Nature

[KichigaiNeko]

Further his argument from evolution shows a complete LACK of understanding of the subject both contemporary and historically

[thesummerqueen]

At BL, how old do you think the universe is?

I believe it is young. I used to believe in an old age of the Earth/Universe but after investigating the evidence I changed my mind.

I am aghast, what evidence would that be?

I don't want to hear it - I woke up to that and I'm done with the conversation. Seriously.

[Darwinian]

Hmm, Fred Hoyle, Steady State? Turns out he was wrong about that as well..

If you had lived at that time, you would have believed it too. Amazing how science can be completely wrong about something, isn't it?

Amazing how science is constantly moving forward and discovering new things which overturn old theories. We must never fall in love with our theories and when new evidence comes to light we must be prepared modify or even completely disregard them, but, we will have learnt something in the process.

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing

No it doesn't. No-one knows what happened before the big bang or even if there was 'a before' so to state that the universe was created out of nothing is simply a belief with zero evidence to back it up.

one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

The universe is, as you say, balanced precisely to allow life and consciousness because if it were not then we would not be here to ponder the question in the first place.

It would be absurd to postulate a universe where the constants are such that life could never evolve with beings in that universe asking themselves the same question.

So, the very fact that we are here discussing this must mean that this universe is compatible with life.

Douglas Adams puddle springs to mind.

[Phil]

I'm not ignorant of evolution nor natural selection, I do not believe they go hand in hand, evolution of species into other species is not a believable process. What is apparent, there is limited change in a specie to adapt to the environment.

Why are unevolved idiots lunatics always unaware that speciation has been seen many times in polyploid and other ways.

[Darwinian]

I'm not ignorant of evolution nor natural selection, I do not believe they go hand in hand, evolution of species into other species is not a believable process. What is apparent, there is limited change in a specie to adapt to the environment.

Why are unevolved idiots lunatics always unaware that speciation has been seen many times in polyploid and other ways.

Because proof denies faith and without faith they are nothing.

[Justtristo]

I commend Darwins discovery, which is that species adapt over time to their environment. Speciation is proven by the empirical evidence. However, to say that all life descended from a common ancestor requires a bit more proof, and Darwin knew it. That is why he said this:

Back when the Origin of the Species was published a Charles Darwin's hypothesis had not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. However later scientific discoveries such as DNA helped to prove his hypothesis beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The evidence from DNA studies of all life alone proves evolution by natural selection to be a fact. Because those DNA studies show that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. Likewise it shows that humans are Primates and most closely related to Chimpanzees.

I would highly recommend reading either The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins and Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne that explain how Darwin's hypothesis broadly has been proven through various scientific discoveries in the past 150 years.

[Thorham]

Reality cannot penetrate their brains.

And I suppose that you do know what reality truly is?

There was a time when the complexity of lifeforms was a quite plausible argument for the existence of a creator. However after the publication of the Origin of the Species it ceased to be a legitimate argument for the existence of a creator.

Who's to say that some being or beings (omnipotent or not) didn't create evolution on this planet?

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing

Which is an outdated viewpoint that's no longer supported in astrophysics, simply because it doesn't work (also, the singularity from which the big bang would've come isn't exactly nothing). You can't make something out of nothing, so something has always been there (something, someone, or both, who's to say?).

[Whateverist]

Reality cannot penetrate their brains.

And I suppose that you do know what reality truly is?

Gotcha.

There was a time when the complexity of lifeforms was a quite plausible argument for the existence of a creator. However after the publication of the Origin of the Species it ceased to be a legitimate argument for the existence of a creator.

Who's to say that some being or beings (omnipotent or not) didn't create evolution on this planet?

This will rattle a few chains, but I take your point.

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing

Which is an outdated viewpoint that's no longer supported in astrophysics, simply because it doesn't work (also, the singularity from which the big bang would've come isn't exactly nothing). You can't make something out of nothing, so something has always been there (something, someone, or both, who's to say?).

Nice to see the balanced attack. Bop an atheist. Whack a theist. I'm especially in agreement with the last comment.

[brotherlylove]

Further his argument from evolution shows a complete LACK of understanding of the subject both contemporary and historically

I ask @brotherlylove to actually pick up a book on evolution written by a biologist (it can be any), understand what evolution really is and then start arguing against it. The purpose of this exercise is not to make you believe in it, just asking you to fully understand the subject you are arguing against.

Evolution is much more than transition within or between species; which is the only thing you creationist "know" about evolution. Arguing against something which you have absolutely no knowledge about makes you nothing more than a silly, puny human being.

You two could demonstrate that you know what evolution actually is and provide a refutation to my arguments.

---

Amazing how science is constantly moving forward and discovering new things which overturn old theories. We must never fall in love with our theories and when new evidence comes to light we must be prepared modify or even completely disregard them, but, we will have learnt something in the process.

What do you think about this quote from Max Planck?

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ”

No it doesn't. No-one knows what happened before the big bang or even if there was 'a before' so to state that the universe was created out of nothing is simply a belief with zero evidence to back it up.

The evidence points to an absolute beginning of the Universe. Either something came from nothing or something eternal caused it.

The universe is, as you say, balanced precisely to allow life and consciousness because if it were not then we would not be here to ponder the question in the first place.

It would be absurd to postulate a universe where the constants are such that life could never evolve with beings in that universe asking themselves the same question.

So, the very fact that we are here discussing this must mean that this universe is compatible with life.

Douglas Adams puddle springs to mind.

If you were to be executed by a firing squad of 100 highly trained marksman, and when the moment of truth came and the shots were fired, you found yourself still alive and without a scratch..you should not be surprised that you do not observe you are dead, but it is equally true that you should be surprised that you observe that you are alive.

The improbability of it makes the surprise totally appropiate. In the same way, although we should not be suprised that we observe that the Universe is not incompatible with our existence, we should be surprised that we observe features of the Universe which are compatible with it, due to the enormous improbability of it.

---

He needs to understand that the real issue is not evolution but the age of the universe. That is what really fucks his fairytale.

Actually, this is mutual; evolution cannot be true if the Earth is not old. Here is some evidence for a young earth:

http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm

---

Back when the Origin of the Species was published a Charles Darwin's hypothesis had not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. However later scientific discoveries such as DNA helped to prove his hypothesis beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The evidence from DNA studies of all life alone proves evolution by natural selection to be a fact. Because those DNA studies show that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. Likewise it shows that humans are Primates and most closely related to Chimpanzees.

I would highly recommend reading either The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins and Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne that explain how Darwin's hypothesis broadly has been proven through various scientific discoveries in the past 150 years.

The evidence from DNA is not proof of a common descent. The similarities you find are just as much an evidence of a common designer as a common ancestry. You also have to consider the differences. Homologous structures appear outside of the expected evolutionary tree quite often, and we ourselves share similarities with octopus, cockroaches, chickens etc. We see the DNA being more in a mosaic pattern, which is evidence for design. Here is a good article on it:

http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-c...ology.html

---

Which is an outdated viewpoint that's no longer supported in astrophysics, simply because it doesn't work (also, the singularity from which the big bang would've come isn't exactly nothing). You can't make something out of nothing, so something has always been there (something, someone, or both, who's to say?).

I agree, that there must be an eternal first cause. Since time, space matter and energy had a beginning, it means the cause is timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. It also implies a personal cause because if the cause is eternal, the effect should also be eternal. Because it is temporal it points to agent causation.

[Nebuloso]

I agree, that there must be an eternal first cause. Since time, space matter and energy had a beginning, it means the cause is timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. It also implies a personal cause because if the cause is eternal, the effect should also be eternal. Because it is temporal it points to agent causation.

There are lots of ideas on what caused the big bang without the need for a god. Some are supported by more evidence than others. Such as the universe expanding and eventually collapsing back in on itself creating another big bang causing an infinite chain of big bangs. Another idea is that our universe is just a membrane in a sea of hundreds of billions of other membrane and the big bang was the result of a collision of these membranes which happens quite frequently. Another idea is that the universe was created from nothing and it is said that in a world of nothingness, nothingness itself becomes unstable and causes quantum fluctuations which caused the big bang.

All of these ideas are backed by evidence, far more evidence than any god theory; however, they need a lot more evidence than they have now because the stakes are so high when you claiming that cause of existence.

All you are doing is thinking.... "hmmm, something had to initiate the chain of causality, and that thing would have to be immortal. It only makes since if that thing is a 'who'. The 'who' needs a name so I will call him God."


As far as the OP goes... I don't know why the world wouldn't look beautiful to us. After all, we did evolve in it and it would only make since that we evolve with a sense that it is beautiful. I can't imagine a species evolving thinking their environment is ugly no matter how ugly humans may find it. I personally find cockroaches disgusting but apparently from the perception of a male cockroach he finds something sexy about a female cockroach and that is because evolution made it necessary for him to have that perception.