Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

xingu wrote:

Deductive reasoning is not evidence. Deductive reasoning once said man will never be able to fly.

xingu - a further thought: In your example - deductive reasoning would default to: Since man has now flown - flight is possible. Deductive reasoning is and always will be accurate.

0 Replies

baddog wrote:

Sand comes from rock, rock comes from mineral, mineral comes from earth. (Remember - basic!) So we're back to square one - was the earth created?

The earth came from stardust; stardust came from stars; stars came from the basic element hydrogen. And where did this all come from; a tiny speck that, what, exploded?

You said;

Quote:

deductive reasoning would default to: Since man has now flown - flight is possible. Deductive reasoning is and always will be accurate.

No, deductive reasoning is not always accurate. It all depends on how much information you have in your database. The more information the better the conclusion. We don't have enough data to make a good deductive reason for creation. If we did we wouldn't be doing what our primitive ancestors did; blame it on the creator.

Turning to the creator is our way of showing our ignorance of a particular manner. Did our more ignorant ancestors believe that earthquakes were caused by the movement of plates. Of course not. They had no idea what plate tectonics was. So what caused earthquakes? The Gods. They were angry. Even today we have people believing that.

But that was a logical deductive reason, given what they knew, or didn't know.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

And that is the inherent problem - "philosophical base"! Scientists who hang their hat on their "philosophical base" have greatly limited their potential for learning.

No they haven't. That's ridiculous. Science, which is based on a particular phlosophy, is exactly how we have gained most of our knowledge.

Scientists don't have to close their minds to the possibility that things outside of science can happen, but they can't use those possibilities within scientific theory.

You're lumping two things together which don't necessarily have to go together. For example, the ability for a scientist to follow the scientific method doesn't preclude a scientists ability to follow other beliefs as well.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

.......And where did this all come from; a tiny speck that, what, exploded?.......

...... It all depends on how much information you have in your database. The more information the better the conclusion. We don't have enough data to make a good deductive reason for creation......

And how much hard data do you have to support your tiny speck?

Exactly zero.

There is NO data that supports the theory that the singularity ever actually did exist, or that if it did exist that it exploded.

There is NO data to indicate what it was composed of, how it got to be composed of that, and where it came from or why it exploded.

The speculation that is the BB is arguably just as faith-based as any religion ever was.

0 Replies

bullsh*t, The expanding universe is evidence, for one.

0 Replies

And of course the only "evidence" for creation is a three thousand year old book of questionable authorship, based on at least a thousand years of oral transmission, which is notoriously unreliable, written at least four thousand years after the creation (if its own fantasy account is to be believed ) or fifteen billion years after the fact (as the scientific evidence shows), which book maintains that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it--oooh, very accurate right there. Not.

0 Replies

If you're gonna attempt to explain "creation" by recourse to something that's obviously a myth, you could at least pick a myth that tells a better story, like the earth was created from the material that fell from Raven's beak as He flew thru the empty cosmos, or the earth is a flat plate supported at the four corners on the backs of giant elephants standing on the shell of a huge tortoise swimming slowly thru the cosmic sea. Those two examples of hundreds have exactly as much evidence to support them as the biblical account of "creation". Can you say "none"?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

xingu wrote:
Deductive reasoning is not evidence. Deductive reasoning once said man will never be able to fly.

xingu - a further thought: In your example - deductive reasoning would default to: Since man has now flown - flight is possible. Deductive reasoning is and always will be accurate.

But deductive reasoning leads us away from creationist thought.

Deductive reasoning does not lead us to the inevitiable conclusion that man is made from dust. Understand?

0 Replies

username wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
.......And where did this all come from; a tiny speck that, what, exploded?.......

...... It all depends on how much information you have in your database. The more information the better the conclusion. We don't have enough data to make a good deductive reason for creation......

And how much hard data do you have to support your tiny speck?

Exactly zero.

There is NO data that supports the theory that the singularity ever actually did exist, or that if it did exist that it exploded.

There is NO data to indicate what it was composed of, how it got to be composed of that, and where it came from or why it exploded.

The speculation that is the BB is arguably just as faith-based as any religion ever was.

bullsh*t, The expanding universe is evidence, for one.

You want to believe that expansion is conclusive proof of an explosion? Cmon. Lots of things expand that didn't explode.

The data regarding the expansion of the universe is in no way evidence that a tiny speck existed at one point, nor that it exploded, nor is it evidence of what the purported tiny speck was composed of, nor where it came from or how it got there.

The evidence you cite is , at best, circumstantial evidence upon which large, unproven (and unprovable) assumptions have been laid, and inferences drawn for which there is little if any real support.

Now if you have any hard evidence that a singularity DID in fact exist, produce it and you will be instantly famous, username.

Or if you can prove what this supposed singularity was composed of , or whence it came, then come now, out with it.

But you have nought but your faith that it MUST have been so.

The problem with the BB is that it leads only to two dead ends:

a. Was/is the present time-space universe eternal ----- simply changing shape and recombining the same matter/energy in endless combinations (the BB being only the most recent)?

If it was/is eternal, the same question that people ask about an eternal God (well, where did God come from?) must be asked about an 'eternal universe'. Where did the eternal universe come from?

b. Was the present time-space universe generated by the BB ---- which was caused by an 'exploding singularity'? Well, where did the singularity come from?

You see, you never get away from the same questions that religious faith faces; because your position is essentially that of faith. You believe it was so, even though you cannot prove it.

0 Replies

The big bang idea is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a neat package.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole and a final situation; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

Likewise the idea of an eternal and omniscient God suddenly deciding that it would be cool to create a universe 17 billion years ago without the idea having occurred to him prior to that is basically ludicrous.

The overwhelming likelihood is that the universe, like God, is eternal.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole and a final situation; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

Gravitaional black holes are NOT the same thing as the Big Bang 'singularity'. The fact that popular media has used the term 'singularity' in both cases is unfortunate because it's misleading.

The event which fits the BB model was not even remotely similar to a gravitational black hole. Space/Time itself unfolded from the original event, there was no overcoming of gravity as there would be from a gravitational black hole.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The overwhelming likelihood is that the universe, like God, is eternal.

Contrived.

I love how the BB can be critisized be people who to the contrary have no evidence to suport their theory.

Quote:

If you're gonna attempt to explain "creation" by recourse to something that's obviously a myth, you could at least pick a myth that tells a better story, like the earth was created from the material that fell from Raven's beak as He flew thru the empty cosmos, or the earth is a flat plate supported at the four corners on the backs of giant elephants standing on the shell of a huge tortoise swimming slowly thru the cosmic sea. Those two examples of hundreds have exactly as much evidence to support them as the biblical account of "creation". Can you say "none"?

Username put it best, Christians have the same amount of evidence to supportt their creationist view as any other tribal creationist abstract.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole and a final situation; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

Space/Time itself unfolded from the original event, there was no overcoming of gravity as there would be from a gravitational black hole.

An assumption.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole and a final situation; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

Space/Time itself unfolded from the original event, there was no overcoming of gravity as there would be from a gravitational black hole.

An assumption.

Not exactly. The statement I made above is definitely a condition predicted by the mathematics of the model.

The BB model is an estimation of reality based on evidence and existing theory. We can say with certainty what the model predicts (which is what I was saying above). But we cannot say with certainty how accurate the model is.

The assumption would be to think that the model itself is completely accurate. And I'm not ready to make that assumption yet. I only know that it's the best scientific theory currently available, and that it is highly accurate and precise in its match to existing data.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole and a final situation; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

Space/Time itself unfolded from the original event, there was no overcoming of gravity as there would be from a gravitational black hole.

An assumption.

Not exactly. The statement I made above is definitely a condition predicted by the mathematics of the model.

The BB model is an estimation of reality based on evidence and existing theory. We can say with certainty what the model predicts (which is what I was saying above). But we cannot say with certainty how accurate the model is.

The assumption would be to think that the model itself is completely accurate. And I'm not ready to make that assumption yet. I only know that it's the best scientific theory currently available, and that it is highly accurate and precise in its match to existing data.

Based on evidence(existing data), eh?

So what evidence do you have that a singularity actually DID exist?

Or what evidence do you have to show what it was composed of?

Where it came from?

How it got there?

Why it exploded?

That it did NOT exist in space/time as we know it prior to an explosion?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Based on evidence(existing data), eh?

So what evidence do you have that a singularity actually DID exist?

Or what evidence do you have to show what it was composed of?

Where it came from?

How it got there?

Why it exploded?

That it did NOT exist in space/time as we know it prior to an explosion?

It's all predicted by the model. Do you understand what a model is?

0 Replies

RL doesn't unless it's the God model.

0 Replies

I can see where this is going.

It's going to come down to a philosophical discussion of just how comprehensive any amount of data is, and how detailed any model is, before we begin to accept the model as something which reflects reality.

Just how much proof someone needs before they accept any model as accurate is probably subjective, so I don't think there is an absolute answer to this.

If RL (or anyone) simply isn't convinced by the evidence and theory currently in place, then they are free to reject the implications of the model. I don't have a problem with that. It would be nice if they had a better (more accurate) model to propose in its place, but they don't. Oh well.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I can see where this is going.

It's going to come down to a philosophical discussion of just how comprehensive any amount of data is, and how detailed any model is, before we begin to accept the model as something which reflects reality.

Just how much proof someone needs before they accept any model as accurate is probably subjective, so I don't think there is an absolute answer to this.

If RL (or anyone) simply isn't convinced by the evidence and theory currently in place, then they are free to reject the implications of the model. I don't have a problem with that. It would be nice if they had a better (more accurate) model to propose in its place, but they don't. Oh well.

Where it's going is just exactly where you brought it --- backing out before producing ANY evidence that such a singularity really DID exist, or what it was composed of , or where it came from, or how it got there, or why it exploded.........

The question of 'how much proof is enough' is a silly question when you've produced zero.

You want to claim your model 'reflects reality', but there's nothing in front of your mirror, ros.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

It would be nice if they had a better (more accurate) model to propose in its place, but they don't. Oh well.

How about a model which in a pragmatic sense is any more viable than the claim that the dark side of the moon turns into tapioca when no one is looking?

The only way you believe it is if you believe it. This is the basis of religious faith, and as such the most overt of circular logic!

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know