Evolution and Creationism

[PerennialPhilosophy]

There is no miracle or magic.

How do you know that "Permanent survival is nonexistent"? How do you know that "Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed"?

Do you know how many degrees are in a circle? In an about face?

You keep using the word "designed". Designed by who? god? Prove it. Prove it even exists.

You say, " I am not aware of approaching annihilation". You need to read more. Start with the sun.

These are all your beliefs and you are welcome to them. I'll believe/not believe other wise.


Edit: Almost forgot, Welcome!

Then let's not the use word miracle or magic.
I witness it.
360. An about-face is a 180, not 190.
By designed I mean how it functions. Regardless of the existence of a designer, I am assuming we all agree everything exists.
What should I read about the sun that will say otherwise? Do you mean with specific reference to the second law of thermodynamics or of another scientific principle?
Also, I hope I have not come across as trying to convert somebody to believe something. I came here with the intention of a debate that moves everybody's ethos to be sound.

"The big bang is not an explosion. The fact that you're that wrong, right away, does not bode well going forward. And the universe is only "doomed" if you assume that life is its sole purpose, and I don't think you can justify that. Without certain anthropocentric assumptions, the fact that the universe will run out of energy someday doesn't mean that it's doomed, just that it'll exist without energy." 

I apologize, an expansion not an explosion. The universe itself may not be doomed, but biology will be. We're talking about the purpose of biology.

---

So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed.

The big bang is not an explosion. The fact that you're that wrong, right away, does not bode well going forward. And the universe is only "doomed" if you assume that life is its sole purpose, and I don't think you can justify that. Without certain anthropocentric assumptions, the fact that the universe will run out of energy someday doesn't mean that it's doomed, just that it'll exist without energy.

Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die.

"Meant to," presumes pre-designated purpose, which you haven't established.

Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

There's nothing to reconcile. Organisms are naturally selected for their ability to continue living, but the fact that they aren't perfect at this, and will eventually fail, doesn't mean there's a paradox. I mean, hell, even within the context of your claim here, you say the universe was "made to die," and if you think that, wouldn't that mean that the fact that life forms inevitably falter and die fits perfectly within that paradigm? You can live, you can resist, but eventually you'll fail because the universe was made to die?

I mean, you're straining a metaphor anyway, apparently in the service of a stupid tu coque fallacy, but it doesn't even work while taking the metaphor seriously.

The paradox is that life tries to fight death. Because it fails, does not mean that is not its purpose. I'm not the one committing a tu quoque fallacy.

[ApeNotKillApe]

what it does is not its intentions?

No, it's a function. It's not the earth's intention to orbit the sun, it just does. 

It has to be designed to either end or keep going, those are the only two options. Whether there is a designer or not does not matter.

Who says? 

"Life isn't aware of the approaching annihilation.." I am not aware of approaching annihilation? 

You aren't "life", you're a sapient by-product of the process.

[Nay_Sayer]

---

One based on repeatable observable science and the other is based on an invisible sky genie snapping his fingers.

Whether you observe it repeatedly or not does not make it any less of a miracle.

Yes, Yes it does.  I can observe water turning into ice. That process is not a miracle, unless you're going to flippantly declare all natural occurrence as miracles.

[PerennialPhilosophy]

---

Whether you observe it repeatedly or not does not make it any less of a miracle.

Yes, Yes it does.  I can observe water turning into ice. That process is not a miracle, unless you're going to flippantly declare all natural occurrence as miracles.

I did not say everything was a miracle. I just said a miracle's status as a miracle does not have to do with it being observed repeatedly. That is not how miracles are defined.
mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun
noun: miracle; plural noun: miracles

1. a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
   "the miracle of rising from the grave"
   synonyms:
   wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon,mystery
   "his recovery was a blessed miracle"
   • a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.
     "it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed or injured"
     
   • an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
     "a machine which was a miracle of design"
     synonyms:
     wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon,mystery
     "his recovery was a blessed miracle"
     

[PerennialPhilosophy]

what it does is not its intentions?

No, it's a function. It's not the earth's intention to orbit the sun, it just does. 

It has to be designed to either end or keep going, those are the only two options. Whether there is a designer or not does not matter.

Who says? 

"Life isn't aware of the approaching annihilation.." I am not aware of approaching annihilation? 

You aren't "life", you're a sapient by-product of the process.

The first point you are right, I made my point in a too anthropomorphic manner.
What other option is there?
That's not how life is defined. Or else our constitution wouldn't give humans the right to life. But, how exactly would I not be life but be a byproduct of it?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Another option: it operates as a blind complex structure running all on it's own, without a goal in mind; as a planet orbits a star, so does life perpetuate itself, for no reason whatsoever.

I refer to life in the blanket sense of the self-replicating mechanism, not individual living organisms.

[PerennialPhilosophy]

Another option: it operates as a blind complex structure running all on it's own, without a goal in mind; as a planet orbits a star, so does life perpetuate itself, for no reason whatsoever.

I refer to life in the blanket sense of the self-replicating mechanism, not individual living organisms.

Yeah I realized the stupidity in using the legal definition but that's how my mind works. But, humanity was a byproduct of this blind complex structure, and we give reason to it. When you refer to a car, you mean the entire vehicle including each piece, no matter how small because each constituent makes the whole. I know this is a leap of faith, but to me it seems more rational that this blind complex structure would create(whether "designed" or accidental does not matter, I am talking about the irrefutable* proof we exist) something that gives reason(or meaning, some purpose that ultimately isn't blind) to it, rather than the blind complex structure creating beings that are so irrational that, on one hand they can land a satellite on a comet, on the other hand historically roughly 99% of them have been giving it reason that does not exist at all. Obviously they can not all be right, but the basis of science is that learning is a process. I do not see how a blind structure is capable of making creatures with sight(metaphorically).

*irrefutable in the sense for this argument to happen we have to exist.

[Esquilax]

The paradox is that life tries to fight death. Because it fails, does not mean that is not its purpose.

Okay, let's take a step back then, Mister Burden-Shifter: how did you determine there was a purpose for life at all, before you start assuming people need to prove you wrong before you give up your completely baseless assertions about life and the universe?

I'm not the one committing a tu quoque fallacy.

If this is supposed to be accusing me of making one, then I'm wondering if you even know what a tu coque is.

[RozKek]

Exactly what Rob and Ape said. When people ask these questions it seems like they add some special meaning to life. Realistically everything is just chaotic/random, messed up, has literally no special meaning or significance. These questions arise when humans assign meaning to life etc. The universe isn't designed to die or to keep on going, it just is doing something that you assign meaning to.

What does it say about consciousness that I can apply meaning to it? That is an innate part of being human. We are made of the universe and we give it meaning.

I honestly don't understand the "What does it say about consciousness that I can apply meaning to it?". Sorry I might be the problem in this case.

When you say "We are made of the universe and we give it meaning." what do you mean when you say that we are made by the universe? Who is the universe? Do you imply the universe is a being/intelligent/a creator? And yes we do give it meaning, but like I said the meaning we give it is realistically literally insignificant and random. We are just chemical reactions/matter just like everything else, we are not (life isn't) in a miracilous way more special than our sun, the Andromeda Galaxy, a burning fire or cats. I am saying this because it seems like you are assigning a special meaning to the universe like I said earlier.

[PerennialPhilosophy]

What does it say about consciousness that I can apply meaning to it? That is an innate part of being human. We are made of the universe and we give it meaning.

I honestly don't understand the "What does it say about consciousness that I can apply meaning to it?". Sorry I might be the problem in this case.

When you say "We are made of the universe and we give it meaning." what do you mean when you say that we are made by the universe? Who is the universe? Do you imply the universe is a being/intelligent/a creator? And yes we do give it meaning, but like I said the meaning we give it is realistically literally insignificant and random. We are just chemical reactions/matter just like everything else, we are not (life isn't) in a miracilous way more special than our sun, the Andromeda Galaxy, a burning fire or cats. I am saying this because it seems like you are assigning a special meaning to the universe like I said earlier.

We are a part of existence. The universe is and so are we. What makes it insignificant? What does it say about existence that we can have thoughts about meanings that do not exist? Just because everything is made of constituent parts, does not make the whole any less insignificant. Everything that exists is made up of smaller pieces and helps to form something bigger. If one thing is significant then everything is. I am assigning special meaning, it is something humans do. You are applying a special meaning when you say it is insignificant. That is what humans do.