Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

a reply to: rnaa

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.

That's not 100% accurate. There could be a cyclic big crunch which would include time before the big bang.
The Big Bang could be the output of a black hole which would include time beforehand.
The Quantum foam which could have started the big bang changes and if it can change there must be a reference point for that change which is essentially time, but on such a small scale we do not recognise it as such.

Regarding abiogenesis, I'll probably have to pay that. However it could be such an unlikely event that any scientific investigation is pointless.

And about finetuning, you just reworded what I said so I don't disagree. However a lot of people much smarter than me have suggested multiple universes to explain this.

I'm not trying to discredit these ideas, I'm just saying they are difficult concepts and claiming to understand all aspects is either dishonest or ignorant. We may never know for sure, and that's fine. Or we will eventually and that's fine too.

originally posted by: Serdgiam

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!

Now I'm wondering whether I'm being gaslighted.

I'm thinking your point is somewhat similar to an elephant thinking he can't break the chains because he couldn't when he was smaller. I feel it's a little condescending. And whilst the evidence so far could support that conclusion I think it's more a level of distrust towards me and my motives.

Of course, this could just be my own bias' shaping this opinion.

a reply to: rnaa

I'll disagree with you on fine tuning - it's subject to interpretation and how you understand the physics and cosmology of the universe. Leonard Susskind (one of the developers of string theory) has some interesting comments on that - video below.

BTW, you never answered my question on the BRCA1 and 2?? They are inherited genes, are they not?

a reply to: rnaa

Uhh. Fine tuning exists in regards to the observation. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed astrophysics papers on it. I provided a link to Luke Barnes discussion on it. You can find lots more info on his letters to nature newsletters.

Fine tuning is an observation many astrophysicists/cosmologists use. I think they would be offended by your statements. Though they are in line with Dawkins who knows close to nothing about astrophysics.
www.uncommondescent.com...

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'll partially agree with you on that - if the universe is infinite, then the Big Bang, if it even happened, would probably be a cyclic event. But bring all your ideas to the table - because it's still a hotly debated topic.

David Kaplan has a nice series in Quanta Magazine - here's a vid on where the universe (might have) come from:

www.quantamagazine.org...

BTW, Quanta Magazine, which is sponsored by the Simons Foundations, has a wealth of up to date information on every branch of science - it's definitely worth browsing through.
www.quantamagazine.org...

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
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.

Yeah, that was good of you to do that, I understand it's very hard to phrase something a certain way without having certain people here on ATS who are very experienced in twisting what someone is saying to either create one of their straw man arguments for themselves, or satisfy their need to conquer a 'Don Quijote Windmill Giant' ( a straw man that some people actually believe) or just paint a picture of someone else having no or little understanding of the subject when actually they're doing quite well (at least moving in the right direction, except for not having a full understanding of the situation or what usual twists are being played when you accidentily forget to spell something out to prevent such a twist of what you're trying to say or what point you're trying to make).

Some people here are very experienced in all the above and you can read more about it in the article linked in my sig (and the page preceding that page).

I like to use the term "evolutionary philosophies" so that it cannot be twisted to be referring to anything else than the philosophies/ideas being spread in relation the the word "evolution"; of course if I spell it out like that someone might still possibly twist that now and switch to a definition of "evolution" that describes a fact in biology, or even more vague "change over time" (see video below). Which is why I usually don't spell it out like that but I'm guessing you can understand what I'm pointing at.

A slightly more harsh term but also more honest and accurate would be "evolutionary myths" (the word "myth" is a synonym for "false story").

For the video below I mentioned some caveats in this comment.

Note that in the video above he keeps the door open for someone to make the illogical and unreasonable false claim that 'evolution has no direction' (or variations, another hornet's nest with twisting hornets with stingy philosophies, imaginations and myths to back up their claim, and of course a lot of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language regarding the word "evolution" again). You simply can't prevent it.

You said:

The 5min video was interesting, however in keeping with my rules it's probably best I don't comment too much.

Don't let the twisters discourage you, they like to be the loudest and post the most comments (knowing that repetition works when spreading propaganda) only to then point to others as supposedly, euhmm, how did Tzarchasm and others continuously quote that, let's see if I can find it:

...this is an exercise of pride for some members, they derive satisfaction from frustrating you and others. now that i have posted the links here, i imagine we can just let the willing educate themselves on the matter. the rest will not be moved no matter what lengths you go to.

See how they sneakily try to paint a picture of others (pot calling the kettle black) and sneak in a slanderous accusation without actually accusing anyone specific? Sleep, sleep, sleep (see video below), go back to sleep...read the useless debates that we know contain very little accurate information and logical argumentation with a lot of WWF wrestling between the parties I mentioned in my previous comment here. Note that in their choice of links they did not include some of edmc^2's threads, only threads initiated by adherents of the previous mentioned ways of thinking. You can see which links they (cause others have quoted or used the same comment) have been using in my response to Tzarchasm sneaking in the word "pride" without actually telling anyone anything beneficial about it. Cause pride is most definitely involved in all these discussions.

I'm all out of bubblegum too and I understand the gun part to be poison (see my sig). I don't need a gun, all I need is truths/facts/certainties/realities, logic, reason and a variety of other thinking and teaching techniques I mentioned in my commentary about the words "knowledge", "education", "propaganda" and "myths/false stories/lies". I haven't made a specific comment giving the definition for philosophy yet but I have given plenty of clues. Here's another one mentioned in the video below and the videos further below:

Here's another involded party, please stop the video at 2:47 to protect your mind from what's mentioned in my sig:

And here's a video tracing these ways of thinking back some more (mind the young earth creationism affecting his presentation regarding the topic of the Big Bang, which is inaccurate and again does't help with what's mentioned in my sig), also note the use of the term "Trimurti" which he quickly talks past as a Trinitarian:

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

However a lot of people much smarter than me have suggested multiple universes to explain this.

Yes, I understand that. "Multiple universes" is 'just' a mind-map to describe the mathematics that is going on, an analogy, a model. It is a very powerful and useful model, and may help to explain many things.

But it doesn't explain why THIS universe appears to be fine tuned to support the life that is found here. It doesn't explain why the multiverse 'right next door' is fine tuned for the life that is there or why life cannot form there.

Multiverses don't SOLVE the fine tune 'problem'. It just makes excuses for it - if the possibilities are infinite, then there must be literally an infinite number of universes fine tuned for life as we know it (and an infinite number that are not, of course). It is lazy and completely unsatisfactory. That is not an explanation why THIS SPECIFIC universe is one of those infinite possibilities.

My argument is that no 'fine-tuned universe' explanation is necessary. Life is tuned to the universe, not the other way around.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

That's not 100% accurate. There could be a cyclic big crunch which would include time before the big bang. The Big Bang could be the output of a black hole which would include time beforehand. The Quantum foam which could have started the big bang changes and if it can change there must be a reference point for that change which is essentially time, but on such a small scale we do not recognise it as such.

Sure, and there might have been a crap load of much more strange stuff going on than that. But it is NOT happening in our space-time continuum. And we will never even begin to scratch the surface of comprehending the pre-existence conditions (note: pre-existence not pre-existing).

Here is an interesting look at some current thought about the matter, coincidentally current with this thread (unless it was read and prompted the OP of course). This is a pop-sci article - it is meant to give a taste of leading edge thought to the public; don't mistake it for a scientific treatise.

Why Space and Time Might Be an Illusion

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Regarding abiogenesis, I'll probably have to pay that. However it could be such an unlikely event that any scientific investigation is pointless.

That is why there is a point to the scientific investigation: exactly how likely or unlikely is it. Is Earth a complete aberration or is life abundant, and therefore basically inevitable given acceptable environmental conditions?

That is one of the fundamental questions to be answered by the human thirst for knowledge; and it may well be answered in our lifetime, perhaps even in the next decade! Then we'll move full steam ahead to find out if there is intellegent life anywhere other than Earth. Then we'll move on to something else, who knows what that will be.

Because that is what humans do.

originally posted by: whereislogic

You said:

The 5min video was interesting, however in keeping with my rules it's probably best I don't comment too much.

Don't let the twisters discourage you

OK then, whilst I agree that saying abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution is a bit of a cop out.

Throwing away the perfectly formed and explained tree of life because you don't know how the first branch got there is even worse.

Both are scared to say they don't know. But it seems the guy in the vid is purposely trying to mislead.

The second vid he claims he was told that language proves evolution. That doesn't make sense.
It seems more likely someone explained the similarities between the evolution of language and man.

No Latin speaking person gave birth to a spanish speaking person. And no monkey gave birth to a human.

It's an example that's used often and I think it illustrates how bio evolution works perfectly.

a reply to: Phantom423

I'll disagree with you on fine tuning

Your privilege.

- it's subject to interpretation and how you understand the physics and cosmology of the universe. Leonard Susskind (one of the developers of string theory) has some interesting comments on that - video below.

And so? Lots of people have opinions one way or the other. The question has been around for a very long time.

I look at the question from my point of view because it is clear that the cosmos existed a HECK of a long time before life showed up. It is also not clear that any other universe - with other slightly different fundamental constants, that is - could not harbor life. Certainly there are a lot of possible universes that could not harbor life, but that doesn't rule out every other universe.

On the other hand we know that if there is one thing that life is good at is adapting to the environment that it is presented with.

BTW, you never answered my question on the BRCA1 and 2?? They are inherited genes, are they not?

huh?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Well, we can't tell if that was what he was told. It's also a bit of a side issue regarding his main point (it's an example he uses, btw, people say pretty crazy stuff on youtube in the comment sections).

And I doubt very much that what you described as his motivation for throwing away something (which I didn't hear him phrasing like you did at all, not even close), is his sole motivation for not believing in particular evolutionary philosophies. He is discussing the point of certain people intentionally making things vague and who are capitalizing on the ambiguity of language to lend extra credence to their unverified philosophies/ideas. See the long video about Paganism to see the history behind this phrase you used "tree of life".

He also did not mention monkeys.

originally posted by: rnaa
My argument is that no 'fine-tuned universe' explanation is necessary. Life is tuned to the universe, not the other way around.

I agree with you, I said the same thing when I mentioned it.
I still don't like it as an answer, doesn't mean it's wrong. It just feels a bit cheap.

But it is NOT happening in our space-time continuum.

If it is cyclic it would still be the same piece of stretching and then shrinking spacetime.
And if we have no chance of comprehending we cannot also have no time, as that implies some comprehension.

That is why there is a point to the scientific investigation: exactly how likely or unlikely is it.

True, I'm all for trying to find out. And I hope we will. It was actually Richard Dawkins who said it may be a pointless venture.

Like I said I agree with all these ideas, but trying to say it's simple and clear is doing a great disservice to the guys trying to work it out.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, we can't tell if that was what he was told. It's also a bit of a side issue regarding his main point (it's an example he uses, btw, people say pretty crazy stuff on youtube in the comment sections).

Absolutely, I can't tell what he was told. Perhaps someone else misunderstood it and told him.
Either way, using an incorrect analogy from a stranger to discredit a theory seems a little dishonest to me.

I know he didn't mention monkeys, I was just pointing out the analogy that he (or whoever told him) was confused about.

He is discussing the point of certain people intentionally making things vague and who are capitalizing on the ambiguity of language to lend extra credence to their unverified philosophies/ideas

I get the impression that's what he is doing. He tells us what evolution isn't then discredits it to try and bolster his position which has no explanatory power.

I'm yet to see an apologist try and dispute evolution whilst getting the theory of evolution correct.
I would be very interested to see this however.

a reply to: rnaa

Life being fined tuned to the universe has a few problems.

One being the actual molecualr construction of the biological living system of complex life. The reason carbon based life works for instance. The o2 conversion into co2 and vice vs. For instance people say well what about silica based life. Well unless they exhale sand then the molecular structure doesn't seem very efficient for making life.

Carbon also being the first large molecule to come from dying stars. The formula for producing larger chains. The entire formulas necessary for making combinations of life rely on physical constants. For instance the weight of electrons is a constant.

The entire process is being discredited by saying life is fine tuned. Life is not the only adaptive aspect of the universe. The entire processes are adaptive towards efficiency.

What I see as very large problem with the ignoring of the fine tuning (and the 32 constants at least half if them an absolute requirement for any observed life) is that life has not adapted everywhere in the universe. It has some pretty specific requirents based on molecule combinations.

Edit life is fine tuned to the universe as well but the fine tuneing of the universe supersedes life.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: rnaa
My argument is that no 'fine-tuned universe' explanation is necessary. Life is tuned to the universe, not the other way around.

I agree with you, I said the same thing when I mentioned it.
I still don't like it as an answer, doesn't mean it's wrong. It just feels a bit cheap.

But it is NOT happening in our space-time continuum.

If it is cyclic it would still be the same piece of stretching and then shrinking spacetime.
And if we have no chance of comprehending we cannot also have no time, as that implies some comprehension.

That is why there is a point to the scientific investigation: exactly how likely or unlikely is it.

True, I'm all for trying to find out. And I hope we will. It was actually Richard Dawkins who said it may be a pointless venture.

Like I said I agree with all these ideas, but trying to say it's simple and clear is doing a great disservice to the guys trying to work it out.

So natural selection of the cosmos? Facund Universe theory stuff? Black holes birthing the universe. I like it. I often put it on a balance scale with the strong and week anthropic principle.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: whereislogic

Well, we can't tell if that was what he was told. It's also a bit of a side issue regarding his main point (it's an example he uses, btw, people say pretty crazy stuff on youtube in the comment sections).

Absolutely, I can't tell what he was told. Perhaps someone else misunderstood it and told him.
Either way, using an incorrect analogy from a stranger to discredit a theory seems a little dishonest to me.

I know he didn't mention monkeys, I was just pointing out the analogy that he (or whoever told him) was confused about.

He is discussing the point of certain people intentionally making things vague and who are capitalizing on the ambiguity of language to lend extra credence to their unverified philosophies/ideas

I get the impression that's what he is doing. He tells us what evolution isn't then discredits it to try and bolster his position which has no explanatory power.

I'm yet to see an apologist try and dispute evolution whilst getting the theory of evolution correct.
I would be very interested to see this however.

If your talking about Christian apologists they usually believe in evolution, have been to college, and see Genesis as allegory.

I had many debates in college with apologists even in formal settings. They are often very good philosophers. Not to be underestimated. They love setting traps and people even skilled ones like Hitchins fall into them thinking it's an easy debate.

a reply to: luthier

Can you give me any names? I'm always trying to hear arguments from the other side but get turned off quickly as the ones i see tend to resort to word games and tricks.

Also I suppose fundamentalist christians vs militant atheists fill the seats more so they are by far the most common.

a reply to: whereislogic

It probably won't be too productive discussing the youtube guy as I can't see a middle ground we can reach.

I would much rather hear your thoughts however.
Do you have any issues with Creationism like I have with evolution?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

Can you give me any names? I'm always trying to hear arguments from the other side but get turned off quickly as the ones i see tend to resort to word games and tricks.

Also I suppose fundamentalist christians vs militant atheists fill the seats more so they are by far the most common.

The assement of debates I am referring to are by pholosopher academic peers. Not based on hard atheism or fundementalism.

The fact that you are turned of is not relevant. Nor are the word games as much as they suck. Basically your arguement is like saying " the team is no good because they only use the rules to win the game and don't actually try and score and beat the other team with an exciting strategy. Like Floyd mayweather dancing around for 10 rounds playing defense.

People like William Lane Craig are cri geworthy for me to listen to but I accept his ability to argue and exploit the fallacies creates by his opponents. I can't stand the guy but he plays by the rules and is a very sound debator. Google scholar his name and see what comes up. Thousands of articles.

By being a good philospher I only mean in the technical sense IMO not of substance IMO.