Evolution Explained

[JeffPT]

Is kind of like,because you cannot conceive of something you do not believe in it.

People can conceive of basically anything. The problem with that is that the odds of being correct with any specific yet random postulation is infinitely small.  Especially when you have zero evidence to work with (and that is what we have in terms of the causative factors behind the inception of our universe).  The most logical and reasonable position to adopt is to say, "I don't know yet". 

Also I am not saying that it is for fact it is supernatural in nature.

Good.  Because more than likely it wasn't supernatural.  Why do I say that?  Because everything within our universe that has a cause, has a natural cause.  To suddenly say that the start of our universe is somehow supernatural is a bit of a stretch. 

All I am saying is that motion comes for cause . I am looking for that cause , and yes some people call that God.

If you roll a ball down a hill, do you call the cause of that motion "God"?  Our planet revolves around the sun; do you call the cause of that motion "God"?  Or are they better explained with the word "Gravity". 

You yourself said that everything can be explained.

Actually, you said that first.  We just agree with that.

I am just looking for what can not be explained.

Things that can not be explained are different than things that are not YET explained.  If you say that all things can be explained, then you don't need the supernatural to explain anything.

[One Above All]

just a little common thinking here: how many times in history have we heard that , "this is the way it is"

A lot. However, unlike religion, science is self-correcting. I should correct my statement, though:
People a lot smarter than both of us did their homework and concluded that all the evidence points to this. ("This" being the current theory of gravity, and all the other scientific theories that exist)

like you agreed to the universe is in motion as per Gravity and its  expansion but to go on to say that  the universe itself is not in motion relative to itself.

You can never be in motion relative to yourself, that's just silly. The same principle applies to the universe.

Is kind of like,because you cannot conceive of something you do not believe in it." beyond reasonable doubt"

Actually no, it's quite different, once you understand the meaning of "motion".

Also I am not saying that it is for fact it is supernatural in nature .

It sure sounds like you're pouring out magic by the truckload.

All I am saying is that motion comes for cause . I am looking for that cause , and yes some people call that God.

Looking for a cause is good, but not if you're looking for a cause based on a non-sequitur.
Motion exists. Period. Within the universe motion is caused by gravity and the universe's expansion. The universe itself cannot be in motion relative to itself, so there's nothing you can attribute to an unknown cause.

You yourself said that everything can be explained. I am just looking for what can not be explained.

Actually you said it. I just said I agreed and now you contradicted yourself.

Which would mean that it explains itself. If I worded that right.

No, you didn't.

[Alzael]

You yourself said that everything can be explained. I am just looking for what can not be explained.

If something cannot be explained, then it cannot be quantified, evidenced, or understood.

Effectively, you are saying that you are looking to make something up to suit your whims.

[riley2112]

If you roll a ball down a hill, do you call the cause of that motion "God"? 

No, I don't, I call that Gravity, what caused the gravity, what caused what caused the gravity, ect. ect. until you get to the first cause.
 
Things that can not be explained are different than things that are not YET explained.

 This I agree with, so far. With all the great minds that are researching the greatest unknowns in the world, we one day may know where we come from . More than likely not in my life time. These are just some of the things that interest me. I have always believed the best way to go beyond your own thoughts are to listen to others and then try to poke holes in them as will as poking holes in my own. I believe reading and talking to people on this site will enlighten me with things that I may not have come across any other way. I have read Kant, Berkeley, Hume, Locke , James, if any one would like to suggest some other reading , I would appreciate it .

[One Above All]

If you roll a ball down a hill, do you call the cause of that motion "God"? 

No, I don't, I call that Gravity, what caused the gravity, what caused what caused the gravity, ect. ect. until you get to the first cause.

Begging the question. You assume a "first cause" and go from there. That's not how it works.
PS: I wouldn't call anything "God" for two reasons:
1 - "God" is not a proper noun.
2 - My definition of god is an impossible one.

This I agree with, so far. With all the great minds that are researching the greatest unknowns in the world, we one day may know where we come from .

Already do. Simplified version: Big Bang -> Nucleosynthesis -> Abiogenesis -> Evolution -> Now

More than likely not in my life time. These are just some of the things that interest me. I have always believed the best way to go beyond your own thoughts are to listen to others and then try to poke holes in them as will as poking holes in my own.

You should try it sometime. So far you haven't poked any holes in any theory and haven't turned your criticism (or lack thereof) to your own beliefs.

I believe reading and talking to people on this site will enlighten me with things that I may not have come across any other way.

I doubt that, but it's a fair bet.

I have read Kant, Berkeley, Hume, Locke , James, if any one would like to suggest some other reading , I would appreciate it .

I suggest reading up on logical fallacies and books on scientific theories.

[Alzael]

If you roll a ball down a hill, do you call the cause of that motion "God"? 

No, I don't, I call that Gravity, what caused the gravity, what caused what caused the gravity, ect. ect. until you get to the first cause.
 
Things that can not be explained are different than things that are not YET explained.

 This I agree with, so far. With all the great minds that are researching the greatest unknowns in the world, we one day may know where we come from . More than likely not in my life time. These are just some of the things that interest me. I have always believed the best way to go beyond your own thoughts are to listen to others and then try to poke holes in them as will as poking holes in my own. I believe reading and talking to people on this site will enlighten me with things that I may not have come across any other way. I have read Kant, Berkeley, Hume, Locke , James, if any one would like to suggest some other reading , I would appreciate it .

You'll find it impossible to receive any level of enlightentment when you only rely on fallacious points and arguments.

Also, please learn how to quote.....again.

[riley2112]

If something cannot be explained, then it cannot be quantified, evidenced, or understood.

Effectively, you are saying that you are looking to make something up to suit your whims.

Really? Really? The one thing I have found hard to understand is the utter vain reactions of people that may have or at least think they have an above average I.Q.  I guess it is something one must deal with. If I was looking for something to just suit my whims. I would have already figured it out and would not have to be looking for thoughts or help here. That is why we are here , isn't it . I mean I am here to try and learn things that I do not know at this point. I guess it is possible that some are here to show how smart they are or think they are, or how good their memory is by spouting off information that they read that was written and thought of by truly intelligent people. But I am guessing that is not the fact here, as you have all been so helpful and informative. As for the Big Bang , ect. ect. What caused it .. and yes I assume a "first cause" there had to be one , no matter how far back. Something had to have happen somewhere , somehow, by  something. And to believe other wise seems foolish to me. If it all started from nothing, then how? Nothing + Nothing = Nothing. As for my own beliefs, they change as to what new knowledge I encounter. As I am sure most people's do. Thank you for your enlightenment. which by the way you spelled wrong. I am sure that it was just an over sight.  lmao

[Alzael]

Really? Really? The one thing I have found hard to understand is the utter vain reactions of people that may have or at least think they have an above average I.Q. 

Ad Hominem.

If I was looking for something to just suit my whims. I would have already figured it out and would not have to be looking for thoughts or help here. That is why we are here , isn't it .

A dodge. Does not actually respond to the point that was made. Or even acknowledge the point about your contradiction.

I mean I am here to try and learn things that I do not know at this point.

Then you should actually be paying attention to what people say to you. Such as when I just pointed out the flaw in your previous statement. Instead you handwaved it away with a fallacy.

I guess it is possible that some are here to show how smart they are or think they are, or how good their memory is by spouting off information that they read that was written and thought of by truly intelligent people.

Another Ad Hominem.

 As for the Big Bang , ect. ect. What caused it .. and yes I assume a "first cause" there had to be one , no matter how far back. Something had to have happen somewhere , somehow, by  something. 

Base assertion. You cannot just say that there must have been a first cause. You have to prove why there must have been. So far nothing you, nor anyone else, has provided so far shows this. It has nothing to back itself up. Without any actual evidence beyond " and yes I assume a "first cause" there had to be one , no matter how far back. Something had to have happen somewhere , somehow, by  something", you are using something just to support your whims. There is no logical or rational reason to say such a thing, except that it confirms what you wish to be true.

If you can actually provide a rational argument to support it then that will be different. However no one has, as of yet.

And to believe other wise seems foolish to me.

Again, your own mental limitations have no bearing on what is true or not. Reality does not care whether it seems foolish to you or not.

If it all started from nothing, then how? Nothing + Nothing = Nothing.

Lacking any evidence, "I don't know" is the only honest and rational answer.

As for my own beliefs, they change as to what new knowledge I encounter. As I am sure most people's do.

However some effort must be expended towards making certain that the knowledge encountered and the conclusions reached. Which is what I am wondering about. So far your conclusions have been easily demonstrated as false. Also your ideas have relied on irrationality to back them up. The question is when you are going to put in the effort to actually examine what is being said here.

Hell, you haven't even grasped the use of the quote function yet.

[JeffPT]

As for the Big Bang , ect. ect. What caused it ..

I don't know.  What's wrong with that answer?  We don't have any evidence to conclude anything on.  Toss up your hands and shrug because anything anyone says is a guess. 

and yes I assume a "first cause" there had to be one , no matter how far back.

You know what happens when you ass-u-me things. 

Something had to have happen somewhere , somehow, by  something.

And once you find it, you're infinite regression keeps going because you will find yourself asking... alright, well, what caused THAT thing. 

You only think this way because your impression of time is linear.  We evolved to see things that way.  What if your impression of time is wrong?  After all, time can change with increases in speed.  Or what if time is circular instead of linear... thereby making no start point or end point. 

And to believe other wise seems foolish to me.

Then maybe you need to think outside of your comfort zone.  Use some imagination! It's fun.   

[Alzael]

Once more, Riley, adjust your quoting. There is a testing area on the forum where you can learn how to do it properly.

I strongly suggest that you do so.

[jaimehlers]

Riley, if you look on the reply screen, there's a button with a speech bubble on the second row of icons.  This will create a pair of quote tags.  Put the open quote tag [ quote ] in front of the text you're quoting, and put the close quote tag [ /quote ] behind it.  Also, make sure not to actually put the spaces within the brackets that I did, because that breaks the tags.  And make use of the Preview button instead of simply posting.  This will allow you to see what your post will look like before you make it.

As far as your actual argument goes, consider this:  The supernatural does not exist except in our imaginations, because anything that actually happens in the universe is inherently natural.  Therefore the supernatural is not a valid explanation for anything because the explanation that is actually correct is not supernatural and never was supernatural in the first place, because it actually happens.

[Cyberia]

I mean I am here to try and learn things that I do not know at this point.

Great, then pay attention and learn.

As for the Big Bang , ect. ect. What caused it .. and yes I assume a "first cause" there had to be one , no matter how far back.

Your assumption is incorrect.  The "First Cause" argument (aka: Cosmological argument; aka: Kalam argument) all contain a fatal fallacy that not only disproves them, but in fact proves the opposite of what the argument was attempting to prove.

That flaw is that they assume (implicitly or explicitly) that TIME exists eternally.....and it does NOT.

Time BEGAN at the Big Bang.  That was T=0.   However, any cause-and-effect argument relies upon the fact that cause and effect are temporally ordered.  Cause MUST precede effect.  The "cause" must come first.  But since time began at the Big Bang, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a cause to have preceded it.  "Before Time" is a contradiction and is impossible.

Therefore, the universe does not NEED a cause, and cannot have one, by definition.  A first cause is logically IMPOSSIBLE.

The universe MUST be UNCAUSED.

MUST.

If it all started from nothing, then how?

It's being actively researched as we speak.

Nothing + Nothing = Nothing.

Sigh.

0 + 0 = 0   or even just   0 = 0

But lots of things equal zero.  An infinite number of things, in fact.

0 = 3 - 3

or

0 = X - X

As long as you have "something negative", you can get "something from nothing".  In our universe, that "something negative" is GRAVITY.  Gravity is "negative energy".  It draws energy out of things.  That's why it causes matter to clump up, because the matter lost it's energy and cannot escape.  That's why it takes a huge effort to climb out of Earth's gravity well.  That's why any object moving through space has MORE energy than the same object sitting on the surface of the Earth.

It also explains why matter emits gravity, and why gravity only works on matter.  They are linked.  A symmetry exists, by necessity.  Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) indicate that the universe we live within is geometrically "flat".  ONLY in such a universe could such a thing be possible.  This is consistent with (but does not by itself prove) an all natural, ex nihilo, causeless universe.

In short, as a whole, the universe STILL has ZERO energy.  All the energy and matter are counter-balanced by gravitation.

The Zero-Energy Universe Hypothesis

[Emily]

  No, I don't, I call that Gravity, what caused the gravity, what caused what caused the gravity, ect. ect. until you get to the first cause.
 

god isn't even a first cause either. theists just conveniently stop like a dear in headlights when asked where their god came from, and fall back on the same boring excuses and rationalizations like, "he always has been" or something along those lines. A god being the first call is no more better of an answer than the wind being the cause why the branches on my tree move. I know they move. I see them moving right now, but I cannot see what is causing them to move. All I see and hear are after effects. Might as well call the causer a god then. But really we know what is the cause of wind: air moving from low pressure to high pressure.

Why such a double standard? Why do people make an excuse when asked the cause if their god? Oh, he is eternal. He doesn't need a causer.It begs the question of WHY? WhaT make him so special he can get away with it? I'll tell you: nothing. It's just so easy to stop at the conclusion of their being a god behind everything then examine his own existence.

I Don't Know what called the big bang is a perfectly acceptable answer because it removes all injection of a god of the gaps. Sadly no one was there at the time of the big bang but NASA has seen the galaxies that formed 300 years after it happened, and its radiation is still present today in the form of cosmic background radiation. The 'cause' is believed to be from an extremely hot and dense state matter and anti-matter annihilated each other forming the first atom, hydrogen. Then the cycle continued as the universe expanded, creating galaxies and planets and eventually life formed on this rock in this humbling corner of the universe.

What did the initial causer come from? Who knows. Perfectly fine answer. Who knows. I'd like to know conclusively but to make any other claims without any solid evidence to back it up is just foolishness, and the most foolish thing to do is make the claim that some god did it, simply because it's the most comfortable answe.

[riley2112]

This will allow you to see what your post will look like before you make it.

Thank you , with a little practice I should be able to get it down.

supernatural is not a valid explanation for anything because the explanation that is actually correct is not supernatural and never was supernatural in the first place, because it actually happens.

Then, is the existence of something supernatural something which is far from knowable with universally acceptable certainty, and therefore which one should be discouraged from seeking further to know? As Ninian Smart puts it, the traditional proofs have survived and they still have their use, but it is suggestive, rather than decisive. Smart rightly notes that the often discredited rational proofs do have their rightful place in the debate, even though they may not touch the heart of the life of faith. The absence of an intellectual framework that makes sense has always been detrimental to faith, thus the quest for understanding should not be abandoned. For Smart, rational or philosophical insights about the existence of something supernatural or God for lack of a better word,are to be combined with the various other aspects of religious revelation, such as the experiential dimension, the moral dimension, and the mythical dimension (Ninian Smart). And again thank you for your help on posting , I will get better at it.

[C]

^^^^^^^

There's an entire section on the forum devoted to you posting threads/posts just to test out or improve on posting.


http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,28.0.html

[Emily]

^^ Seriously. GO to the test area and learn to quote. It's not that hard to do, and if you don't learn this simple task then your time here most likely will be very shorty.

[jaimehlers]

My point, riley, is that you don't assume that the explanation has to be supernatural.  It may be outside our existing experience, but it will also be natural and explainable using rules we can understand.  And those rules will be consistent with each other, even if we don't see the relationships between them at first.  That is why religious stuff is generally not acceptable as evidence, because it is highly inconsistent, not explainable, and relies on an unexplained supernatural entity.

[Tinyal]

On a side note, one of the reasons I hang here is due to the kind of explanations people give when theists/creationists/etc ask/tell/etc - I learn alot from the various explanations given.  Even though I've had a few years of college, spend much of my waking life in college (as I work at one), am heavily involved in complex computer operations - that leaves an awlful lot I haven't a clue about.  I mean, sure I know evolution is true, I know what a theory (used scientifically) really is (as compared to how religionists or the general public use it) - but there are so many things I don't know, I dispair of ever having a grasp of even the smallest percentage of what remains of my lifetime.

But here (as well as over at the Randi forum), I actually learn things!

Thanks to all of you!!

Ok, back I go a lurking

[jaimehlers]

At least someone does.  Too many people who come here do so with the evident intention of trying to prove their beliefs correct, rather than being willing to consider what they might learn from people who don't believe as they do.

[riley2112]

My point, riley, is that you don't assume that the explanation has to be supernatural.  It may be outside our existing experience, but it will also be natural and explainable using rules we can understand.  And those rules will be consistent with each other, even if we don't see the relationships between them at first.  That is why religious stuff is generally not acceptable as evidence, because it is highly inconsistent, not explainable, and relies on an unexplained supernatural entity.

I understand your veiw point and as of this time, I can not say it is fiction or fact. And you are right as for keeping religious stuff out of the eqution. However with all of that said, here we are , millions of us . living , breathing. reproducing. life. Scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10to the40,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it! [140]

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old [141], and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! [142]

In other words, probabilities enormously favor the idea that an intelligent designer was responsible for even the simplest DNA molecules
I am not saying that is supernatural or not. I have come to the concussion that we have enough imformation to bounce this back and forth for ever. All things are possible. I tend to lean toward creation but everyone has their own beliefs based on the knowledge and expence that we have come in contact with during our life time. Your opion brings up many questions that will be fun to look into. My respects

Mod Edit:  Riley - look at how this ended up after I fixed the quoting.

[Ambassador Pony]

I have come to the concussion

Quoting. Learn it before you post again.

[jaimehlers]

Riley, keep it simple.  Quote the entire post you're referring to, then respond after the quote.  You put an extra quote tag in the middle of that block of text, and an unneeded one afterward.

Now, in regards to your post, no, scientists did not 'calculate' those odds.  People who had a vested interest in trying to disprove evolution as an explanation did.    I think you would find that those probability calculations were based on the unstated assumption of the building blocks of a single-celled organism had to come together in the same place all at once and combine to form that organism.  But that's a strawman - no theory of the origins of life on Earth suggests that life could only come about in such an all-or-nothing manner.

The actual scenario postulated by abiogenesis theory is that it happened in sequential increments.  So you had things combine over time and eventually become a single-celled organism, instead of requiring them to all be together in the same place at the same time and react in just the right way to produce that organism.

[Emergence]

Scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10to the40,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it! [140]

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old [141], and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! [142]

Hello Riley, for your information: Quoting from external sources without giving a reference to that source is frowned upon here. The above seems to be taken from ChristianAnswers.net - Where did life come from? Is evolution the best scientific answer? judging by the reference numbers you left in when - a wild guess - copying and pasting the citations into your reply. Try to avoid doing that without proper attribution in the future or risk being accused to be a plagiarist. That would be a breach of Forum Rules:

[...]
    Plagiarism is not allowed. Material from an external source must be cited by providing a Web link or an adequate reference to the relevant publication.
[...]

Cheers.

[riley2112]

plagiarist I understand and giving credit when credit is due I also understand, I do get my information in many different places. and in the future I will make sure I will give reference to that source . I think I will go and pratice the posting and quoting some. I beg of your understanding and patience. Just the information that I have received today will give me hours of pleasure finding article to read so I can better understand them. Thank you again.

[12 Monkeys]

2112 I take it your a Rush fan ....Neil Peart.......Athiest

[Ambassador Pony]

Alex Lifeson....drunk male prostitute.

[Mr. Blackwell]

...the universe itself is not in motion relative to itself (how could it be?).

Please excuse my intrusion but can you explain this to me? I am not saying that I disagree. I just don't understand what you are saying.

Now, in regards to your post, no, scientists did not 'calculate' those odds.  People who had a vested interest in trying to disprove evolution as an explanation did.

Have any scientists calculated those odds? I'd like to see those odds if they have.

[riley2112]

2112 I take it your a Rush fan ....Neil Peart.......Atheist

yes I am a Rush fan.  If I am going to visit your site from time to time.( If i am allowed to) I have read many studies , many arguments, and a lot of different opinions, none have I found so compelling as to make me believe in evolution or creation . I read to have the information to keep my mind open. However I do believe in a God. Not because it can be proved that it does exist. Because it can not. Nor because it can be proved that it does not exist. Because it can't. I am not , nor will I ever try to disprove evolution because evolution is happening now as we speak, Maybe not in the way most people believe. But I will leave that to people much smarter than myself. I live and let live , knowing that no one is completely correct in their ideals when it comes to the beginning of the universe. It was not that long ago we found out the world was not flat. And people was so sure of it at the time.
Any way I may be on the wrong site for the person I am . Time will tell, with this and most of the things you are debating about. Again, My Respects.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Shit Riley you just learned how to quote, don't leave now! Stick around, there are others like yourself here as well.

Edit to add:

Also, if you start getting burnt out or overwhelmed just visit one of the recreational threads.