Can Both Evolution & Creationism be Wrong?

[Truth OT]

Has anyone seriously looked into Cosmic Ancestry as an alternative? Other than standing in opposition to what the proponents of cosmic redshift believe, what issues does this idea have that make it implusible?

[One Above All]

We know the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.
Regardless, infinity is only a concept. It can't really exist. In other words, things must have a beginning.

[Hatter23]

First Creationism is wrong. Period. Does not match facts.

As to Evolution...NOT COSMOLOGY...it then depends on what you mean by evolution. Evolution is a fact and a theory. That species appear to change over time, and some go extinct is a fact. It matches the fossil record. It matches the genetic record.

It is the mechanism of "survival of the fittest" that is a theory. Just like any other theory, it could be wrong. The evidence strongly suggests it is correct; evidence on par with the theory of gravity.

[screwtape]

Has anyone seriously looked into Cosmic Ancestry as an alternative?

As I understand, CA is not an alternative to evolution.  They are not mutually exclusive.  Life could have originated off planet and upon arrival, diversified and evolved.  Unless you are saying all life as we know it arrived on earth from off planet, exactly as it appears today (which I find unlikely, given the mountains of evidence for evolution), they are not in conflict.

CA and creationism would be in conflict, unless yhwh created life elsewhere and then imported it to earth, which is not exactly scriptural.

[Truth OT]

As I understand, CA is not an alternative to evolution.  They are not mutually exclusive. 

My bad, I errantly linked evolution with BB Cosmology (old habits die hard).

[Truth OT]

We know the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.
Regardless, infinity is only a concept. It can't really exist. In other words, things must have a beginning.

Do we know or do we presume based on the interpretation of the evidence we've been given that the cosmos is a universe that is merely 14 billion years old? I know cosmic redshift strongly suggests that to be the caes but what if we haven't properly vetted out alternatives like the speed of light being affected by gravity as opposed to the effects of redshift?

[One Above All]

Do we know or do we presume based on the interpretation of the evidence we've been given that the cosmos is a universe that is merely 14 billion years old? I know cosmic redshift strongly suggests that to be the caes but what if we haven't properly vetted out alternatives like the speed of light being affected by gravity as opposed to the effects of redshift?

If we can't presume based on evidence, what do we base our presumptions on?
EDIT: If that's the best argument you have for considering Cosmic Ancestry, it's not a very compelling one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's not an argument.

[Truth OT]

If we can't presume based on evidence, what do we base our presumptions on?
EDIT: If that's the best argument you have for considering Cosmic Ancestry, it's not a very compelling one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's not an argument.

I'm not saying that presumptions based on evidence is folly. What I am asking is whether we have enough evidence to reach the conclusions that have been widely accepted for going on a century that bases the age of the universe largely on the speed of light interpreted through the lens on cosmic redshift.

[One Above All]

I'm not saying that presumptions based on evidence is folly. What I am asking is whether we have enough evidence to reach the conclusions that have been widely accepted for going on a century that bases the age of the universe largely on the speed of light interpreted through the lens on cosmic redshift.

That's an entirely different issue.
Whether we have or don't have enough evidence can only be known if one already knows everything. Ergo, we can only conclude based on available evidence, and available evidence says "hell no".
Also you ignored (I'd like to believe unintentionally) my argument that all things must have a beginning, as infinity is only a concept.

[ParkingPlaces]

Evolution is wrong in the sense that we don't yet have a complete picture (and may never have), hence there are details we have missed, and hence there may be a few things that think make make sense that don't actually. And we'll know that when we learn more. Or at least we'll know more when we know more. It's an ongoing process.

And of course, life on earth could have been seeded from elsewhere, but that doesn't help explain anything right now. We'd just have to figure out how life started elsewhere.

If life did come from elsewhere and then evolve here, I was guess that only one life form was originally involved. Our DNA has us all too closely related for there to be too much variety in the beginning.

Creationism is just a bunch of bull. It contains no science and it is so full of prejudices for the Genesis story that it has nothing to offer, no matter how it's theories are put forth. The only thing creationists are good at is incredulity, as they repeat their mantra,  "That's can't be right!", each time natural alternatives are offered up as arguments against their god stuff.

That phrase is the closest they come to being scientific. Which means they don't get close at all.

Oh, and the age of the universe thing. That too might be adjusted if we find any new ways to measure the minutia. And we may find out that things like the speed of light or other factors qualify as variables rather than constants. People are looking. Theyh'll let us know. In the meantime, it is pretty safe to go with the 14 billion year old thing. We can be pretty confident that it is closer to the real number than the biblical 6,0000 year old one.

If it important to anyone to consider yet more theories, read this article. It is about the possibllity that our universe is a computer program, possibly set up to create alternative ancestral histories or to study such things. And they might be able to test for such things.

http://techland.time.com/2012/12/13/red-pill-blue-pill-is-the-universe-just-a-giant-computer-simulation/

That ought to keep you out of your comfort zone for a few minutes.

[Truth OT]

Also you ignored (I'd like to believe unintentionally) my argument that all things must have a beginning, as infinity is only a concept.

This idea is sort of paradoxical to me as the reality of true and thorough nothingless seems as impossible as the reality of infinity. It would seem that something or somethings had to always have been in existence in order for there to even be existence.

As far as beginnings go I'd question whether the need for one applies on a quantum level as opposed to simply being a reality of the physical world.

[One Above All]

This idea is sort of paradoxical to me as the reality of true and thorough nothingless seems as impossible as the reality of infinity. It would seem that something or somethings had to always have been in existence in order for there to even be existence.

That's your understanding. My understanding is that nothingness can exist, as time and space are a requirement for existence, and time and space did not always exist, as per the Big Bang theory.

As far as beginnings go I'd question whether the need for one applies on a quantum level as opposed to simply being a reality of the physical world.

I cannot honestly discuss this, as I don't know enough.

[Truth OT]

And of course, life on earth could have been seeded from elsewhere, but that doesn't help explain anything right now. We'd just have to figure out how life started elsewhere.

If life did come from elsewhere and then evolve here, I was guess that only one life form was originally involved. Our DNA has us all too closely related for there to be too much variety in the beginning.

I wonder if our concept of what is and isn't life is perhaps myopic and biased. If we encountered other alien life forms would we be able to know for certain whether or not those life forms were in fact life forms? COuld there be non-carbon based life forms populating the cosmos as well that doesn't have proteins and DNA as building blocks?
The fact that we perceive the world and our own existence in what we presume to be a shared reality through a prism based on 5 senses makes me wonder if there are other 'prisms' out there that we haven't been made privy to that could help us better understand and explain our existence and the universe we perceive ourselves to be a part of.

[ParkingPlaces]

We have found life on this planet in places we thought totally uninhabitable. We have found single cell organisms living a mile or more below the surface, living in rocks. We have found flourishing life on the sea floor surrounding volcanic vents and living off of the sulfur. And as scientist wonder whether or not there could be life on the moons of Saturn or other alien places, we have to wonder if there could be life in an environment that is primarily ammonia and methane, for instance. We don't know yet what the extent of life is on our own planet. We have almost no way of exploring the possibilities of very alien life in other places here in our own solar system. And no capability, other than detecting instrumentation that is biased automatically because it was built by humans, that might not detect life forms that are unimaginably alien.

I've little doubt that we'll have to widen our definition of life as we find out more about the universe. Sadly, things are going to slow for me and I'll be long gone before we find anything really exciting. But it is fun to think about.

[Truth OT]

If it important to anyone to consider yet more theories, read this article. It is about the possibllity that our universe is a computer program, possibly set up to create alternative ancestral histories or to study such things. And they might be able to test for such things.

http://techland.time.com/2012/12/13/red-pill-blue-pill-is-the-universe-just-a-giant-computer-simulation/

That ought to keep you out of your comfort zone for a few minutes.

The site you posted along with site like: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 are gonna have me up all night reading and watching Through the Wormhole reruns.

[Deus ex Machina]

This idea is sort of paradoxical to me as the reality of true and thorough nothingless seems as impossible as the reality of infinity. It would seem that something or somethings had to always have been in existence in order for there to even be existence.

That's your understanding. My understanding is that nothingness can exist, as time and space are a requirement for existence, and time and space did not always exist, as per the Big Bang theory.

For all we know, reality may simply not allow a state of "nothingness". And existence is axiomatic: in order for time and space to exist, there must be an "existence" for them to inhabit. Existence is logically prior to anything, including space and time. So whence comes your "understanding" that "nothingness" can exist? On what logical basis is your "understanding" that "time and space" (as we understand such concepts) "are a requirement for existence", as opposed to the other way around?

[One Above All]

<snip>
in order for time and space to exist, there must be an "existence" for them to inhabit.
<snip>

Why? Why can't they (and what's inside them) just be all that there is?

[magicmiles]

<snip>
in order for time and space to exist, there must be an "existence" for them to inhabit.
<snip>

Why? Why can't they (and what's inside them) just be all that there is?

That's a bit of a mind bender...it sounds like you're saying it's possible for something to exist outside of the very concept you are using to make the assertion.

[magicmiles]

^^ I don't think I expressed that very well. Tell me if you want me to try and make it clearer.

[One Above All]

That's a bit of a mind bender...it sounds like you're saying it's possible for something to exist outside of the very concept you are using to make the assertion.

How are time and space outside themselves? :S

[magicmiles]

Hmm. Struggling to adequately express my thoughts.

How about: Try to convey to me that time and space exist, but you can't use the word 'exist' or any word that essentially means exist.

[One Above All]

Hmm. Struggling to adequately express my thoughts.

How about: Try to convey to me that time and space exist, but you can't use the word 'exist' or any word that essentially means exist.

You're asking me to define a word without using its meaning. Try again.

[magicmiles]

That's not what I'm meaning to ask, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better. I think I'm actually getting dumber as I rapidly approach 40.

[One Above All]

That's not what I'm meaning to ask, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better. I think I'm actually getting dumber as I rapidly approach 40.

I've been trying to understand what you're asking. Tell me if I'm getting close.
You're asking how time and space could appear without time and space for them to appear in. The answer to that question is: I don't know.

[magicmiles]

I think thats more or less what I'm asking. I don't know either.

Does that mean you consider its a valid position for a Christian to say that God just always existed?

[One Above All]

I think thats more or less what I'm asking. I don't know either.

If you don't know, who should? :S

Does that mean you consider its a valid position for a Christian to say that God just always existed?

No. As I said in my first post of this thread:

<snip>
infinity is only a concept. It can't really exist. In other words, things must have a beginning.

[magicmiles]

Well, you've lost me. It seems like you're saying, on the one hand, time and space could have come into existence without their being time and space, but you don't know how. On the other hand, it isn't possible for things to not have had a beginning, and that infinity is only a concept.

Why is the first position valid, but not the second? Am I missing something here? (probably)

[magicmiles]

Holy crap. As soon as I wrote that last post, referencing infinity, I saw a member named "meinfinitist" was reading the thread (or at least had clicked on it). What are the odds? Infinitesimal, I'd say.

magicmiles, meinfinitist and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

[Deus ex Machina]

<snip>
in order for time and space to exist, there must be an "existence" for them to inhabit.
<snip>

Why?

Existence is logically prior to anything existing. Without "existence", even the concept of time or space "existing" is meaningless. The minute you talk about anything "existing" you invoke "existence".

Why can't they (and what's inside them) just be all that there is?

Why do you assert - sorry, "understand" - that they are? It's not immediately obvious that there's a good reason to presume that "nothingness" (a state totally alien to our observable Universe, since everywhere we look, there is "stuff" of some kind) is some kind of default state of reality.