Whether or not you’re actually a linguist, I feel confident in saying you’re obviously not a scientist. It’s not important, though. There are many scientific facts that one can safely ignore. If you never travel more than two miles from home, for instance, the notion of a spherical Earth is irrelevant. If you never looked into the night sky, then what use is astronomy? You can live your life quite happily and completely while paying not the slightest attention to evolutionary theory, particularly since you won’t see a radical biological difference between your parents and your children. You’re under no compulsion to be aware of theses branch of science, nor does ignorance of them make you less of a human being.
However, you’re displaying ignrance on a subject and trying to make definitive statements about it at the same time. It can’t possibly be surprising that you’re frequently and hugely wrong on matters of fact. Evolution has been subject to severe tests (if you believe it hasn’t, please suggest a “severe test” that could solidly prove or disprove evolution) and although it has been subject to minor refinements here and there, the overall premise stands.
In some sense, I think this is a confusion of the meaning of Occam’s Razor. A solution that involved God or Intelligent Design may seem “simpler” in that you can dispense with scientific terminology like punctuated equilibrium or cladistic analysis or phylogenic taxonomy and replace them with “God did it”. You may as well say “a yellow dragon did it” or “a green-trousered pixie is responsible.” By making the premise “simpler” (because the idea that an ancestor of yours was a bacterium strikes you as too “complicated”) you’ve abandoned all pretense of a scientific discussion.
There are matters of faith and matters of science, and I’ve always wondered at the compulsion some feel to mix the two together.
To be picky, it was not an atom. Atoms are complex beasts, and the very early universe was way too hot for atoms to exist. But I expect you really mean how did the first energy get there. The answer is that no one knows for sure. There are varying hypotheses, none of which have come even close to being theories yet. If you want to say God did it, there is really no evidence to contradict you. We just don’t know. And, just to be sure you get it, this has nothing to do with evolution.
Gest, naughty, naughty! I think the whole point about God is that he is above all of our understanding. That doesn’t bother me. Actually, I would be more than a bit concerned if he was just a hyper-smart version of us, a sort of cosmic Cecil.
Jon, what you say is eminently eloquent and all, but does put me in mind of my initial observation that evolutionists need more faith than Christians.
Which I.D. website would any of you guys recommend? I’m looking for one that has a measured respectful approach to oppositional views - a sort of talk origins in reverse. In other words, the best of the ones you’ve looked at. I’d like to get both sides of the argument on more macro issues before diving into the nitty-gritty of genetics and the like.
lekatt, it is rather rude of you posting comments like this which indicate that you have not made the slightest effort to understand what you are talking apart. Why don’t you read and try to understand some material on evolution, then we can see what you understand or don’t understand - unless the problem is that you really don’t want to know.
It is indeed possible that someday scientists will be forced to throw up their hands and say that some sort of supernatural force created that pesky primeval atom. But not yet, and more likely, some theories will be generated that will account for it. Don’t be in such a hurry to demand a definitive answer now.
If that supernatural entity turned out to be the particular god of the Bible and the evolution of the universe is accepted as arising from the Big Bang with the god just standing by after having created the pesky primeval atom, the Deist view, then who needs the god?
Actually an established theory of where the atom came from wouldn’t be all that valuable in my view. The advantage of a theory is that it gives us a framework to guide further investigation in a particular area and a means of predicting the outcome of future experiments. It seems to me that a well supported theory for the atom would be the end of that investigation. Where would you go from there?
Um, how, exactly? I stated that I don’t know how it all started. I have not put my faith anywhere. And, of course, where the Big Bang came from has nothing to do with evolution, unless you’re taking evolution on a very large scale, and using it to mean “development of everything in the Universe.”
Again, accepting evolution requires absolutely no faith, except having faith in your own existance, and trust in the rest of humanity to not be making up all of the proof that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and likely will continue to occur in the future. Defining how everything began requires faith, sure. Some choose to put faith in God creating the Big Bang. Others choose to put faith in God sticking everything on Earth (and then making it look like He did it in a different way, apparently). I choose to reserve judgment until/unless I get more information; I choose to not put my faith in any explanation of the origin of it all, because I have not seen any evidence of what the origin of it all might have been. In other words, I do not really put faith (meaning “belief without proof, or at least strong evidence”) in anything.
The first atoms were hydrogen atoms, appearing a couple of minutes after the Big Bang, and were composed of subatomic particles that had condensed from energy a minute or two earlier. There’s an explanation here
However, I assume you will next ask how the Big Bang itself came to be - what made it go bang, in other words. Personally, I can’t give you an answer for that one, although there are quite a few ideas - perhaps one of our physicists could fill you in. The problem with this kind of thing is that it quickly becomes non-intuitive - the human brain has trouble with the idea of no time or space.
I freely admit that this is something science has not yet figured out, though I am confident that it will eventually be explained. However, it doesn’t have anything to do with evolution - we’re getting a bit off track here.
“If that supernatural entity turned out to be the particular god of the Bible and the evolution of the universe is accepted as arising from the Big Bang with the god just standing by after having created the pesky primeval atom, the Deist view, then who needs the god?”
My point exactly, David. That kind of god would make Ronald Reagan look positively hands-on.
“Actually an established theory of where the atom came from wouldn’t be all that valuable in my view. The advantage of a theory is that it gives us a framework to guide further investigation in a particular area and a means of predicting the outcome of future experiments. It seems to me that a well supported theory for the atom would be the end of that investigation. Where would you go from there?”
I think it turns on what you mean by ‘established theory’. Surely all knowledge open up avenues to new knowledge?
I haven’t seen any evidence that you have any academic qualifications sufficient to lend authority to your statements on evolution. Rather, I see many misconceptions and a borderline-stubborn desire to cling to those misconceptions.
Say some sort of deity did cause the Big Bang. Please show how this deity can be connected in any way to the god of the Bible, or the god of any human religion. If the western god did it, how come his word got the story so wrong? (And it is not that hard to write it correctly - especially for a god.) Perhaps the god who created the universe cared about some other race, who lived and went to heaven billions of years ago, and we’re living in the embers of a universe the deity no longer cares about.
The point is that even a divine origin of the Big Bang does not help human religions (except may deism) in any way.
“If that supernatural entity turned out to be the particular god of the Bible and the evolution of the universe is accepted as arising from the Big Bang with the god just standing by after having created the pesky primeval atom, the Deist view, then who needs the god?”
My point exactly, David. That kind of god would make Ronald Reagan look positively hands-on.
“Actually an established theory of where the atom came from wouldn’t be all that valuable in my view. The advantage of a theory is that it gives us a framework to guide further investigation in a particular area and a means of predicting the outcome of future experiments. It seems to me that a well supported theory for the atom would be the end of that investigation. Where would you go from there?”
I think it turns on what you mean by ‘established theory’. Surely all knowledge open up avenues to new knowledge?
The reason people are interested in Big Bang cosmology is that it says a lot about the structure of matter and energy. The Big Bang is kind of a very high energy experiment, which changes the state if things in ways that we will never be able to duplicate. Really understanding this stuff will have, and already has had, profound implications for physics and our understanding of the universe.
BTW, you made a comment in the thread on intellectual arrogance that evolution has not undergone strenuous tests. I’d disagree. Could you list some of the tests evolution has been put to, and why they are not rigorous? It would be a hijack to discuss it in the thread where you posted it. Thanks.
Those with an interest in the discussion might find the following article interesting. It concerns the peppered moth, which features quite widely in biology textbooks:
bodswood, that article is written by a notorious creationist apologist who is also a follower of Reverend Sun Myung Moon. You know – the guy who sets up wedding ceremonies in footie stadiums with thousands of couples he’s matched up and recently had himself crowned messiah at a little get together with conservative American politicians. Thaaat guy! It really doesn’t look like Wells would have ever received any qualifications without the help of the good reverend. Here is a rebuttal to Wells’ nonsense. I hope the good Lord has seen fit to provide you with a PDF reader.
I have always been told randomness started the single cell, but you are saying intelligence existed long before that. So Intelligent Design is a reality after all.
I feel silly talking about things that can not be known, like where did the Big Bang come from, or how do we know what happened in it, since we were not there. Science can certainly build high castles on no real informations at all.
It is rather rude of you to avoid the question. I am trying to look at the foundation of evolution, and can’t find it. Where did the first atom come from and how come you believe you know so much about it, not being there and all.
Where did intelligence come from, when you say randomness started the life cycles. I can’t find any solid ground for the foundation of evolution, and you are trying to snow me with your superior knowledge. Let me in on that superior knowledge and show me how the foundation of evolution is not made of air.