81
   

Why does the Universe exist?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 10:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, nature and naturally. Planet earth just happens to have the right environment to support life forms.


True enough, but the origin the universe that delivered that outcome was started is a question that science cannot answer.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 11:07 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
A great deal of progress has been made in Physics since then, and we now know that - even at the levels of molecules and cells - the laws of Physics are sufficient to explain the evolution of observed species - how they got that way and survived to reproduce. The complexity we observe around us in nature and human behavior can truly evolve from a handful of basic laws, relationships and physical constants of proportionality. That is an amazing fact, but it has stood the test of repeated challenge and confirmation.

You said a mouthful there but it does get to the heart of the ID arguments that are not being addressed.

Yes, we know that physics can account for random changes in DNA. The unaddressed question in the discussion is whether they can account for the observed changes over the measured time period. ‘Science’, as many here see it, is simply not allowed to ask that question. They are stuck with only the circular argument that ‘It happened, therefore it is possible by the natural causes currently understood.’ Which is as about as un-scientific as you can get.

Farmer is notorious for the use of ‘that argument has been debunked long ago’ as if that statement in itself were an argument. For example, he claims that the ‘complexity argument’ as he calls it, was debunked long ago. If you press him for details he justifies it by, get this, a judge in a court case, who was wise enough to see through the expert complexity witnesses’ evil scheme to indoctrinate children in public schools with their religious beliefs.

I see you rely on the same sort of argument here.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 11:35 am
@georgeob1,
I agree. There are theories on how planets came into existence. https://www.quora.com/What-are-planets-How-did-they-come-into-existence
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 12:20 pm
I just love CI’s non sequitors.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 02:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

…. You said a mouthful there but it does get to the heart of the ID arguments that are not being addressed.

Yes, we know that physics can account for random changes in DNA. The unaddressed question in the discussion is whether they can account for the observed changes over the measured time period. ‘Science’, as many here see it, is simply not allowed to ask that question. They are stuck with only the circular argument that ‘It happened, therefore it is possible by the natural causes currently understood.’ Which is as about as un-scientific as you can get.

Farmer is notorious for the use of ‘that argument has been debunked long ago’ as if that statement in itself were an argument. For example, he claims that the ‘complexity argument’ as he calls it, was debunked long ago. If you press him for details he justifies it by, get this, a judge in a court case, who was wise enough to see through the expert complexity witnesses’ evil scheme to indoctrinate children in public schools with their religious beliefs.

I see you rely on the same sort of argument here.


I'm not sure where you are headed here. On a geologic time scale the observed evolution of species occurs very quickly. However the laws of physics operate in real time and continuously. I see no reason that evolution, based on the constant applicability of the known laws of physics could not easily accomplish what has occurred, and I'm not aware of any reason to doubt it.

My impression is that most scientists are inclined to believe that life (in the form of elementary single cell creatures) surely arose in the chemistry of water solutions of organic chemicals and minerals. However, to my knowledge that has not been demonstrated.

With respect to the question of ID, I don't think any of this matters at all. We are left with the stark choice between science, which cannot provide an explanation for the origin of the observable universe, and faith in an intelligent designer or creator. If, as I believe, there is a creator (and that is a matter of faith, not science) then it really doesn't matter if his intervention occurred only at the beginning or repeatedly thereafter.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 02:17 pm
@georgeob1,
Logical.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 03:32 pm
@Leadfoot,
Your "God" must be tiny...maybe it is in a quantum superposition like the Schroedinger's cat both existing and not existing at the same time till someone, some poor soul, observe it! Wink
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 03:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Not at all. Indeed it is the elegant simplicity of the known laws of physics and the several key physical constants that attend them, together with the remarkable combination of,complexity at small scales and order in large ones, they yield that very strongly suggests ID.

The bizarre dilemmas of quantum physics are the small stuff.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 03:54 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
‘Science’, as many here see it, is simply not allowed to ask that question. They are stuck with only the circular argument that ‘It happened, therefore it is possible by the natural causes currently understood.’ Which is as about as un-scientific as you can get.
Youve arrived at this how?? Whether you know it or not, there is an entire field in evolutionary biochemistry which we call "Bucket chem" but is officially termed "RETRODICTION with BIOMOLECULAR ANALYSES", The point of which is to arrive at starting points in reactions from playing with the products of the reaction . This includes biomolecules and Molecular bio.Computers are very handy tools, buy they are tools, not representative of some driver at the wheel

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 04:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
If, as I believe, there is a creator (and that is a matter of faith, not science) then it really doesn't matter if his intervention occurred only at the beginning or repeatedly thereafter.

Yes, I agree with both of those things. But in this and in other threads I'm making the case that there are perfectly good arguments for doubting the efficacy of random mutation and natural selection to account for what we see
by using logical, factual arguments, NOT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. If they are correct, they point to an intelligent creator not necessarily the God I believe in for completely different reasons. An intelligent creator could be a sadistic monster torturing us for his pleasure, ID arguments say nothing about the nature or motives of a creator.

My beef with farmer and the reason I refuse his last few invitations to debate ID is that on every occasion when I have, the exchange goes no further than about three rounds before he argues that my arguments have no validity for the sole reason that he believes I have religious motives.

I have no use or patience for that kind of bigotry. From anyone.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 04:28 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
‘Science’, as many here see it, is simply not allowed to ask that question. They are stuck with only the circular argument that ‘It happened, therefore it is possible by the natural causes currently understood.’ Which is as about as un-scientific as you can get.

Youve arrived at this how?? Whether you know it or not, there is an entire field in evolutionary biochemistry which we call "Bucket chem" but is officially termed "RETRODICTION with BIOMOLECULAR ANALYSES", The point of which is to arrive at starting points in reactions from playing with the products of the reaction . This includes biomolecules and Molecular bio.Computers are very handy tools, buy they are tools, not representative of some driver at the wheel


I didn't arrive at that at all. The quote is from someone else.

As I have tried hard to make clear, I recognize that science cannot explain the origin of our universe. Period.

Such "explanations" end up in either singularities; infinite regressions of cause and effect and/or an infinite manifold of quantum multiverses - none of which can either be described or proven by the scientific method.

We are left either with those unanswerable questions or, ID. Which of these two one chooses is either an assumption or an act of faith (or both).

All the debate about evolution. or whether life did or did not emerge from chemical solutions, is beside the above point.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 04:41 pm
@georgeob1,
I was quoting LF , I giuess I clipped it from your post , My bad Embarrassed

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 04:43 pm
@farmerman,
Forgiven. You're a good guy …. for a geologist.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 05:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Such "explanations" end up in either singularities; infinite regressions of cause and effect and/or an infinite manifold of quantum multiverses - none of which can either be described or proven by the scientific method
Im happy to arrive at a whole basket full of possible modes of th origins of life. Im open minded about anything that makes reals scientific sense.

As I said, science is silent on cause and effect . Its interested in how, definately when, and where. Why , not so much. It gets in the way of practicing sciences when everything ends with something at the switch .
Spending so much time considering an Intelligent designer when the "design" has been so fraught with chaos and would require such a commited belief in magic and the unprovable . Id rather spend my limited brain power on making little steps that can be shown to fit within a workeablle theory that, every so often we tweak but dont deny the power of, or try to disown just because someone believes that life is too complex to arise by natural means. That would shut down impetus for much funding for reserch that has so many other benefits.

Something as basic as Dollo's Law has been overturned by research and the results were inputs to the recent growth of various mchanisms of epigenetic molecular insertion. It was an outgrowth of of evo/devo research.
Mary Schweitzers findings about "soft tisue" of dinosaurs has reopened new aspects of an iron/sulfur "world" that possibly preceded any ribonucleic acids. (It was a hypothesis that was discovered and put away in the 1950's-but technology didnt exist then to analyze ancient peptides)

Im just babbling here to say that, were the methodological naturalism assumptions NOT applied in actually posing the above research, I think we would be missing whole batches of findings because ID is a conclusion, plain and simple. Its not a path to learn anything. Its base is not science, Its always been a religious derivation no matter how much the Discovery Institute guys(and the ICR) bleat.



georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 07:23 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Such "explanations" end up in either singularities; infinite regressions of cause and effect and/or an infinite manifold of quantum multiverses - none of which can either be described or proven by the scientific method
Im happy to arrive at a whole basket full of possible modes of th origins of life. Im open minded about anything that makes reals scientific sense.

As I said, science is silent on cause and effect . Its interested in how, definately when, and where. Why , not so much. It gets in the way of practicing sciences when everything ends with something at the switch .
Spending so much time considering an Intelligent designer when the "design" has been so fraught with chaos and would require such a commited belief in magic and the unprovable . Id rather spend my limited brain power on making little steps that can be shown to fit within a workeablle theory that, every so often we tweak but dont deny the power of, or try to disown just because someone believes that life is too complex to arise by natural means. That would shut down impetus for much funding for reserch that has so many other benefits.

I have no issue with scientific search and investigation of this or anything else that comes to mind. We both know the small, incremental steps to which you refer are usually the foundation for new theoretical insights and models: nothing wrong there.

My background is in the mathematical aspects of physics with a specialty in fluid dynamics. The perspective I gained from that gives me a very strong impression of the remarkable simplicity of the basic laws of physics; the remarkable fine tuning in the values of the seven or so basic physical constants that permit our existence; and the uncanny complexity (at small scales) resulting from these laws which in many applications is accompanied by relative simplicity at larger scales.

farmerman wrote:
....I think we would be missing whole batches of findings because ID is a conclusion, plain and simple. Its not a path to learn anything. Its base is not science, Its always been a religious derivation no matter how much the Discovery Institute guys(and the ICR) bleat.


I largely agree with you there. Unfortunately, on both sides of the question of design, people tend to get needlessly tied up on nonessential questions: i.e. ID 'rs arguing about evolution (perhaps in defense of literal interpretations of obviously metaphorical scripture.) , and the scientifically inclined often forgetful that science cannot provide answers to the question of the origin of our universe.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 11:31 pm
@Leadfoot,
While you use statistics to try and discredit aspects of the Theory of Evolution by concluding that since the odds are long against these aspects they're impossible. Your assumptions are erroneous. In turn, you proffer nothing to replace these aspects except for assumptions that since you'er convinced of the impossibility of these aspects it must be intelligent design at the hands of an intelligent designer. These assumptions of an intelligent designer are religious beliefs. These assumptions of an intelligent designer stand up to statistics about as well as random mutation and natural selection do.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 01:06 am
@InfraBlue,
I prefer to trust what scientists tell us about a) the age of earth, b) the evolution of Homo sapiens, and c) what "faith" means.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 07:38 am
Quote:
ID 'rs arguing about evolution (perhaps in defense of literal interpretations of obviously metaphorical scripture.)

It's as if not a word had been said about that.
But I'm frequently guilty of too rosy a picture of what people say. Maybe they're just saying 'You're a liar.'. Guess I like things spelled out directly and simply. You know, let your conversation be yea or nay, don't beat around the bush.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 07:56 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
While you use statistics to try and discredit aspects of the Theory of Evolution by concluding that since the odds are long against these aspects they're impossible. Your assumptions are erroneous. In turn, you proffer nothing to replace these aspects except for assumptions that since you'er convinced of the impossibility of these aspects it must be intelligent design at the hands of an intelligent designer. These assumptions of an intelligent designer are religious beliefs. These assumptions of an intelligent designer stand up to statistics about as well as random mutation and natural selection do.

This is hilarious. You stand here on the sideline accusing me of the very thing you are doing. Let's look at your first point.

1.
Quote:
While you use statistics to try and discredit aspects of the Theory of Evolution by concluding that since the odds are long against these aspects they're impossible.
No I haven't, that part of your statement is a simple lie. I have stated the odds very clearly in the examples where I am making statistacle arguments. For example, I cited the odds of a specific chain of DNA/RNA representing a hypothetical minimal self reproducing mechanism capable of passing on changes at about 1 in 2.3 x 10^500. That is not impossible, just unlikely, as anyone who has paid the slightes attention to what I've said in this and other threads on the topic can easily verify for themselves.

Having shown absolute proof (to anyone willing to review what I've said) that you have started your bullshit with a blatant lie, I feel no need to address anything else you've said in this post.

You are by far not the worst offender here, but you caught me on an off morning.

brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 10:06 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Having shown absolute proof (to anyone willing to review what I've said) that you have started your bullshit with a blatant lie, I feel no need to address anything else you've said in this post.

You are by far not the worst offender here, but you caught me on an off morning.


You need to calm down. Maybe you should try extreme skate boarding to burn off this anger.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 06:46:17