Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

a reply to: rnaa

On the BRCA question, I was referring to this post on another thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: luthier

The entire process is being discredited by saying life is fine tuned.

I disagree. Nothing is discredited.

I am saying that "Life as WE know it" exists in THIS universe because that is how THIS universe works. The Universe is NOT fine tuned; it just is. It so happens that the way this universe is configured is convenient for the kind of life that we find in it (and we haven't necessarily found all the kinds of life that might be in this universe).

You are perfectly free to argue from the other direction; it doesn't change the fact of existence. I understand that the idea that the universe is fine tuned is attractive to those folks who want to see that as a requirement for a 'fine tuner'. Well that is fine with me, but I just can't see it that way. One of the first principles one learns in science is Occam's Razor, and a fine tuned system is just too complicated compared to viewing it the other way.

If there is anything that is clear about life compared to non-life it is that life can adapt to the conditions in which it finds itself and nature abhors a vacuum. Marveling at a fine tuned universe is like marveling at a bicycle rolling down a hill because 'just imagine if wheels were square instead of round'.

a reply to: luthier

I like the sports analogy, I've never actually looked at debates like that before.
Kinda makes me ashamed to admit I'm not concerned who wins them either.

I watch debates to hear the different viewpoints, although I may look at it differently now.

Sticking with the sports theme I'd compare it more to me watching the playoffs at the moment.
My teams not in it, but I still enjoy the games even though the winner is irrelevant to me.

I'll view WLC as a scrappy guy who likes to use his elbows from now on. I might be able to appreciate his moves.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: luthier

The entire process is being discredited by saying life is fine tuned.

I disagree. Nothing is discredited.

I am saying that "Life as WE know it" exists in THIS universe because that is how THIS universe works. The Universe is NOT fine tuned; it just is. It so happens that the way this universe is configured is convenient for the kind of life that we find in it (and we haven't necessarily found all the kinds of life that might be in this universe).

You are perfectly free to argue from the other direction; it doesn't change the fact of existence. I understand that the idea that the universe is fine tuned is attractive to those folks who want to see that as a requirement for a 'fine tuner'. Well that is fine with me, but I just can't see it that way. One of the first principles one learns in science is Occam's Razor, and a fine tuned system is just too complicated compared to viewing it the other way.

If there is anything that is clear about life compared to non-life it is that life can adapt to the conditions in which it finds itself and nature abhors a vacuum. Marveling at a fine tuned universe is like marveling at a bicycle rolling down a hill because 'just imagine if wheels were square instead of round'.

The problem I have is your equating this with trivial ideas. Fine tuning in an observation made by the absolute top cosmologists in the world. People with several drs in aspects of physics. People like Stenger and others have been completely discredited when trying to make fine tuning a fallacy. Prob why he chose to write a book rather than peer reviewed papers.

IMO you arguement holds no water. You are disregarding probability and replacing it with what if...what if...similar to a religious arguement. The universe apears to be fine tuned for life. The molecular structure of the universe and the constants are the reason life can exist. Thats what we know.

Your essentially saying but what if we discover unicorns. Well we might. But we haven't.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

I like the sports analogy, I've never actually looked at debates like that before.
Kinda makes me ashamed to admit I'm not concerned who wins them either.

I watch debates to hear the different viewpoints, although I may look at it differently now.

Sticking with the sports theme I'd compare it more to me watching the playoffs at the moment.
My teams not in it, but I still enjoy the games even though the winner is irrelevant to me.

I'll view WLC as a scrappy guy who likes to use his elbows from now on. I might be able to appreciate his moves.

I am the same way I like the contents. However pointing out fallacy is important to learn how to think more clearly. I don't like floyd mayweather either. I can't stand watching a guy use the rules instead of play the game IMO. In the end I have to admit defense is part of the game and so are the rules.

If you watch Harris debate Craig he finally is able to pull of a W. Others have too but I think he specifically avenged his friend Hitchins failures. Craig unfortunately has won a substantially larger portion of debates than he has lost. Often because he debates strong Atheists who make claims they also can't support. It's like what Atheists do when they debate zealous religious fundamentalists. Obviously you can destroy somebody who isn't a trained philospher. It's when too really good philosophers get together interesting things happen.

I suspect after watching Hitchins Dawkins wanted no part in debating a better (technical) philosopher. Thank goodness for Sam Harris. Part of it was staying away from saying no God can exist but rather discrediting the biblical account of God.

The best apologists are the most despised
Kent Hovind has some great YouTube debates and informative videos if you are really interested

I don't have a problem with evolution, I believed it when I was not a Christian, in fact it does make a lot of sense
What I don't like is the fact that people call it a proven science, it's not

Having said that, as an answer to your question, hmmm

What are issues with Gods creation, well off hand none

Though I do not and can't comprehend marsupials in Australia after Noah's ark. It does indicate evolution
There is the issue with the two creation accounts, not that the bible is a scientific document, happy to accept that
Third and remember God is a creator so faith can deal with most problems in a faith mode

Finaly, who can understand the mind of God
There are so many questions that go begging, so many things in relation to the theology of creation and its implications.

I am not bothered by believers who accept evolution, it's a choice and God has given us a free will to believe how we choose
Many Christians accept evolution, welcome to that belief.

As I said,
While I believe it's a great, logical theory, I am not sold on it being a proven scientific fact

If scientists get empirical evidence, I would accept evolution, I can wait.

There is no middle ground for me.

originally posted by: Phantom423
David Kaplan has a nice series in Quanta Magazine - here's a vid on where the universe (might have) come from:

www.quantamagazine.org...

That was interesting. All pretty standard then they say they're working on proof and it blows your mind.

Really good site too. Without clicking a link I've learnt the term I should have used at the start wasn't evolution or TOE. But T'sOE.

originally posted by: Raggedyman


The best apologists are the most despised
Kent Hovind has some great YouTube debates and informative videos if you are really interested

I don't have a problem with evolution, I believed it when I was not a Christian, in fact it does make a lot of sense
What I don't like is the fact that people call it a proven science, it's not

Having said that, as an answer to your question, hmmm

What are issues with Gods creation, well off hand none

Though I do not and can't comprehend marsupials in Australia after Noah's ark. It does indicate evolution
There is the issue with the two creation accounts, not that the bible is a scientific document, happy to accept that
Third and remember God is a creator so faith can deal with most problems in a faith mode

Finaly, who can understand the mind of God
There are so many questions that go begging, so many things in relation to the theology of creation and its implications.

I am not bothered by believers who accept evolution, it's a choice and God has given us a free will to believe how we choose
Many Christians accept evolution, welcome to that belief.

As I said,
While I believe it's a great, logical theory, I am not sold on it being a proven scientific fact

If scientists get empirical evidence, I would accept evolution, I can wait.

There is no middle ground for me.

Hoviind (both of them) academically speaking and as a philosopher academically is not considered a good debater or philosopher. Even by his academic Christian peers. That is based on his ability to not produce logical fallacies or create a convincing arguement.

If you like his content that's perfectly reasonable.

Evolution has lots of emperical evidence. It just depends on if you agree with the definition of any of those things. As far as I know the allegory nature of Genesis was always present. After St Basil in particular it became the norm to see Genesis as allegory as well as when Talmumd was created.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well, if anyone feels our perceptive faculties tell us the whole story, I view it as a misplaced confidence. To be clear, what I am saying is not meant to be specifically about you, it applies to everyone (myself included). It is one of the driving factors in science; we use tools to translate "things" in a way that is workable in our biological limitations.

Its easy to expect others to operate in our individual framework, because that is all we know, but it really doesn't seem to work that way. The diversity is, very literally, more vast than we can individually imagine.

But, even collectively, we may not be able to really understand these "big" questions beyond the stories we use to make sense of them. I use the term 'mythology,' which can be a major trigger for some, to describe these cultural stories. It is my operating hypothesis that despite any similarities, we each have our own individual mythos.

In essence, I am attempting to explain the problems I have with my own mythology, while also explaining why I think such discussions can become immensely difficult. I wouldn't recommend taking it too personally, as if it is directed towards you and you alone, since I believe it is applicable to all of humanity.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well, if anyone feels our perceptive faculties tell us the whole story, I view it as a misplaced confidence. To be clear, what I am saying is not meant to be specifically about you, it applies to everyone (myself included). It is one of the driving factors in science; we use tools to translate "things" in a way that is workable in our biological limitations.

That's what makes it so difficult. We can't trust our faculties 100% but we also don't have any alternative.
We have made tools that can go past our abilities but it still comes down to our limited scope to interpret them.

Damned if ya do and damned if ya don't.

Ii think everyone agrees that "Damned if ya do" is the best way to go though.

And don't worry I've taken nothing as an insult, nor did I feel I should.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well, if anyone feels our perceptive faculties tell us the whole story, I view it as a misplaced confidence. To be clear, what I am saying is not meant to be specifically about you, it applies to everyone (myself included). It is one of the driving factors in science; we use tools to translate "things" in a way that is workable in our biological limitations.

That's what makes it so difficult. We can't trust our faculties 100% but we also don't have any alternative.
We have made tools that can go past our abilities but it still comes down to our limited scope to interpret them.

Damned if ya do and damned if ya don't.

Ii think everyone agrees that "Damned if ya do" is the best way to go though.

And don't worry I've taken nothing as an insult, nor did I feel I should.

Maybe AI someday will tell us how dumb we are.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well, if anyone feels our perceptive faculties tell us the whole story, I view it as a misplaced confidence. To be clear, what I am saying is not meant to be specifically about you, it applies to everyone (myself included). It is one of the driving factors in science; we use tools to translate "things" in a way that is workable in our biological limitations.

Its easy to expect others to operate in our individual framework, because that is all we know, but it really doesn't seem to work that way. The diversity is, very literally, more vast than we can individually imagine.

But, even collectively, we may not be able to really understand these "big" questions beyond the stories we use to make sense of them. I use the term 'mythology,' which can be a major trigger for some, to describe these cultural stories. It is my operating hypothesis that despite any similarities, we each have our own individual mythos.

In essence, I am attempting to explain the problems I have with my own mythology, while also explaining why I think such discussions can become immensely difficult. I wouldn't recommend taking it too personally, as if it is directed towards you and you alone, since I believe it is applicable to all of humanity.

But it is in our power to detect and minimize error in our tools and techniques, and such steps should be taken wherever possible to honor the integrity of the exercise, the field, and those who professionally represent it. It is this extensive filtering process that stands as the foundation of global respect for true science.

originally posted by: luthier

IMO you arguement holds no water. You are disregarding probability and replacing it with what if...what if...similar to a religious arguement.

We have one example of a universe and we have one example of life arising.

Based on the sample we have couldn't it be reasonably argued that the odds are 1:1.

a reply to: TzarChasm

According to a lot of recent studies real science is fading. The level of peer reviewed articles retested to be false is very concerning. Soem estimates are 50 percent are false even after peer review. The fabrications of drug trials has reached an epidemic. Of coarse the good part is science seems to be retesting and checking itself but sometimes after the damage is done.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman


The best apologists are the most despised
Kent Hovind has some great YouTube debates and informative videos if you are really interested

I don't have a problem with evolution, I believed it when I was not a Christian, in fact it does make a lot of sense
What I don't like is the fact that people call it a proven science, it's not

Having said that, as an answer to your question, hmmm

What are issues with Gods creation, well off hand none

Though I do not and can't comprehend marsupials in Australia after Noah's ark. It does indicate evolution
There is the issue with the two creation accounts, not that the bible is a scientific document, happy to accept that
Third and remember God is a creator so faith can deal with most problems in a faith mode

Finaly, who can understand the mind of God
There are so many questions that go begging, so many things in relation to the theology of creation and its implications.

I am not bothered by believers who accept evolution, it's a choice and God has given us a free will to believe how we choose
Many Christians accept evolution, welcome to that belief.

As I said,
While I believe it's a great, logical theory, I am not sold on it being a proven scientific fact

If scientists get empirical evidence, I would accept evolution, I can wait.

There is no middle ground for me.

Hoviind (both of them) academically speaking and as a philosopher academically is not considered a good debater or philosopher. Even by his academic Christian peers. That is based on his ability to not produce logical fallacies or create a convincing arguement.

If you like his content that's perfectly reasonable.

Evolution has lots of emperical evidence. It just depends on if you agree with the definition of any of those things. As far as I know the allegory nature of Genesis was always present. After St Basil in particular it became the norm to see Genesis as allegory as well as when Talmumd was created.

Well in my opinion, as irrelevant as it is, I consider Hovind an excellent teacher and debater,

I have seen him debate countless scientists, lecturers often a pair or three at a time and destroy their argument.
Not only does he destroy their argument, he teaches the audience a different view
If you think his arguments are not up to your spec, great, I do.
I recommend anyone wanting to see a Christian apologist for creation, then watch him

I don't think it's your position to decide for others, let them watch and decide for themselves

If you want to accept what science has to offer, that's great

Me, I don't see it, that simple

If people want to argue it's very important to see both sides of the argument, don't deny them that.

a reply to: luthier

IMO you arguement holds no water. You are disregarding probability and replacing it with what if...what if...similar to a religious arguement.

There are no what if's in MY side of the argument. However, the 'fine tuning' argument is absolutely based on nothing but what if's. What if the Carbon atom had a smaller energy state? What if the any of the 25 or so fundamental constants were just a bit smaller or bigger? Life couldn't exist, or the universe itself couldn't exist.

Since you introduce the concept of 'holding water' perhaps you might reflect on the words of that pre-eminent 20th century philosopher Douglass Adams (from The Salmon of Doubt):

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

The universe appears to be fine tuned for life. The molecular structure of the universe and the constants are the reason life can exist. Thats what we know.

Key word in your sentence: 'appears'. Appearances can be deceiving. Of course if the universe was different, then life, if it existed at all, would be different. And yet, the universe is not different. It is what it is. There is nothing trivial about that, it is deeply profound.

"Life as we know it" is exactly as it should be in order to exist in the universe that exists.
"The Universe as we know it" is exactly as it should be in order for "life as we know it" to exist.

These are two ways to view the 'issue'. Both are valid, both are profound.

There are philosophers and scientists on both sides of this discussion, quoting a few on 'your' side is irrelevant, because there are just as many on the other side. The question has been debated inconclusively for a hundred years.

So, are we a puddle in a hole made just especially for us, or do we just naturally fit the hole we accidentally find ourselves in?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Raggedyman


The best apologists are the most despised
Kent Hovind has some great YouTube debates and informative videos if you are really interested

I don't have a problem with evolution, I believed it when I was not a Christian, in fact it does make a lot of sense
What I don't like is the fact that people call it a proven science, it's not

Having said that, as an answer to your question, hmmm

What are issues with Gods creation, well off hand none

Though I do not and can't comprehend marsupials in Australia after Noah's ark. It does indicate evolution
There is the issue with the two creation accounts, not that the bible is a scientific document, happy to accept that
Third and remember God is a creator so faith can deal with most problems in a faith mode

Finaly, who can understand the mind of God
There are so many questions that go begging, so many things in relation to the theology of creation and its implications.

I am not bothered by believers who accept evolution, it's a choice and God has given us a free will to believe how we choose
Many Christians accept evolution, welcome to that belief.

As I said,
While I believe it's a great, logical theory, I am not sold on it being a proven scientific fact

If scientists get empirical evidence, I would accept evolution, I can wait.

There is no middle ground for me.

Hoviind (both of them) academically speaking and as a philosopher academically is not considered a good debater or philosopher. Even by his academic Christian peers. That is based on his ability to not produce logical fallacies or create a convincing arguement.

If you like his content that's perfectly reasonable.

Evolution has lots of emperical evidence. It just depends on if you agree with the definition of any of those things. As far as I know the allegory nature of Genesis was always present. After St Basil in particular it became the norm to see Genesis as allegory as well as when Talmumd was created.

Well in my opinion, as irrelevant as it is, I consider Hovind an excellent teacher and debater,

I have seen him debate countless scientists, lecturers often a pair or three at a time and destroy their argument.
Not only does he destroy their argument, he teaches the audience a different view
If you think his arguments are not up to your spec, great, I do.
I recommend anyone wanting to see a Christian apologist for creation, then watch him

I don't think it's your position to decide for others, let them watch and decide for themselves

If you want to accept what science has to offer, that's great

Me, I don't see it, that simple

If people want to argue it's very important to see both sides of the argument, don't deny them that.

Your not understanding the difference of opinion vs using the rules set up for formal debates.

I said the teaching the countent if you are moved by it is a seperate issue to actually "destroying arguements". Philosophy has set up rules for debate and definitions of fallacy. Hovind (both Kent and Eric ) are notorious for not following or adhereing to this method. It's essentially like saying I destroyed the other team even though I fouled out of the game and lost. He agrees to the rules before the debate. He needs to be held to their standards.

This is why I said William Lane Craig also a Christian apologist is such a good debater and philospher. He also makes people very mad because the consusus of his peers is that he wins nearly all his debates. Thats from both sides of the aisle.

Also Christian apologetics is generally regarded as an academic area. The Hovinds are not apologists by definition. Kent is also a criminal.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Absolutely, at least to a usable, predictive extent. The issue I am bringing up is significantly more pervasive though. Perhaps completely unavoidable.

The danger is when we eschew our search for the truth, or reality, in favor of internal logical consistency. What we perceive as rationality may not be applicable beyond our biology. It may enable us with a degree of predictive ability, and overall usefulness, but the very concept that defines our methods of exploration may also be our greatest limiting factor.

As I said before, this certainly doesn't imply that giving up is the answer, but true shifts in the collective mythos are only fully realized over the span of generations. And by the time that one has actually sunk in, there is another right over the horizon.

As great as technology is, it might stifle this process as an ever-increasing number of individuals become more focused on bolstering internal consistency rather than practicing the behaviors that lead to breakthroughs. Perhaps though, as generations pass, we will learn how to avoid this hurdle.

a reply to: rnaa

Again I don't think you have a very good arguement and would be willing to do this in academic format. I have already heard this response.

Yes. I said appears very purposely.

You have as I said only rebuttles with what ifs.

The what if examples you have given can be tried through expirementation. They are based in what we know from evidence.

We have no idea if a multiverse exists. We do know through computer modelling to create life through random assignment a multiverse is necessary.

Can you show me models of life without the constants we accept in physics? Can you show me models where stars can form etc?

Your arguement is rejection of current emperical data and widely accepted Cosmology. There are far less people who reject fine tuning in the actual field of Cosmology than accept is as are current observation.

a reply to: luthier

People like Stenger and others have been completely discredited when trying to make fine tuning a fallacy.

Well Stenger should know better then (I have not read his arguements). A 'Fine Tuned' universe is not a fallacy, it is a way at looking at 'the way things are'. An 'anthropic' universe is another. My view is not quite the same as the 'traditional' weak anthropic view, but it close enough that I'd probably have to throw in with them, with some reservations.

When presented with alternate views, scientists should go with Occams Razor, which I think supports my view. The thing is, is that the question is less of a scientific question than a philosophical one (and perhaps THAT is why Stenger wrote a book instead of a paper?). Occams Razor doesn't really apply to philosophical questions.