DHPG: The Science of Evolutionism: A Deconstruction Analysis and Refutation...

[Sucumbio]

The Science of Evolutionism: A Deconstruction Analysis and Refutation of “Is Evolution Science?” By Lucas Nuckols

In the article “Is Evolution Science?” by Lucas Nuckols, Nuckols argues that the Theory of Evolution “should be questioned closely by more scientists and not treated like a scientific law.”1 His reason for this is based upon two observations: that there is little evidence supporting the theory, and that the theory is flawed. He further goes on to state the flaws: “… irreducibly complex systems, lack of transitional fossils, genetics, and evidence for a younger earth. Apart from very little evidence for evolution and numerous data that does not support the theory, evolution also devalues life.”2 Nuckols’ approach though earnest ultimately fails to prove his point, as he consistently ignores compiled data in favor of evolution theory so as to provide a stronger basis for his own assumptions–these instead neatly adorned with scientific analysis to supports his claims. This approach, while seemingly effective, actually detracts from the piece’s worth, as it forces the reader to one side, without allowing them a proper unbiased approach from which they may draw their own conclusion. Though his title suggests the question is what is important, it is quickly revealed that the author’s own opinion is far more important to him, than true analysis.

“Lack of evidence” suggests that one should expect to be able to find demonstrative models in nature that go towards proving the Theory of Evolution, but that none are present. However, as Darwin states “Our oldest cultivated plants, such as wheat, still often yield new varieties: our oldest domesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or modification.”3 This type of vastly inaccurate assumption making is replete throughout Nuckols’ work as he ignores obvious fact to further his own agenda. In this example we see that Darwin is not pulling from the abstract, he is really just citing from observation. However, Nuckols’ would discount this as evidence, indicating the possibility that he lacks fundamental knowledge about Darwin’s work, ergo he has not read it in its entirety, if at all.

“Irreducibly Complex Systems” are systems that cannot function if one part of the whole is removed or otherwise non-functioning. Nuckols’ uses the human eye as an example of this, by citing “if one part was taken out of the eye, such as the lens, the retina, iris, cornea, or optic nerve, the eye would be a totally useless system.”4 This in turn means that organs cannot have developed over time, because they always had to be as complex as they are now, or not work at all. However as Darwin concludes “We are so much accustomed to see differences in structure between the embryo and the adult, and likewise a close similarity in the embryos of widely different animals within the same class, that we might be led to look at these facts as necessarily contingent in some manner on growth. But there is no obvious reason why, for instance, the wing of a bat, or the fin of a porpoise, should not have been sketched out with all the parts in proper proportion, as soon as any structure became visible in the embryo. And in some whole groups of animals and in certain members of other groups, the embryo does not at any period differ widely from the adult: thus Owen has remarked in regard to cuttle-fish, `there is no metamorphosis; the cephalopodic character is manifested long before the parts of the embryo are completed;' and again in spiders, `there is nothing worthy to be called a metamorphosis.'”5 What we see here is another example of assumption on the part of Nuckols, in that he assumes his example of the human eye is sufficient evidence to discount Darwin’s theory. Much to the contrary, Darwin admits that biological life forms from birth to death follow a (genetic) pattern and it is at the beginning stage of life, and during nature-induced transformations that evolutionary traits may change either drastically or minutely. These changes need not necessarily result in a broken system – the missing of an iris, for example.

Nuckols’ disposition on evolutionism and genetics: “The genetic code can change within the species from generation to generation, but it cannot have new information added to it.”6 This means that technically all the building blocks that ever were, are already present, and its is the removal or suppression of such genetic information that is revealed after birth which determines an organisms physical traits. However Darwin keenly points out that there is in fact a basis for conclusion that genetics though a more recent term, exist not to allay us a set palette by which we may judge a species’ makings, but instead a format by which we can catalog the progression of such elements. “Many of the cases of strongly-marked varieties or doubtful species well deserve consideration; for several interesting lines of argument, from geographical distribution, analogical variation, hybridism, &c., have been brought to bear on the attempt to determine their rank. I will here give only a single instance, the well-known one of the primrose and cowslip, or Primula veris and elatior. These plants differ considerably in appearance; they have a different flavour and emit a different odour; they flower at slightly different periods; they grow in somewhat different stations; they ascend mountains to different heights; they have different geographical ranges; and lastly, according to very numerous experiments made during several years by that most careful observer Gärtner, they can be crossed only with much difficulty. We could hardly wish for better evidence of the two forms being specifically distinct. On the other hand, they are united by many intermediate links, and it is very doubtful whether these links are hybrids; and there is, as it seems to me, an overwhelming amount of experimental evidence, showing that they descend from common parents, and consequently must be ranked as varieties.”7

The idea that there are no Transitional Fossils is often a misleading argument made by Creationists in an attempt to derail evolution theory.8 One merely has to visit the Smithsonian Institute of Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History to see evidence of transitional fossils. These fossils do indeed paint a somewhat obvious picture for even the laymen, illustrating how various species adapt over time to the changing world around them. These changes though taking millions of years in total, span thousands of years in between, an idea that segues nicely into rebuttal against the idea that the Earth is only a few millions years old, versus billions of years old.

“The age of the earth is important, because evolution needs a lot of time for it to work. In fact, many scientists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, as reported by a geological survey taken by The United Stated Department of the Interior (n.d). First of all, there is no tangible evidence for the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.”9 The problem with this statement is two fold. Firstly, as is evident in fossil records (which he denies exist) which have been carbon dated, we can see that indeed there are changes between fossils within the same species, and that these changes gradually occur, over millions of years, though only thousands of years between minute changes. Secondly, the US geological survey that established the idea of the Earth being approximately 4.5 billion years old does in fact have roots in tangible evidence. “Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents… An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far… The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).”10

Nuckols final argument against Darwin’s theory is that “evolution also devalues life in a way that causes some people to no longer view life as valuable and needing protection… This type of evolutionary thinking was used by Adolph Hitler in exterminating the elderly, crippled, and ********.”11 It should be noted that German citizens were availed copies of Darwin’s work, but with additions. “The book was widely translated in Darwin's life time, but problems arose with translating concepts and metaphors, and some translations were biased by the translator's own agenda. Darwin distributed presentation copies in France and Germany, hoping that suitable applicants would come forward, as translators were expected to make their own arrangements with a local publisher. He welcomed the distinguished elderly naturalist and geologist Heinrich Georg Bronn, but the German translation published in 1860 imposed Bronn's own ideas, adding controversial themes that Darwin had deliberately omitted. Bronn translated "favoured races" as "perfected races", and added essays on issues including the origin of life, as well as a final chapter on religious implications partly inspired by Bronn's adherence to Naturphilosophie.”12 This further illustrates Nuckols’ lack of attention paid to the details of circumstance. His use of Hitler’s agenda is as much careless as it is insensitive to the facts at hand.

In conclusion, I must warn any readers about Nuckols’ article “Is Evolution Science?” Rather than asking a serious question and affording the reader a chance to discover both sides of the argument, this author hides within his writing an agenda that is clearly biased towards debunking evolution theory, while simultaneously neglecting to offer an real alternatives to Darwin’s work. Nuckols’ repeatedly abolishes the sentiments of any good scientific method, in favor of half baked truths and widely inappropriate and frankly inaccurate assumptions. He attempts to validate his findings by citing the honest work of scientists by splicing together their findings so as to give his own conclusions merit.

-------
1 [FONT=&quot]Nuckols, Lucas. “Is Evolution Science?” creationscience Academy. 2009 <http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html>[/FONT]
2 [FONT=&quot] Nuckols, Lucas. “Is Evolution Science?” creationscience Academy. 2009 <http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html>[/FONT]
3 [FONT=&quot] Darwin, Charles. [FONT=&quot]The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. New York: 1860.[/FONT][/FONT]
4 [FONT=&quot] Nuckols, Lucas. “Is Evolution Science?” creationscience Academy. 2009 <http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html>[/FONT]
5 [FONT=&quot]Darwin, Charles. [FONT=&quot]The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. New York: 1860.[/FONT][/FONT]
6 [FONT=&quot] Nuckols, Lucas. “Is Evolution Science?” creationscience Academy. 2009 <http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html>[/FONT]
7 [FONT=&quot]Darwin, Charles. [FONT=&quot]The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. New York: 1860.[/FONT][/FONT]
8 [FONT=&quot] Prothero, Donald. “Evolution: What missing link?” NewScientist. 2645 February 27, 2008 <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html?full=true>[/FONT]
9 [FONT=&quot] Nuckols, Lucas. “Is Evolution Science?” creationscience Academy. 2009 <http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html>[/FONT]
10 [FONT=&quot]Dalrymple, Brent G. “Age of the Earth.” USGS. Stanford University Press. July 9, 2007 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html>[/FONT]
11 [FONT=&quot]Nuckols, Lucas. “Is Evolution Science?” creationscience Academy. 2009 <http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html>[/FONT]
12 [FONT=&quot]Browne, Janet E. Charles Darwin: Vol. 2 The Power of Place, London: Jonathan Cape. 2002[/FONT]

 

[Crimson King]

Wow... I'll be reviewing this and making my comments shortly. Be prepared to defend against people that I'll bring it, but the fact you actually footnoted and spent a great deal discussing this topic is impressive.

 

[CRASHiC]

Many Christians and Muslims have clung to those two arguments, here's why they are for the most part wrong:

First, the 'observation' of there being little evidence is just wrong. I say that categorically. Darwin spend years of his life compiling a lot of evidence. Since his death people have been finding very strong evidence for the theory constantly. There's the many examples of allopatric and sympatric speciation all over the world complete with fossils, DNA profiles and geographical evidence to support them. There's the 'textbook' rat poison, antibiotic resistance and kuru resistance examples to name but a few. Unless one has been staring at a wall for the past century it's difficult to argue otherwise.

Second, yes, the original theory was incomplete. Almost every biologist acknowledges this, hence there is the theory of neo-evolution which extends the theory to accommodate some of the exceptions to his original theory. He knew had only scratched the surface, and the body of The Origin Of Species still stands today. Biologists do continue to develop the theory.

The fundamental flaw in all of these arguments is that they treat intelligent design as a scientific theory or evolution as a blind belief. Neither of which is correct. There is scant evidence for ID.

Here's a well made, convincing documentary against evolution and pro-ID. They consistently make subtle mistakes, dress speculation as fact, attempt to justify the argument with credentials and use plenty of other logical fallacies, but superficially it may look convincing to the unscientific individual. Be careful...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqR7cT0XZVM

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well-done Sucumbio! I don't think many people have the patience to trawl though that and then refute it. I certainly don't!

The funny thing is, despite not having read the Lucas Nuckols's article I have already seen these sort of arguments before. And all of these arguments have been thoroughly destroyed by a whole host of people.

Also, a small comment on the irreducibly complex argument. I see there is no mention of the possibility for something to evolve indirectly. Eg. A wing evolving out of a arm. The arm was useful for something else and it evolved first, then came the wing, adapting the arm to be used for flight. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for irreducible complexity.

Additionally the supposed examples of irreducible complexity have been debunked, such as the bacterial flagellum, the eye, or the wing. Let's make it clear, there are no examples of irreducible complexity in nature.

In fact lets do a thought experiment. Nucnkol's article says that, “if one part was taken out of the eye, such as the lens, the retina, iris, cornea, or optic nerve, the eye would be a totally useless system.” Now imagine you had eyes without lenses, (these things actually exist, Flatworm eyes actually lack a lens and much more) You can detect light, dark and colour. Your vision would be very blurry and perhaps incoherent, but you still can tell day from night, or perhaps a sunny day from a cloudy one. It would allow you to see well enough to stop you walking off a cliff or getting run over by a truck. Thus, an eye without a lens, has use and cannot be considered irreducibly complex.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah, he's definitely a hack. I was like "WTF?" reading most or the article, but in doing this assignment I basically took his words as 'seriously' as possible, lol. He obviously didn't even read Darwin's work, just skimmed it, if that even, I suspect he actually went off of OTHER people's essays on the subject. I've thought about publishing this article, in fact, though I would have to revise it more carefully, there's some typos, etc. And as you pointed out, I went light on the number of refutations, mainly because there's SO many points HE tries to throw against evolution, I wanted to limit it to 1 to 1 to spare my readers, but I could definitely expound more on all his points if I were to publish it.

Thanks for the feedback, you two. Heh, I guess I did pick a side less debatable than Dre... for the sake of it, I may actually draft a support article of Nuckols' piece, but I'll have to flagellate myself for every word typed ><

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah, he's definitely a hack. I was like "WTF?" reading most or the article, but in doing this assignment I basically took his words as 'seriously' as possible, lol. He obviously didn't even read Darwin's work, just skimmed it, if that even, I suspect he actually went off of OTHER people's essays on the subject. I've thought about publishing this article, in fact, though I would have to revise it more carefully, there's some typos, etc. And as you pointed out, I went light on the number of refutations, mainly because there's SO many points HE tries to throw against evolution, I wanted to limit it to 1 to 1 to spare my readers, but I could definitely expound more on all his points if I were to publish it.

Thanks for the feedback, you two. Heh, I guess I did pick a side less debatable than Dre... for the sake of it, I may actually draft a support article of Nuckols' piece, but I'll have to flagellate myself for every word typed ><

I couldn't really do that, I'd feel intellectually dishonest. I'll put it this way, I really admire you...

Hey I might refute Lucas Nuckols article point by point, maybe over a whole number of posts in this thread. A bit more thoroughly than in the OP.

First up: Lucas Nuckols opening paragraph!

According to a Gallup poll, less than forty percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. This poll sends a clear message that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution (Gallup, 2009).

Umm... That's just a logical fallacy! argumentum ad populum. So we'll disregard that.

This survey is very shocking and is quite contrary to what is promoted by most of the evolutionist media sources, such as “National Geographic,” “Scientific American,” “Nova,” and more. These sources often attempt to lead people to believe that evolution is a fact and that almost everyone believes in it.

Evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community, anyone who had an education should know this. Also, the general public shouldn't really matter when deciding matters of science. We didn't vote for General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics!. Also I'm fairly confident that National Geographic doesn't use the argumentum ad populum fallacy to support Evolution, when it has fossils and observed instance of speciation, observed instances of beneficial mutations, genetic evidence, and quite a bit more. Why would you use logical fallacies, when you have mountains of evidence? It doesn't really make sense.

Most atheistic evolutionists (not all) believe that the universe started with a “Big Bang,” a huge explosion that created the universe. They do not know where this energy came from or why it took place. They believe after a long period of time rocks were formed out of that explosion. Many evolutionists believe that after the “Big Bang” there was a “primordial soup” for millions of years, and out of that primordial soup a simple life form developed. After millions and millions of years that simple life form progressed to more “complex” life forms through series of mutations into where we are today.

This is probably the one of the worst straw-man of the big-bang theory I've seen. Not only do us atheistic "evolutionists" not believe that crock of garbage, but it's just plain ridiculous. This man is intellectually dishonest, I'll bet he knows full-well that atheists don't believe this rubbish.

I'll try and explain the big-bang in my own words... It may not go too well, I'm not a cosmologist after all... Also, if I'm wrong on the details, please correct me.

Here goes:

13.3-13.9 Billion Years ago, all the entire universe was contained an a small singularity. This includes all the laws of nature, all the energy, all the matter space, and time itself. For some reason unknown to us yet, the universe expanded extremely quickly, during a period known as the inflationary epoch. This very first moments of this expansion gave rise to matter, space, time and the laws of physics, such as gravity. Sub-atomic particles like quarks and leptons are formed from the newly born universe. Then over around three minutes, atomic nuclei begin to form. After about a about 400 000 years, the universe has cooled enough for the nuclei to capture electrons. This universe then cools and expands further, resulting in the formation of stars, galaxies and eventually planets.

My explanation is probably terrible, but at least it represents the theory a whole lot better.

 

[Sucumbio]

Hey I might refute Lucas Nuckols article point by point, maybe over a whole number of posts in this thread. A bit more thoroughly than in the OP.

Here's a better idea, make your own thread... not trying to be rude, but CK would appreciate your entry, I'm sure... we only have TWO responses to his calling, you'd be 3, he was going to allow the best 5 to enter the debate hall, so yeah... make your points, you have nothing to lose, and your insights will be unique. What's important to CK and the people he'll bring attention of your entry to, is your ability to write convincingly, accurately and with forethought.

Also your BB theory is not bad, more detailed than most give credit for... the "for some unknown reason" is exactly where Dre drew upon for his argument. The unknown reason can't be unknown, it has to be a Devine Intervention, because the singularity and all the natural elements within and to follow, cannot have created themselves. This got argued (as you can see in his thread) to death and back, but it was a good nonetheless.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Hey thanks. I probably should make my own thread, but what about the stuff already here?

 

[Sucumbio]

just cut-n-paste it, yo.

 

[Dre89]

Just because we're the only three doesn't mean he'll let us all in though, although I'm guessing he'll let you in Sucumbio because he said he liked your thread.

Also, with the unknown reason, therefore it must be divine, the reason why I say that is because it's not like a murder, where there's several people 'capable' but we just don't know who it is, I'm saying that we know it couldn't be any natural entities, therefore it must be divine, so I'm saying there's really only one possible suspect.

I'm sure you know that Sucumbio but I just wanted to let the TC know that incase he attempts to refute me.

 

[Sucumbio]

ah yes, I appreciate the clarification actually cause your thread got so bogged down at one point it was starting to get difficult to see the clear point, lol.

Hey if it makes you feel any better my wife not only agrees w/you, but says that Evolution AND Big Bang -necessitate- the existence of God, the Creator. As in neither evo or bb theory even make sense without God involved to start it all up.

Me, well I believe more in a MIB approach... that our universe and everything in it is the result of a scientific experiment, in which a sphere containing nothing (a vacuum) has a speck of special matter introduced into its center somehow (there's the rub) which instantly creates force, and that this start matter instantly tries to reach equilibrium, eventually snuffing itself out of physical existence, leaving only energy. So-called "dark matter" is our perception of the inside wall surface of the sphere, but we cannot see it because it exists outside the boundaries of the expanding universe. The experiment's purpose is to gauge the response of various start-matter types, and their journey from introduction to expansion to dissipation. Far fetched, I know, but if it ever turns out to be true I'll feel special.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Just because we're the only three doesn't mean he'll let us all in though, although I'm guessing he'll let you in Sucumbio because he said he liked your thread.

Also, with the unknown reason, therefore it must be divine, the reason why I say that is because it's not like a murder, where there's several people 'capable' but we just don't know who it is, I'm saying that we know it couldn't be any natural entities, therefore it must be divine, so I'm saying there's really only one possible suspect.

I'm sure you know that Sucumbio but I just wanted to let the TC know that incase he attempts to refute me.

I disagree entirely, just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean it was caused by divine intervention. We don't know it couldn't be any natural entities at this stage either. We just don't know anything about the universe before it existed.

 

[Sucumbio]

I disagree entirely, just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean it was caused by divine intervention. We don't know it couldn't be any natural entities at this stage either. We just don't know anything about the universe before it existed.

Well, he's not really saying that, what he's saying is that present Big Bang theory necessitates the existence of God the creator, or bust. And this is based on his assertion (however accurate or inaccurate is to be decided in -his- thread) that Big Bang Theory has concluded that -all- natural entities, including Time, Space, Energy and Matter and the things those 4 basics create or allow for, all come from the Big Bang. Being natural, they cannot create themselves.

And more so, they didn't create themselves, the Big Bang did.

And the Big Bang was created by the Singularity (the universe before the big bang).

And the Singularity was also a natural entity, created by God. Even if it's some other natural entity that created the singularity then something had to have created the creator onto infinity.

My argument against this (which is long winded) boils down to the Singularity neither being created nor having a creator. It just... is. Always was. This is because to Create, in the simplest of terms, is to assume a time line, a line in which you start with parts, then assemble, in essence. Time being created -after- the big bang, means that no concepts that rely on time, including lines of time, can exist. Therefore the Singularity cannot exist by any definitions, proofs, theorems, or qualities that apply to anything after the Big Bang. It is an entirely Unique system, which need not necessitate a creator, its creation, or anything.

Maybe we should spark your topic up again, Dre? It's quite fascinating to talk about, even if it requires a break every now and then to keep from brain aneurism.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah perhaps, but I'm worried it'll just go in circles, I felt that I was just repeating the same points over and over again though.

We certianly spark it up again at some point, but now though because there actually seems to be some degree of activity here in the PG which we should embrace while we can lol.

 

[Eor]

Also, with the unknown reason, therefore it must be divine, the reason why I say that is because it's not like a murder, where there's several people 'capable' but we just don't know who it is, I'm saying that we know it couldn't be any natural entities, therefore it must be divine, so I'm saying there's really only one possible suspect.

This is called an Argument from Ignorance. Just because we don't know how the singularity was there doesn't mean it has to have a supernatural reason. Indepth information on singularities are currently outside of our capabilities.

ah yes, I appreciate the clarification actually cause your thread got so bogged down at one point it was starting to get difficult to see the clear point, lol.

Hey if it makes you feel any better my wife not only agrees w/you, but says that Evolution AND Big Bang -necessitate- the existence of God, the Creator. As in neither evo or bb theory even make sense without God involved to start it all up.

Well I won't argue about the Big Bang theory part (as I mentioned that earlier), I will mention that evolution does work perfectly fine without a creator, due to Natural Selection. Natural selection isn't a mystical force, it's just what we use to describe the process of beneficial mutations. Imagine if tomorrow some huge birds came out of nowhere and started eating everyone above 5ft. Those under 5ft, being able to survive longer, will breed more, and cause those genes to spread, while those that are above 5ft both won't be around to breed longer, but will also die out much easier then those under 4ft. That in itself would be natural selection, without any sort of God needed.

Me, well I believe more in a MIB approach... that our universe and everything in it is the result of a scientific experiment, in which a sphere containing nothing (a vacuum) has a speck of special matter introduced into its center somehow (there's the rub) which instantly creates force, and that this start matter instantly tries to reach equilibrium, eventually snuffing itself out of physical existence, leaving only energy. So-called "dark matter" is our perception of the inside wall surface of the sphere, but we cannot see it because it exists outside the boundaries of the expanding universe. The experiment's purpose is to gauge the response of various start-matter types, and their journey from introduction to expansion to dissipation. Far fetched, I know, but if it ever turns out to be true I'll feel special.

Can you please explain why you believe that?

 

[Sucumbio]

I will mention that evolution does work perfectly fine without a creator, due to Natural Selection.

Hm... ok, lets go with that. First, I fully accept your example/definition of NS.

However, I submit that as such, the course of evolution, which predates the existence of our planet, technically, cannot have started without the big bang, which relies on God. It's all step by step, in other words. Singularity -> Bang -> Life (which includes everything, including evolution, which includes NS).

And so if the big bang needs God to have started it, so too does natural selection, as it is a part of what the big bang created.

Can you please explain why you believe that?

Sure! Basically it's a convenient theory that happens to fit the facts (as far as facts have come to this point.) It's fairly unique in its approach, and it's ... comforting to know that all this we call life is not in vein. That even if we cannot know our own destiny, we can at least rest in the knowledge that someone out there is benefiting from all this.

It also makes sense to me. The universe seems to behave in this strange way, where physics make total sense until you come across an "anomaly" that has no explanation. Then there's the thing itself, which seems to have for all intents and purposes just shown up one day.

I've bounced between 2 theories, really. Either the Universe was created by someone, something or whatever (technically God since they created it and ultimately me) or it created itself (meaning I created myself ultimately). Either has huge implications. Neither require belief in an all-powerful being, a heaven or hell.

And yet I still cling to a Faith that demands belief in an all-powerful being, heaven and hell. Such is the contradiction of my life, but I'm okay with it, I have nothing on my head or heart that keeps me awake at night, I know I'm doing right by myself my friends, family and loved ones, and that's enough.

 

[Eor]

Hm... ok, lets go with that. First, I fully accept your example/definition of NS.

However, I submit that as such, the course of evolution, which predates the existence of our planet, technically, cannot have started without the big bang, which relies on God. It's all step by step, in other words. Singularity -> Bang -> Life (which includes everything, including evolution, which includes NS).

And so if the big bang needs God to have started it, so too does natural selection, as it is a part of what the big bang created.

Well that doesn't really work. That's like saying computers or gravity needed God to exist, or that surgery needed God to exist. It's semantics.

Besides, there isn't a reason to say the Big Bang requires a Deity, for reasons I already covered.

Sure! Basically it's a convenient theory that happens to fit the facts (as far as facts have come to this point.) It's fairly unique in its approach, and it's ... comforting to know that all this we call life is not in vein. That even if we cannot know our own destiny, we can at least rest in the knowledge that someone out there is benefiting from all this.

It also makes sense to me. The universe seems to behave in this strange way, where physics make total sense until you come across an "anomaly" that has no explanation. Then there's the thing itself, which seems to have for all intents and purposes just shown up one day.

I've bounced between 2 theories, really. Either the Universe was created by someone, something or whatever (technically God since they created it and ultimately me) or it created itself (meaning I created myself ultimately). Either has huge implications. Neither require belief in an all-powerful being, a heaven or hell.

And yet I still cling to a Faith that demands belief in an all-powerful being, heaven and hell. Such is the contradiction of my life, but I'm okay with it, I have nothing on my head or heart that keeps me awake at night, I know I'm doing right by myself my friends, family and loved ones, and that's enough.

Fair enough, though I'd have to point out that concepts such as an "abnormality" in physics doesn't show a breakdown, or mistake, in natural law, just our understanding of it.

Though I would have to ask how the concept of our Universe being contained in something would work, considering that our universe is expanding.

You also say dark matter is the "wall" of the universe, but that we can't see it because it's not in our universe. Dark matter, however, isn't based on the "outer limits" of the universe (assuming it exists at all, since it's still hypothetical). Also, if dark matter wasn't in our universe, then it wouldn't be able to affect it. But dark matter does affect the universe, it has a gravitational effect on other things, which is the entire reason we can even assume it exists.

To assume we're in an experiment would also, largely, assume that the laws of physics in this other universe would be similar to ours, since you describe it as being done by natural life, which would require their universe to be incredibly similar to ours. Unless you're assuming that whoever did this experiment also created our universe to be like theirs. But it also just adds on the question of "well then what created that universe?". Why is it that our universe is an experiment, but apparently there's isn't? It also asks the question of how this other universe could be said to exist. If it's separate from ours then it can't have an observable effect on this one, and therefore is impossible to know about, or be used to make predictions.

I don't think I explained this clearly before, so I'll try again.

Pretty much, the claim that there was a moment of creation is not proven. In the classical theory of gravity, time is either infinite or has a boundary (at a singularity). However, the classical theory of gravity fails when it comes to the Planck length, which requires the Quantum theory of gravity. In that, time can be finite, without having any boundaries. Think of the surface of the earth. It's finite, but no matter which direction you go, you won't run off the edge. So just imagine it like that, but with two more dimensions. So pretty much, the universe would have no boundaries, there'd be no singularity for natural laws to break down at, it would be neither created or destroyed. It just is.

What I described is the No Boundary proposal by Stephen Hawking (and someone else who I forget). It's a proposal, but it fits completely into what we currently know, and so can very well be exactly how it happened. So if the universe is self contained, with no moment of creation, then what place for a creator?

 

[GoldShadow]

However, I submit that as such, the course of evolution, which predates the existence of our planet, technically, cannot have started without the big bang, which relies on God.

Have you read some of Alt's posts?

 

[RDK]

Why wasn't I invited to this thread?

Evolution vs. whatever discussions are unworthy of the Debate Hall. I tire of them.

Honestly, Alt, would you allow a thread about how gravity does not exist?

 

[Dre89]

This is called an Argument from Ignorance. Just because we don't know how the singularity was there doesn't mean it has to have a supernatural reason. Indepth information on singularities are currently outside of our capabilities.

You missed the entire point of that post. The whole point was to clarify that I'm not making that argument, I'm not saying there must be divine intervention because we don't know what caused the world.

My point was to let people know I was saying that due to the fact we understand the essence of natural entities, we know that a natural entity could not have originated the universe, therefore something beyond the natural must have been responsible.

Whether you agree that a natural entity could not be the original cause is irrelevant, my point was to clarify that I wasn't employing an argument from ignorance, because it seems that Sucumbio was the only person who understood that.

 

[Eor]

You missed the entire point of that post. The whole point was to clarify that I'm not making that argument, I'm not saying there must be divine intervention because we don't know what caused the world.

My point was to let people know I was saying that due to the fact we understand the essence of natural entities, we know that a natural entity could not have originated the universe, therefore something beyond the natural must have been responsible.

Whether you agree that a natural entity could not be the original cause is irrelevant, my point was to clarify that I wasn't employing an argument from ignorance, because it seems that Sucumbio was the only person who understood that.

But you were employing an argument from ignorance in your claim that we know it can't be a natural entity. Your conclusion wasn't an argument from ignorance, but you used those to back it up. Because we don't know how any sort of "singularity" could of been does not mean that therefore it couldn't of been something natural.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well that doesn't really work. That's like saying computers or gravity needed God to exist, or that surgery needed God to exist. It's semantics.

Besides, there isn't a reason to say the Big Bang requires a Deity, for reasons I already covered.

I think it's more than reasonable to assume in any scientific argument that everything happens naturally.

Keyword: Scientific. (This is why Dre points to his argument being more 'philisophical' than 'scientific'). There's no doubt in my mind that to say "God created the Universe" is NOT scientific. True, I was employing semantics, but to an end: NS -and- BB are both causal reactions from a preceding event, and the event can either be proved/disproved Scientifically or Spiritually. For the purposes of what my wife was referring to, it's Spiritual.

However, for my own purposes:

Fair enough, though I'd have to point out that concepts such as an "abnormality" in physics doesn't show a breakdown, or mistake, in natural law, just our understanding of it.

Absolutely. Anomalies to me are a gauge by which we understand things. The fewer there are, the more we understand, because we're not identifying them as anomalies anymore. The existence of anomalies in outer space, in physics, etc. tell me that our understanding of the universe is still limited (obviously) but... "it makes sense to me" in that I don't -need- explanation of these anomalies. Again, my "theory" if you can call it that, is really just a nice science fiction that more or less fits the facts.

Though I would have to ask how the concept of our Universe being contained in something would work, considering that our universe is expanding.

heh, well ok... imagine the universe as a balloon. its rate of expansion is increasing, the distance between individual particles of matter increasing. eventually it's been theorized, this matter will succumb to the forces of the vaccum of space, literally obliterating the physical matter right on down to the smallest sub-atomic particles, leaving only energy. now imagine this expansion to this end takes up X space. The size of the sphere is X+Y, where Y is some undetermined distance between the "edge" of the universe and the "inside edge" of the sphere. Also, as a means of creating such a sphere to begin with space-time is still infinite, because the "fabric" wraps the inside, like a ... coating? so if one to physically travel to it, they'd really just keep traveling indefinitely, and of course they'd already be way outside the known universe at this point. From the outside perspective of the sphere, it could be baseball in size, or soccer ball, or planet sized. T.A.R.D.I.S. comes to mind here.

You also say dark matter is the "wall" of the universe, but that we can't see it because it's not in our universe. Dark matter, however, isn't based on the "outer limits" of the universe (assuming it exists at all, since it's still hypothetical). Also, if dark matter wasn't in our universe, then it wouldn't be able to affect it. But dark matter does affect the universe, it has a gravitational effect on other things, which is the entire reason we can even assume it exists.

Dark Matter -as currently defined-, is not based on the "outer limits" of the universe. I propose that so-called dark matter should be redefined as simply our perception of the container in which the Universe exists. Why? Well cause it IS totally hypothetical to begin with, and with good cause. It's ability to "affect" the universe is not cause it's IN it, but actually because it's containing it. Its ability to control the expansion of the universe so that it's not breached is by design... but being inside it, we've detected it. Dark Matter is classically defined as making up a large chunk of the Universe's mass without it having perceivable form. My assumption we can't see it is based on how sight is achieved... light. I have further assumed that Light must have some special property to it, that it cannot escape the known universe. This would then further go towards why we can't see our "Dark Matter" encapsulate.

To assume we're in an experiment would also, largely, assume that the laws of physics in this other universe would be similar to ours, since you describe it as being done by natural life, which would require their universe to be incredibly similar to ours. Unless you're assuming that whoever did this experiment also created our universe to be like theirs. But it also just adds on the question of "well then what created that universe?". Why is it that our universe is an experiment, but apparently there's isn't? It also asks the question of how this other universe could be said to exist. If it's separate from ours then it can't have an observable effect on this one, and therefore is impossible to know about, or be used to make predictions.

Well actually this is where it gets even more fantastic. Not only is our Universe unique, but it's one of many created in this fashion. Recall the "start matter" which is somehow introduced in the sphere to cause the Big Bang. These "beings" who may exist in an entirely different way to our known understandings of existence, have several start-matters. they are using these to fashion Universes ... to what end? I dunno... what's life like outside the sphere? Probably nothing like anything we'd recognize or comprehend as "life" or "living". I'd wager it's so different that it really can't be quantified by anything we currently have, verbal, written or even philosophical.

Pretty much, the claim that there was a moment of creation is not proven. In the classical theory of gravity, time is either infinite or has a boundary (at a singularity). However, the classical theory of gravity fails when it comes to the Planck length, which requires the Quantum theory of gravity. In that, time can be finite, without having any boundaries. Think of the surface of the earth. It's finite, but no matter which direction you go, you won't run off the edge. So just imagine it like that, but with two more dimensions. So pretty much, the universe would have no boundaries, there'd be no singularity for natural laws to break down at, it would be neither created or destroyed. It just is.

What I described is the No Boundary proposal by Stephen Hawking (and someone else who I forget). It's a proposal, but it fits completely into what we currently know, and so can very well be exactly how it happened. So if the universe is self contained, with no moment of creation, then what place for a creator?

Sure, well I did actually refer to these other such theories in Dre's article, the one I cited was Loop theory, but this one is great also. Neither necessitate a divine being, but I covered that above; we're in agreement, and my wife's argument was spiritualist not scientific.

Have you read some of Alt's posts?

I have now! And it's exactly what I needed, thanks.

Why wasn't I invited to this thread?

Dunno, but so far it's mostly off topic, lol. The only two on topic responses were in agreement w/me with one being a bit more of a critique on my NOT bringing up more against the article.

Evolution vs. whatever discussions are unworthy of the Debate Hall. I tire of them.

Oh, well maybe that's why you weren't invited.

 

[Eor]

Absolutely. Anomalies to me are a gauge by which we understand things. The fewer there are, the more we understand, because we're not identifying them as anomalies anymore. The existence of anomalies in outer space, in physics, etc. tell me that our understanding of the universe is still limited (obviously) but... "it makes sense to me" in that I don't -need- explanation of these anomalies. Again, my "theory" if you can call it that, is really just a nice science fiction that more or less fits the facts.

Well sure, but the problem is that these anomalies are explained. It doesn't really fit the facts to say that it's because of a breakdown.

heh, well ok... imagine the universe as a balloon. its rate of expansion is increasing, the distance between individual particles of matter increasing. eventually it's been theorized, this matter will succumb to the forces of the vaccum of space, literally obliterating the physical matter right on down to the smallest sub-atomic particles, leaving only energy. now imagine this expansion to this end takes up X space. The size of the sphere is X+Y, where Y is some undetermined distance between the "edge" of the universe and the "inside edge" of the sphere. Also, as a means of creating such a sphere to begin with space-time is still infinite, because the "fabric" wraps the inside, like a ... coating? so if one to physically travel to it, they'd really just keep traveling indefinitely, and of course they'd already be way outside the known universe at this point. From the outside perspective of the sphere, it could be baseball in size, or soccer ball, or planet sized. T.A.R.D.I.S. comes to mind here.

I am a little confused with what you just said, though I'm going to put it down to my own knowledge instead of yours. I'm not a theoretical physicist, I'm not even good at Physics, I just read about it, so I'm not sure if your concept about a coating or something works.

But for quick notions: spacetime actually isn't infinite, it's finite. If someone was to travel to the end of the universe, there wouldn't be a "wall" or some some event horizon that'd block them. Spacetime appears to be simply connected (meaning any closed curve can be shrunk to a point continuously in the set) topology (like a mobious strip). Gravity curves space. So like your concept of a balloon that's inflating, if we draw a line on the balloon and have that represent a path, no matter how far we draw that line it'll always stay on the balloon.

Also, and I mentioned this before, but the universe is just everything we percieve to exist. Traveling "outside" the universe isn't possible, since wherever we'd go would still be the universe. Even if we discover that say, spacetime isn't curved and we could reach the "edge" of space, then we go further and find something else, whatever we'd find would still be in the universe since we can perceive it and it physically exists.

Dark Matter -as currently defined-, is not based on the "outer limits" of the universe. I propose that so-called dark matter should be redefined as simply our perception of the container in which the Universe exists. Why? Well cause it IS totally hypothetical to begin with, and with good cause. It's ability to "affect" the universe is not cause it's IN it, but actually because it's containing it. Its ability to control the expansion of the universe so that it's not breached is by design... but being inside it, we've detected it. Dark Matter is classically defined as making up a large chunk of the Universe's mass without it having perceivable form. My assumption we can't see it is based on how sight is achieved... light. I have further assumed that Light must have some special property to it, that it cannot escape the known universe. This would then further go towards why we can't see our "Dark Matter" encapsulate.

I see, I misunderstood your viewpoint. I thought you meant that the wall itself was dark matter, in the way that say, an expanding ballon that's in a water bottle would hit the walls of the bottle, and then slowly expand to whatever crevices it can before stopping. I take it that instead you more view the "device" holding in the expanding universe to not really be, well, an enclosure, but more something else?

But there are still problems. Dark Matter/Dark Energy is currently thought to make up about 95% of the universe (Dark Energy being 70%, dark matter being 25%). Like I said earlier, it's impossible for something outside the universe to impact it. If Dark Energy was slowing us down to stop us from hitting the "walls", then that would imply that space exists outside our universe. But spacetime is a property of the universe, it didn't exist beforehand, so while the universe is expanding there's nothing to make us believe we're expanding into anything else, and if our universe was "inside" another universe with space, the size of our universe couldn't affect that one (and vice versa).

Also, the concept of dark matter slowing the expansion down isn't scientific. Recent evidence actually shows that the universe is accelerating in it's expansion, not slowing down.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well one can still dream I like your analysis, I will admit I have no scientific basis for my hypothesis, it just sounds cool to me, even if it's totally inaccurate and pure science fiction.

 

[Eor]

Well one can still dream I like your analysis, I will admit I have no scientific basis for my hypothesis, it just sounds cool to me, even if it's totally inaccurate and pure science fiction.

Fair enough . Personally I readily admit that there's no scientific evidence of any sort for rebirth/reincarnation, and won't even claim that it's true, but I still go about my life as if it was just because I like it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Me too! Well kinda, I definitely feel like I've lived before, or more accurately that i was totally born in the wrong time period. i dunno it's weird I just always felt like I belonged in ancient greece or something... heh. one of my ex's swears she was my mother in a past life I'm like Alllllrighty then lol

 

[Dre89]

But you were employing an argument from ignorance in your claim that we know it can't be a natural entity. Your conclusion wasn't an argument from ignorance, but you used those to back it up. Because we don't know how any sort of "singularity" could of been does not mean that therefore it couldn't of been something natural.

But my point is anything that is self-necessary, that is an end in itself and is responsible for the existence of the world contradicts the essence of natural entities, therefore must be beyond natural.

Could you please explain where the ignorance is? I don't really understand.

 

[Sucumbio]

Argument from Ignorance doesn't mean you're ignorant... or being ignorant. Another way to say it is

Argument from We-don't-know.

In context to your post, the statement "we don't know how the universe began, so it must be supernatural," is considered a logical fallacy. It assumes that our ignorance of something precludes the possibility of there being any other answer.

However, I believe that's not even what you're saying. You've actually employed logic to a degree, but I think the difficulty is in your equation.

Assumptions:

X = all "Natural Entities" (such as matter, energy, gravity, motion, space-time, time, evolution)
Y = the "Big Bang"
Z = the "Singularity" (the Universe before the Big Bang)

IF X < Y AND Y < Z
THEN X < Z

Z = X + Y

X = Z - Y

-Y = X - Z -> Y = X + Z

Phew, algebra at its finest. SO using algebraic proofs we can see that indeed if the Universe started as a Singularity and then experienced a "Big Bang," which resulted in Life as we know it, there's nothing that says anywhere in this HOW the big bang got started. And yet it still remains mathematically correct. The How is technically and for this example, irrelevant.

The -theory- on how, is still up for debate on all sides, Creationist and Scientific, but simple Math affords us the luxury of isolating what it is we're even talking about; concerned with. And as you can see, no where in this equation is there mention of or a necessity for, God or anything supernatural. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean we can't know, either. The math is there! We just have to piece together the finer points along the way. And we will, one day. I'm sure of it.

 

[Mewter]

My entire post is theory-craft.

I'd also like to add something from myself. You (dre, if I understand your argument correctly) are only showing two choices here: the universe causing itself, and the universe being started by something supernatural.

The conclusion of it being supernaturally caused makes logical sense if those are the only two choices, but they aren't the only two choices. There are actually four:
-Time doesn't need a higher being to exist, I just does [exist].
-The universe caused itself (this is a misrepresentation of words, since what is actually meant when this is said is the first listed thing, but I digress)
-The universe has existed forever
-Time needs ________.

*The ones crossed out are unlikely; just ask me to clarify on why I crossed it out. I didn't want this post to be super long.*

So, if time had a beginning, there are two logical possibilities:
- It exists because of ______.
- It just exists.
So, what caused time? Nothing can cause it, since cause requires time (I'll leave the "It exists because of _____" anyways). Lumping time into a group of "natural entities" needing a cause doesn't work. No throwing it into that same narrow group of natural entities. Time has its own playing field.

Now, this next part is hugely unfounded, but it makes logical sense:
So, how does time keep going after it has started? It just does, as far as we can see. Time just does its own thing, regardless of a cause and effect. Maybe time just exists independently?

It's plausible and just as credible as saying it requires a "higher being" to have it exist (they both have no proof). However, it doesn't need the higher being, but you can throw it in there if you want; it's just an extra step that isn't needed.



tl;dr: Time can't be caused, and somehow it exists; don't lump it in with other "natural entities". The universe had a "beginning".

Plus, I'd like to add the possibility that some "miracles" could have been caused by super technologically advanced aliens, but I really don't endorse this stance.

 

[RDK]

But my point is anything that is self-necessary, that is an end in itself and is responsible for the existence of the world contradicts the essence of natural entities, therefore must be beyond natural.

Could you please explain where the ignorance is? I don't really understand.

The ignorance lies in the fact that you're using a false dichotomy as the basis of your argument.

The universe starting by itself and a supernatural creator are not the only two possibilities.

Also, whoever said the universe had a beginning?

 

[Mewter]

Also, whoever said the universe had a beginning?

The universe had a "beginning".

Hahaha....
No one. Unless that bit was directed at me.

 

[Dre89]

My entire post is theory-craft.

I'd also like to add something from myself. You (dre, if I understand your argument correctly) are only showing two choices here: the universe causing itself, and the universe being started by something supernatural.

The conclusion of it being supernaturally caused makes logical sense if those are the only two choices, but they aren't the only two choices. There are actually four:
-Time doesn't need a higher being to exist, I just does [exist].
-The universe caused itself (this is a misrepresentation of words, since what is actually meant when this is said is the first listed thing, but I digress)
-The universe has existed forever
-Time needs ________.

*The ones crossed out are unlikely; just ask me to clarify on why I crossed it out. I didn't want this post to be super long.*

So, if time had a beginning, there are two logical possibilities:
- It exists because of ______.
- It just exists.
So, what caused time? Nothing can cause it, since cause requires time (I'll leave the "It exists because of _____" anyways). Lumping time into a group of "natural entities" needing a cause doesn't work. No throwing it into that same narrow group of natural entities. Time has its own playing field.

Now, this next part is hugely unfounded, but it makes logical sense:
So, how does time keep going after it has started? It just does, as far as we can see. Time just does its own thing, regardless of a cause and effect. Maybe time just exists independently?

It's plausible and just as credible as saying it requires a "higher being" to have it exist (they both have no proof). However, it doesn't need the higher being, but you can throw it in there if you want; it's just an extra step that isn't needed.



tl;dr: Time can't be caused, and somehow it exists; don't lump it in with other "natural entities". The universe had a "beginning".

Plus, I'd like to add the possibility that some "miracles" could have been caused by super technologically advanced aliens, but I really don't endorse this stance.

It's not that I didn't consider other possibilities, it's just that logic rules them out. Logic tells us that time is finite. I assumed this would be agreed upon by all, but if someone actually wants me to argue for why time is finite, I'm more than happy to do so, it's just it'd be a long post, so I'm only going to do it if necessary.

Long story short, This is concluded from the fact that certain principles of existence in this universe could only exist in a finite timeline, not an infinite one.

Because time has a beginning, it must require a prior cuase. The problem here is people will say that time can have no cause because that would in fact require time. This is only a problem for certain God-theories, namely the ones that argue that God created the universe at some point, which of course links God into an event-by-event sequence, therefore removing His self-necessity, as He is dependant on time.

However, other theories work around this. The Eternal Now Theory suggests that God sees all events at once, rather than in a chronological sequence like we do. This removes the 'change' or 'progression', which allows Him to remain infinite or eternal, because infinity cannot change (which is one problem with the infinite time theory).

I also have my own theories on this, but they are complicated and not necessary. The point is to show that there are theories out there which have logically deduced ways in which time is not self-necessary, without requiring prior time to initiate its existence.

The finite nature of time pretty much rules out all possibilities other than universe created itself, or was created by a Divine Being.

 

[RDK]

It's not that I didn't consider other possibilities, it's just that logic rules them out. Logic tells us that time is finite. I assumed this would be agreed upon by all, but if someone actually wants me to argue for why time is finite, I'm more than happy to do so, it's just it'd be a long post, so I'm only going to do it if necessary.

Long story short, This is concluded from the fact that certain principles of existence in this universe could only exist in a finite timeline, not an infinite one.

Because time has a beginning, it must require a prior cuase. The problem here is people will say that time can have no cause because that would in fact require time. This is only a problem for certain God-theories, namely the ones that argue that God created the universe at some point, which of course links God into an event-by-event sequence, therefore removing His self-necessity, as He is dependant on time.

However, other theories work around this. The Eternal Now Theory suggests that God sees all events at once, rather than in a chronological sequence like we do. This removes the 'change' or 'progression', which allows Him to remain infinite or eternal, because infinity cannot change (which is one problem with the infinite time theory).

I also have my own theories on this, but they are complicated and not necessary. The point is to show that there are theories out there which have logically deduced ways in which time is not self-necessary, without requiring prior time to initiate its existence.

The finite nature of time pretty much rules out all possibilities other than universe created itself, or was created by a Divine Being.

Have you read up on the Big Bang at all? Do you know anything about cosmology?

What sort of universal "properties" can only be lent to a finite universe? You do realize that if current cosmology is correct, time didn't exist until after the big bang. So talking about what happened "beforehand" is meaningless.

Also....the "Eternal Now Theory"? May I ask what sort of experiments and evidence were used to construct this theory?

 

[Dre89]

What sort of universal "properties" can only be lent to a finite universe? You do realize that if current cosmology is correct, time didn't exist until after the big bang. So talking about what happened "beforehand" is meaningless.

I think you misunderstood what I meant here. I will try and grossly oversimplify the argument here-

On an infinite timeline, logic tells us that there can be no change, yet there clearly is in our universe. Also, infinite time does not allow for reference points such as the present, yet the present clearly exists in the universe. These are just a few arguments.

Also, talking about what happened beore the Big Bang is not meaningless, it makes no sense how there could be time before time existed. Atheists generally try to discard these issues as meaningless, but it is these very issues that possibly caused Big Bang Theory problems, but I really don't want to go into that now.

Also....the "Eternal Now Theory"? May I ask what sort of experiments and evidence were used to construct this theory?

It was never claimed to be irrefutable fact, it's just a philosophy. I don't even necessarily agree with it, my point in addressing it was to show that it can be logically deduced that time can not be self-necessary and not require prior-time to be caused.

 

[Sucumbio]

Also....the "Eternal Now Theory"? May I ask what sort of experiments and evidence were used to construct this theory?

It was never claimed to be irrefutable fact, it's just a philosophy. I don't even necessarily agree with it, my point in addressing it was to show that it can be logically deduced that time can not be self-necessary and not require prior-time to be caused.

This is what people are looking at, Dre. You see how your response isn't answering his question? He was asking you to demonstrate the experiments or evidence used to construct the Eternal Now theory. Ergo, at the very least he wanted a cited reference from you so that he could know you're not just pulling stuff out of thin air. Instead you reply with "I never said it was irrefutable fact." Neither did he! If you want to use this theory as a means of rebuttle, you -have- to expect the challenge that may arise, to prove its worth. That's good debate.

 

[RDK]

Also, talking about what happened beore the Big Bang is not meaningless, it makes no sense how there could be time before time existed.

I know it make no sense to talk about time before the big bang - because there was no time before the big bang. In fact, that's exactly what I posted above.

It was never claimed to be irrefutable fact, it's just a philosophy. I don't even necessarily agree with it, my point in addressing it was to show that it can be logically deduced that time can not be self-necessary and not require prior-time to be caused.

If the beginning of the universe was a philosophical discussion, that would be fine, but it's not - it's a scientific one.

Also, say there was a supernatural creator. Why can we assume that the supernatural creator always existed, but we can't assume the universe always did?

 

[Mewter]

Also, talking about what happened beore the Big Bang is not meaningless, it makes no sense how there could be time before time existed. Atheists generally try to discard these issues as meaningless, but it is these very issues that possibly caused Big Bang Theory problems, but I really don't want to go into that now.

How does saying time couldn't exist before it exists invalidate the big bang theory? This is also what RDK was saying in his last post. :\

It was never claimed to be irrefutable fact, it's just a philosophy. I don't even necessarily agree with it, my point in addressing it was to show that it can be logically deduced that time can not be self-necessary and not require prior-time to be caused.

Of course it can't require "prior time to be caused." What of the possibility that it doesn't need anything to cause it though? Can't forget that.

 

[Dre89]

I know it make no sense to talk about time before the big bang - because there was no time before the big bang. In fact, that's exactly what I posted above.

How could there not be time before BB? Before supposes time. The very fact that time comes into existence at some point suggests that there was already an event-by-event sequence (which is essentially time) in existence.

If the beginning of the universe was a philosophical discussion, that would be fine, but it's not - it's a scientific one.

It is a philosophical one, as well as scientific. Science can prove or disporve BB, but it cannot prove why it occurred. Whether a Divine Being is responsible is a matter of philosophy, not science.

Also, say there was a supernatural creator. Why can we assume that the supernatural creator always existed, but we can't assume the universe always did?

There are certain traits God must have. He must be self-necessary, must be able to exist independant of any other entity, and must be eternal (which subsequently does not allow for change). If He is not those, He cannot be the original being, or non-being.

The reason why God must be eternal is that to be self-necessary, you can not have had a beginning, for all that begins is caused by a prior actuallity, and therefore is not self-necessary.

To be eternal, you cannot have change. As soon as you have change, you have a created a reference point, which means God exists in an event-by-event sequence (finite time), meaning that He cannot be self-necessary, for He would be dependant on time.

This is why I feel only God could be the original being. Because of the change, and event-by-event sequence evident in the world, we know that time is finite. Therefore, it could not be a natural entity, for all natural entities are finite.

Basically, the original being must have been eternal, yet only a self-necessary entity could be eternal, yet natural entities are not self-necessary. For an entity to be self necessary, it is no longer natural, it is beyond natural, therefore contradicting the essence of natural entities. Obviously, there can only be one self-necessary entity.

That doesn't mean there can't be other 'supernatural' entities, such as angels etc., just that if they exist, they would not be self-necessary and not eternal. What would make them supernatural is that they would be able to transcend the universe and it's laws, but that's another story.

Hope it all made sense.

 

[Dre89]

How does saying time couldn't exist before it exists invalidate the big bang theory? This is also what RDK was saying in his last post. :\

My point is here is that are certain aspects of the theory which are often ignored by evolutionists, who discard them as meaningless, when in reality they are possibly where the flaws of the theory are.

Take the traditional cosmological argument. God is an uncaused cause, who is eternal, then proceeds to cause the universe.

People will ask how God can be eternal, yet function in a cause-and-effect sequence, which cannot happen in eternity. The cosmologist can't just say 'It's irrelevant, we can't know that anyway', because that's exactly where the problem of the theory is (allegedly).

Of course it can't require "prior time to be caused." What of the possibility that it doesn't need anything to cause it though? Can't forget that.

Anything that has a beginning is caused. Firstly, the fact that time begins to exist at some point suggests there was already time beforehand.

Secondly, an entity with a beginning cannot cause itself to exist, for to do so it would have to exist prior to itself, which is of course illogical. Time of course cannot be caused by anything else, for that causation, or motion would have required time in the first place.

This is a summed up version of why I believe time cannot be self-necessary-

1. We know time is finite, therefore had a beginning.
2. A finite entity cannot cause itself to exist, for then it would exist prior to itself.
3. However, no other entity can cause time (in a cause-and-effect manner, like how other natural entities are caused), for that would require time to already exist.

 

[Mewter]

Theorycrafting cont.

My point is here is that are certain aspects of the theory which are often ignored by evolutionists, who discard them as meaningless, when in reality they are possibly where the flaws of the theory are.

[A bunch of stuff about how people dismiss evidence that goes against their held conclusions]

How about an example from the theory of evolution itself?

Anything that has a beginning is caused. Firstly, the fact that time begins to exist at some point suggests there was already time beforehand.

Or you could say space-time has always been around, and achieving a state outside of space-time is impossible and practically doesn't exist (no boundary proposal). For example, you could choose to look at frame 1 of time and see what it is like, then look at frame 1/2, then frame 1/4, or frame 1/10,000, or frame 10^(-15). You can always choose a smaller unit of time after which the big bang can be seen, but 0? Never, since 0 isn't possible.

Secondly, an entity with a beginning cannot cause itself to exist, for to do so it would have to exist prior to itself, which is of course illogical. Time of course cannot be caused by anything else, for that causation, or motion would have required time in the first place

Okay. My point here is that it doesn't cause itself to exist, but maybe it just exists. You know?

This is a summed up version of why I believe time cannot be self-necessary-

1. We know time is finite, therefore had a beginning.
2. A finite entity cannot cause itself to exist, for then it would exist prior to itself.
3. However, no other entity can cause time (in a cause-and-effect manner, like how other natural entities are caused), for that would require time to already exist.

1) Of course. But put "beginning" in quotes.
2) Of course.
3) Of course.