if abiogenesis is even possible. Many ideas, but none proven as yet. Perhaps panspermia but that just seems like Creationism Lite.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Nothing to do with evolution.

It disappoints me that so many people on ATS keep playing the same denial game when they've been shown the facts over and over, but I'll just give it another try, slightly different than before.

First I'd like to make a statement that the person you were responding to only used the word "evolution", he did not say "biological evolution". The same counts for you, you also only said "evolution" and you were not clear that by your usage of the word "evolution" you were thinking about what is referred to as "biological evolution" (or that you were trying to change what Krahzeef was talking about and force your limited usage of the word on him pretending he's not allowed to talk about the subjects mentioned below when he uses the word "evolution").

Chemical evolution | Define Chemical evolution at Dictionary.com:

chemical evolution definition

The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. ...

organic = living
inorganic = not living
Chemical evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Chemical evolution may refer to:
...
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems

Going to that wikipage for "abiogenesis" and using the searchterm "evol" will give you more than 100 results. Sadly though, besides these facts, many people on ATS continue to use phrases such as you just used, sometimes they'll try to wrap it up in a nicer jacket of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language (by saying "biological evolution" when the other person simply was referring to "evolution", no specification which type, hence, possibly referring to all types, who are you to say he isn't allowed to do that? You are being extremely unreasonable with those phrases in your comment, let's do the next one real quick).

Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind

Note the usage of the phrase "origin of the Universe" on that webpage. But they're allowed to use the word "evolution" right? Cause they're just using it to refer to "change over time"? What a convenient, illogical and unreasonable excuse for constantly telling people "Nothing to do with evolution" when they bring up the very same subject without feeling the need (or understanding the need) to bring up the phrase "cosmic evolution" to avoid your twisting debate games that help facilitate your denial of the facts game. I can't say it any more polite than that, just sticking to saying what is true. Not trying to create strife but making everyone here aware of what's really going on in the minds of those who have abandoned their ability to use logic and to reason on facts/realities/certainties/truths or that which is true/certain/factual/absolute/conclusive (all synonyms where you see /).

What I said in the thread below (both comments) is involved with what I mentioned above (and also showing up in the comments from Krahzeef and one of the reasons I bolded "absolute" in that synonym list):
What is Truth?

Ecclesiastes 1:9:

What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.

P.S. Krahzeef opened his comment with:

And just to clarify, I am using the term evolution to cover the natural opposition to creationism.

And even though that may be the wrong thing to do given what "creationism" stands for it should still be pretty obvious to any honest and observant reader that he's not limiting his usage of the word "evolution" to your perception of what the phrase "biological evolution" stands for.

Krahzeef, check out the thread:
The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism
It's WWF wrestling everywhere on ATS. Democrats vs Republicans, creationists vs atheists & agnostic philosophical naturalists ('pantheists in the closet'; some of whom will occasionally pop their head out when they say "Nature did it" or variations), pantheists and Plato-fans vs Trinitarians and Plato-fans vs immortal, invisible immaterial soul believers and Plato-fans (yep, looking at you now, Pontius Pilatus' way of thinking may also have had some influence on your way of thinking, mind you that the names I mention does not mean that the way of thinking is limited or has originated from these people, they are examples where you can spot the infectious pattern that spreads throughout society during the centuries of human history; the field of science/knowledge where you can learn the most; which is why there are also people dissing history by saying it's not "science" or it's not a "field of science"; but that's another hornet's nest that has even spread to discussions about the field of mathematics).

Mind the ending after 5 minutes, best end the video at exactly 5:00 if you don't want to get confused any more:

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Good luck looking up Neopaganism, its many different spiritual movements

There is no single set of ideas there.

Your post looks, and feels like a set up. Possibly because you have not shared your own ideas here

Fair enough, maybe I won't look too hard then if it's futile.

I've shared a lot of ideas, and my beliefs, and the parts of my beliefs I have trouble with.
Fused chromosomes, fine tuning argument, the fact that we have no idea how it started, our lack of ability to understand etc. etc.

I have clarified multiple times that it isn't a set up. And stated clearly that everything I say should be ignored if it turns out it was a set up.

I have been open and honest about my beliefs the whole time and have only asked others to do the same.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

1. We have no idea how the universe began. Something from "nothing" is a hypothesis not a theory and even Lawrence Krauss says that he is unable to prove it and may never be able to. Just that his take on it is plausible.
The big bang theory doesn't explain how it started as physics break down the closer we get to the actual start.

That is correct that all ideas about that are and probably always will be hypotheses. However, many hypotheses are mathematically testable against actual observations of the existing cosmos, and good hypotheses can be filtered from bad hypotheses. The 'Big Bang', while it is 'only' a hypothesis, is a darn good hypothesis, with a lot of very good data to back it up. It is unlikely to be superseded.

The 'Big Bang' was not big, was not a bang, and the term was coined to mock the ideas that it has come to represent. We can, at present, mathematically 'run the film backwards' to within a few microseconds of the beginning of space/time. Those first few microseconds are difficult to pin down. What came 'before' the Big Bang is a nonsense question - 'before' is a description of time, and time did not exist until after the Big Bang. Why the Big Bang happened is still unsure.

2. We are not sure if abiogenesis is even possible. Many ideas, but none proven as yet. Perhaps panspermia but that just seems like Creationism Lite.

That is incorrect.

Abio - non-life
Genesis - generation of life

We are absolutely positive that abiogenesis is possible, because 1) we know that at one time, life did not exist and 2) we know that life exists now.

Therefore life some how generated from non-life conditions. Panspermia is the idea that this abiogenesis 'event' occurred 'off-planet, however, it still happened somewhere. Abiogenesis in the Magellenic Cloud is still abiogenesis.

The process of life generating from non-life is known as 'abiogenesis' in science and as 'creation' in religion. Both points of view make assumptions that prevent the other from engaging in an intellectual discussion of any validity on the others terms.

3. The fine tuning idea. The universe seems perfectly tuned to allow life. I think it's more a case of life being fine tuned to the universe, however it is still a valid question that doesn't have a solid answer.

The "fine tuning question" while an interesting idea for college sophomore dope fueled philosophical musings, starts from a fundamentally flawed premise and most certainly does have a solid, straightforward, and simple answer.

The Universe is not fine tuned to support life, instead, life is 'tuned' to the conditions of the Universe.

a reply to: whereislogic

Firstly to be fair, I did edit the post to clarify what I meant by evolution as it seems I wasn't clear enough originally.

It is WWF, I don't think people want an honest discussion. It's just sport/entertainment and people will blindly support their team.

The 5min video was interesting, however in keeping with my rules it's probably best I don't comment too much.
He was doing really well until he got to the part he didn't understand.

It's a shame people can't just say "I don't understand X".
Rather than "I don't understand X so it must really be Y"