Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Then who designed the conditions that are favorable for the making of a snowflake?

 

No one knows.  Here's some possible answers.

1.  God designed us specifically or through evolution.

2.  Super intelligent aliens genetically engineered us.

3.  We are the result of every actuality.

In probability theory, for any given event there are an infinite number of potential outcomes.  The universe is so completely precise (razor's edge really) that it certainly appears designed.  If it is not, then how did it get this way?  Possibly after a hundred billion fails.  Consider the possiblity that the universe expands as it is now, until it no longer can, and the it retracts.  With the same exact force present in it's expansion, it now collapses upon itself to an infinitely dense point in space and time, where the big bang occurs again. 

This happens over and over and over until finally.......WHAMMO!!!!  By luck and chance a universe if formed where conscious life can emerge.

Problem solved right?!!!  WE DONT NEED A GOD!!!!!

Nope.  A causal chain cannot be of infinite length so, QUESTION OPEN.  We don't need a God, according to some, but there's no denying that we do need a cause.  

[jmccr8]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

First you need to deal with the truth of being in denial. Then we can proceed. 

 

 

You have not sufficiently demonstrated that you know the truth not that the book you are pushing is supported by any known scientific data relative to homo species development or geology. I have in past discussed some of these issues with you and provided links to support my position and you came to the table with denial and no data to counter or support either position.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

14 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

As Aquilla said, it is both, we are developing and living universe develops around us and along with us - the question is how does one explain order and development except with an existance of some "primal perfect field" (god, absolute) of ultimate potential and intelligence.

Because we are that intelligence evolving,it doesn't have to pre-exist man. Man created god and both man and god are evolving together is just one possibility

jmccr8

[Will Due]

 

Well, there is a God.

And all of you know it.

Because if he didn't exist, all of you wouldn't be thinking about him ALL DAY LONG. 

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Will Due said:

Well, there is a God.

And all of you know it.

Because if he didn't exist, all of you wouldn't be thinking about him ALL DAY LONG. 

I know that what I consider God doesn't remotely rely on what you dictate people must "know". 

Most of the time I only think about a Creator whenever you and other such like minded individuals presume to dictate to others what God is or isn't. 

cormac

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

you and other such like minded individuals presume to dictate to others what God is or isn't. 

 

Cormac,

Be honest with me. 

Are you (and others) not doing exactly this?

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Will Due said:

Cormac,

Be honest with me. 

Are you (and others) not doing exactly this?

I can't speak for others but I also don't try to use science to support a singular definition, for everyone, of god nor to I try to impose my belief on others. You and other like minded individuals DO attempt to impose same. I don't personally care that you have a belief. I don't even care WHAT you believe. I do however take exception to your attempt to speak for everyone else when it is a fact that you most certainly DO NOT. 

cormac

[jmccr8]

9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well, there is a God.

And all of you know it.

Because if he didn't exist, all of you wouldn't be thinking about him ALL DAY LONG. 

 

 

There is a big purple ball floating over your head and we all know it. Will you can preach your story but don't think for a minute that you know what I think and you do not possess the communicative skill set to change my position about your fiction. For you to think so exceeds your god's concept of understanding.

jmccr8.

[Will Due]

 

Peace.

Who are you fighting for?

 

 

[khol]

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well, there is a God.

And all of you know it.

Because if he didn't exist, all of you wouldn't be thinking about him ALL DAY LONG. 

 

 

No.

Our brains are the most complex thing we know of. It's naturally curious to seek out all possibilities of its existance. It reaches different conclusions. Before modern science gods were the way it extrapolated its information. Today we find many physical examples that this is wrong. 

I don't think of god in the way I think your suggesting. When I do I realize god and intelligent design is a construct of the brain. A natural part of its own evolution in an attempt to recognize where it came from. 

 

[Will Due]

22 minutes ago, khol said:

When I do I realize god and intelligent design is a construct of the brain. A natural part of its own evolution in an attempt to recognize where it came from. 

 

That's very interesting kohl. 

Question. 

You mentioned the brain. What do you think mind is?

 

 

[jmccr8]

37 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Peace.

Who are you fighting for?

 

 

Who are you asking

jmccr8

[khol]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

That's very interesting kohl. 

Question. 

You mentioned the brain. What do you think mind is?

 

 

I wish I could answer that conclusively Will but I cant. The brain being the physical part. The mind being a by product of that. I go back to it alot but considering darwinian principles and considering billions and billions of years this is the result.

Awareness

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/exmgez/sorry-religions-human-consciousness-is-just-a-consequence-of-evolution

[Will Due]

11 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Now that is just too funny. 

The only time I really think about a "God" is when I pop on here to see what folks like yourself are coming up with to defend "him". 

 

Well then, you get what you want.

 

 

[khol]

56 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well then, you get what you want.

 

 

And you do a great job at it..seriously  

I just wanted to add that link i provided..my apologies regarding the language at beginning. But what that phenomenon is illustrating.." the pinochio illusion " is how the brain creates models to make sense of something. Changing our perception. I feel at times this is what religeon is. A model.

Edited February 8, 2018 by khol
spelling

[Will Due]

17 minutes ago, khol said:

And you do a great job at it..seriously  

I just wanted to add that link i provided..my apologies regarding the language at beginning. But what that phenomenon is illustrating.." the pinochio illusion " is how the brain creates models to make sense of something. Changing our perception. I feel at times this is what religeon is. A model.

 

God knows, perhaps you're right. 

I understand what all of you are saying. There isn't anything that we can really point to and slap the knee and say, "by golly, that's it, there's no denying it"

 

Spoiler

UB

 

 

[Rlyeh]

9 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Non-random? That's correct because a designer designed it that way.

It's stunning they way smart people keep denying the truth isn't it?

 

 

Rather predictable that your only concept of "non-random" requires a designer. The same ignorance used by creationists.

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Scudbuster said:

And that's just it Will, there isn't really anything at all, other than your imagination, dreams, and wishes....

 

What about my will?

 

 

[Only_]

The Universe is fine-tuned for life.

The exemples are plenty, as Martin Rees explains:

• N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 10³⁶. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.^[12]
• Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.^[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.^[10][12]
• Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.^[12][14]
• Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10⁻¹²².^[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.^[12]
• Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10⁻⁵. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.^[12]
• D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime.^[12]

Edited February 9, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Only_]

13 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You can evoke God to explain everything, from evolution to an apparently completely natural Universe. It really doesn't explain anything, it just kicks the can further down the road.

This is a common mistake. Intelligent Design or Evolutionary creation doe not necesserely postulate a 'God' as the agent. Aliens, a pantheistic life-force, a cosmic computer ect... In any case, a whole new realm of interesting possiblities open up for science and philosophy. A lot more than postulating a random, meaningless quatuum vacuum or a Multiverse for the origin of life and the Universe.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Only_]

4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Rather predictable that your only concept of "non-random" requires a designer. The same ignorance used by creationists.

Intelligent agents are known to be able to produce information; the best explanation of the information in DNA is that an intelligent agent authored it.

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Intelligent agents are known to be able to produce information; the best explanation of the information in DNA is that an intelligent agent authored it.

Well no, not when you can't support it.

Look I can use your same logic; intelligent agents are known to be able to produce lightning; the best explanation of lightning is that an intelligent agent produced it.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Universe is fine-tuned for life.

The exemples are plenty, as Martin Rees explains:

• N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 10³⁶. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.^[12]
• Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.^[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.^[10][12]
• Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.^[12][14]
• Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10⁻¹²².^[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.^[12]
• Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10⁻⁵. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.^[12]
• D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime.^[12]

Yeah.... Nah. 

 

Quote

In recent years many such examples of how the laws of physics have been "fine-tuned" for us to be here have been reported. Some religious people claim these "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of a grand design by a Supreme Being. In The Fallacy of Fine-tuning, physicist Victor Stenger makes a devastating demolition of such arguments.

A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant. Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.

In addition to general mistakes, Stenger deals with specifics. For instance, British astronomer Fred Hoyle discovered that vital heavy elements can be built inside stars only because a carbon-12 nucleus can be made from the fusion of three helium nuclei. For the reaction to proceed, carbon-12 must have an energy level equal to the combined energy of the three helium nuclei, at the typical temperature inside a red giant. This has been touted as an example of fine-tuning. But, as Stenger points out, in 1989, astrophysicist Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life.

The most striking example of fine-tuning appears to be the dark energy - or energy of the vacuum - that is speeding up the expansion of the universe. Calculations show it to be 10¹²⁰ bigger than quantum theory predicts. But Stenger stresses that this prediction is made in the absence of a quantum theory of gravity, when gravity is known to orchestrate the universe.

Even if some parameters turn out to be fine-tuned, Stenger argues this could be explained if ours is just one universe in a "multiverse" - an infinite number of universes, each with different physical parameters. We would then have ended up in the one where the laws of physics are fine-tuned to life because, well, how could we not have?

 

Religious people say that, by invoking a multiverse, physicists are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid God. But physicists have to go where the data lead them. And, currently, there are strong hints from string theory, the standard picture of cosmology and fine-tuning itself to suggest that the universe we can see with our biggest telescopes is only a small part of all that is there.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

[psyche101]

Try leaving earth's atmosphere and see how fine tuned for life it is 

Or a visit to venus 

Or pluto 

Or Jupiter 

...... 

[psyche101]

https://youtu.be/cO1a1Ek-HD0

 

I am displaying this as a link because there is surgery on an animal cadaver. If you are squeamish maybe give it a miss. 

Nature's not so perfect design.