Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

reply to post by Brotherman


So then, does that mean you understand the concept I was explaining? More importantly, do you accept it?

reply to post by Ghost147


Which concept? Evolution in general or the counter argument against young earth?

What I am trying to do here is formulate for me the best arguments with presented evidence I have been obtaining then deciding which one makes the most sense to me. To answer about evolution in general, I have no qualms about the genetics however so far that is I am not quick to say anything yet as there is so much to this and so much that I don't understand yet. I can certainly understand others frustration with trying to simply say yeah here it is, my problem with it is, I am still trying to grasp this knowledge so I have no comment yet. As far as the young earth argument in relationship to cosmological evidence, Yeah I do understand better now and agree with you on that one 100%

Did you check out that link I posted for you?

reply to post by Phage


Can you define what you mean by 'random.' My understanding is that nothing is truly random and 'random' is simply the expression of enough variation that creates a situation in which simulation is extremely difficult. Of course I am coming from an electromagnetic point of view where a common practice of this is 555 circuits.

So the concept of random is excused with quantum theory allowing for randomness to exist while not being explicitly expressed?


GHOST147

Lastly, as should be obvious, why would a god - who is all powerful - need to wait for billions of years to create life on this planet? Ironically, the Anthropic Principle is actually an argument against an all powerful deity. Why would he/she/it not be able to create life in a universe which doesn't sustain it, yet sustain it himself/herself/itself? It would actually prove a higher power, if the latter was the case.

What does time have to do with a God that exists outside of time? This argument is fundamentally flawed in attributing an experience which is not applicable to such a being.

Also the Bible, which I assume you are talking about, states that man existed in Heaven before being cast out. It does not really say humanity existed on this material plane which we currently inhabit. It also states that the ways of Heaven were different than the ways of Earth which really exposes your argument to serious challenges in proving it wrong with your current methodology.

Just thought I would point that out.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I find this argument very applicable to what it is you are saying, what you presented is interesting as well, I too have a hard time with understand random and purpose as if you saw earlier posts of mine, not to say you are confused cause I am not.

In their joint work, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, Quentin Smith and William Craig debate the consequences of the new cosmology for belief in God. Smith claims that Big Bang cosmology effectively disproves the existence of a Creator. One of his arguments runs like this. According to Big Bang theory, the universe began from a singularity. Such singularities are inherently chaotic and unpredictable. No physical laws connect them to later states; in fact, the form taken by later physical laws, the relative magnitude of the four fundamental forces, for instance, is not determined by the initial singularity and is, in principle therefore, a random outcome. Thus, "God has no basis on which to compute what will emerge from the singularity." (1) God (if there is a God) could not, then, have had as purpose that the created universe should contain animate creatures, since a universe in which such creatures could never appear could equally well have developed from the initial singularity (indeed, according to recent "anthropic" arguments would have been far more likely to do so). This, therefore, according to Smith, constitutes an argument against the sort of Creator that religious people normally believe in, namely one whose purposes in creating the universe included the bringing to be of the human race. (1)

Smith assumes, reasonably enough, that for an action to count as purposive, the agent must have some degree of knowledge of the likely outcome of the action. But if the physical processes involved are such that the agent cannot tell in advance how to act in order to achieve the desired end, then purposive action is effectively blocked. Extending this plausible premise from human agency to the agency of a Creator may not, however, be as simple a matter as Smith is assuming. Does God anticipate the future by extrapolating from a knowledge of the present, as we do? Does God have to rely on the predictability of a particular physical process in order to make use of that process to achieve a Divine end? Is God's relationship to past, present, and future sufficiently like ours for these analogies to go through?

Source

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Which concept? Evolution in general or the counter argument against young earth?

The light concept.

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

As far as the young earth argument in relationship to cosmological evidence, Yeah I do understand better now and agree with you on that one 100%

Did you check out that link I posted for you?

Ah, fantastic! As for the link, I may have missed it. Could you repost it? or link to the specific post?

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Phage

 

What does time have to do with a God that exists outside of time? This argument is fundamentally flawed in attributing an experience which is not applicable to such a being.

I'm not saying that time matters to god, but that time matters to light. I don't see why there would be a reason to have everyone on earth see as much as we can see in the cosmos, currently. We also can't see everything now anyway, so why not add that to our view? It just doesn't seem to make much sense, as there is nothing out there - from a visual perspective - that needs hiding, or showing, for that matter.

So either a god made everything and sped up light for no apparent reason, or he/she/it made everything, let everything run its course, and then may or may not have had a hand in the start up/eventual evolution of humanity.

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Phage

 

Also the Bible, which I assume you are talking about, states that man existed in Heaven before being cast out. It does not really say humanity existed on this material plane which we currently inhabit. It also states that the ways of Heaven were different than the ways of Earth which really exposes your argument to serious challenges in proving it wrong with your current methodology.

Just thought I would point that out.

I don't think that exposes my argument, considering it doesn't specify anything at all. It only leaves a blank gap for anyone to assume and form a speculative argument when they really have no other evidence to say otherwise. Other than "it could have been this way", which isn't definitive.

reply to post by Ghost147



Mirror Neuron Brain Evolution

MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution

[V.S. RAMACHANDRAN:] The discovery of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of monkeys, and their potential relevance to human brain evolution — which I speculate on in this essay — is the single most important "unreported" (or at least, unpublicized) story of the decade. I predict that mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments.

From the majority of what I read about this I found to be one of the most insightful essays I have read in a while simply because I have never heard of this and I am very interested in proto-language and this essay kind of puts all kinds of concepts I am interested in, into a simple even for me to read and follow format.

reply to post by Ghost147


What is your definition of "sight?"

Are you only considering the physical process of light exciting receptors in the eye or are you talking about the translation into electrical signals which are interpreted by mechanisms within the brain?

What is vision?


Your argument essentially breaks down to the form of, "I don't understand, therefore it does not exist." Also your terminology such as 'need' or 'have to' demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of God as described by the book you are criticizing.

Basically what I am saying is that by your argument being unable to explain why Momentum is conserved is reason enough to dismiss it.

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147

 

What is your definition of "sight?"

Are you only considering the physical process of light exciting receptors in the eye or are you talking about the translation into electrical signals which are interpreted by mechanisms within the brain?

What is vision?


Your argument essentially breaks down to the form of, "I don't understand, therefore it does not exist." Also your terminology such as 'need' or 'have to' demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of God as described by the book you are criticizing.

Basically what I am saying is that by your argument being unable to explain why Momentum is conserved is reason enough to dismiss it.

-FBB

How exactly does one understand the nature of God that sits out side of time and space and is pretty much not bound by rules like we are as far as physical, cosmological, mental, emotional, and intellectual? I recently read a book entitled "Discovering God" By Rodney Stark as it was quite interesting as he describes "God" from a sociologist stand point and how god itself has evolved over history. Brief synopsis of one part is that he takes the theistic aspect that in some cultures god itself and the afterlife was exclusive to royalty and how over time became something for all people. How does sociology hold up to divine belief?


Review of Starks work

Rodney Stark is professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, and is a prolific author and renowned scholar in the field of sociology of religion. This new book is a massive tome (414 pages plus notes, bibliography and index) in which the author attempts to provide a religious history of mankind, from the Stone Age to the present. It is a history of the origins of religions covering prehistoric primal beliefs, the major Asian religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism and Confucianism, and the religions of Sumer, Egypt, Greece, early Rome and Mesoamerica, as well as, of course, Christianity and Islam

If you take a theistic approach this book is invaluable, or at least it was to me in trying to understand certain aspects of evolution from differing standpoints. While on its own it does not provide a type of hard evidence towards Intelligent Design however, to me is anecdotal evidence to the lack thereof of ID as it shows that the core beliefs of divinity itself follows its own path of sociological evolution where as if it was hard staple or fact the core values and beliefs from the first "created" to modern day in some way should have stayed intact.


EDIT: I would also like to add that I do acknowledge Starks use of comparative religion for Pro ID, but to me similarities in Regions is not proof enough for me and actually makes me think quite the opposite, this same thing happens when trying to get me to accept whole hearted that similar species changed from one species into another while bones are similar... My position from skeptic is still I am undecided

reply to post by Brotherman


Well there is a fairly popular theory among kabbalists and the like of spirit becoming increasingly enmeshed in the material world which gives rise to what we experience here on the material plane a.k.a. from Kether to Malkuth.

This is similar to some theories of energy leaking into our universe.

Leaking Gravity May Explain Cosmic Puzzle
www.space.com...

Scientists may not have to go over to the dark side to explain the fate of the universe.

The theory that the accelerated expansion of the universe is caused by mysterious "dark energy" is being challenged by New York University physicist Georgi Dvali. He thinks there's just a gravity leak.

Scientists have known since the 1920s that the universe is expanding. In the late 1990s, they realized that it is expanding at an ever-increasing pace. At a loss to explain the stunning discovery, cosmologists blamed it on dark energy, a newly coined term to describe the mysterious antigravity force apparently pushing galaxies outward.

This repulsive, unknown force is believed to make up more than 70 percent of the mass-energy budget of the universe.

Is the Universe Leaking Energy?
www.scientificamerican.com...

This of course is still all up for debate given the still limited data.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

This is similar to some theories of energy leaking into our universe.

But aren't the theories you cite about energy (and gravity) leaking out of our Universe?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I have just finished reading your first link and in regards to leaking energy, if quantum theories are correct and there is more then 4 dimensions and it is accepted that energies can move in and out of these other dimensions why would it not be explained as evidence of this phenomenon versus it is leaking? Outside of the regular proponents of ID and the bigger argument about creation and the stance that it was a property of physics that created the universe at this supposed instance of singularity exploding into everything did this also create multi-verses if so how does theolgist and creationists feel about the possibility of there being alternate universes much less multiple planets that could possibly harbor life or even other humans? I ask because I keep running into the same notion from many places in regards to Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates how special humanity is, it is hard to grasp this notion could remain true if other dimensions outside of our own exist simply because the explanation of those dimensions may fall out of our theological and scientific laws. What if the big bang was the result of another dimensions energy leaking into this dimension causing a singularity? What if this other dimension reached a cosmic limit and expansion ceased yet the energy did not stop growing forcing it to rip time and space and multi dimensions and be the cause? It really is mind bending I hope my post makes sense for what I am trying to convey.

reply to post by Phage

Thus, inquisitive minds ask: When light is redshifted by the expansion of the universe, where does its energy go? Is it lost, in violation of the conservation principle?

www.scientificamerican.com... leaking-energy


This is from the other members post. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Just because something is stretched does it mean it is losing energy or gaining it? I know If I stretch a rubber band to its limit it builds potential energy, if I cross this threshold it releases it violently, or something to this affect. Right ?

reply to post by Brotherman

No. Not like a rubber band. It applies to electromagnetic radiation.

The frequency of electromagnetic radiation (light) is determined by its energy level (or vice versa, depending on your point of view). Higher frequencies correspond to higher energy levels. That is, visible light carries more energy than infrared, ultraviolet carries more energy than visible light, on up to gamma. That's why ultraviolet light gives you a sunburn and gamma radiation will kill you.

The expansion of the Universe causes light to "stretch" (redshift), to increase its wavelength (reduce its frequency), and thus reduce its energy level. Since its wavelength is increased the question becomes what happens to the energy it carried at shorter wavelengths.

Phage
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

This is similar to some theories of energy leaking into our universe.

But aren't the theories you cite about energy (and gravity) leaking out of our Universe?

edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes, you are quite correct about energy leaking out of the universe. Also it should be noted that it is highly theoretical physics, highly theoretical. Other thoughts are that gravity is leaking through from another universe (multiverse theory yada yada) which is what is generating the 'dark energy' so it really can go both ways . . . I admit I can not justify any sort of credible opinion on the veracity of any of these theories . . . putting all the math together is a struggle to understate the matter (pun intended).

It was more to postulate of energy from other dimensions affecting those we can observe, or at least believe ourselves to be observing.


Is Dark Energy "Antigravity" Leakage from an Adjacent Universe? We Might Know Soon.
www.dailygalaxy.com...
(layman's blog on the subject)

Let us not forget that the bubble theory has since been dismissed and so the mystery remains but with decreasing uncertainty, well for now at least.

Hubble rules out one alternative to dark energy
phys.org...

Here is some of the exciting math involved in the subject which I have found super exciting!

Gravity in Extra-dimensions, Manyfold and Pre-Big Bang Universes
universe-review.ca...


-FBB

reply to post by Phage


Ok, I will have to come back to that as I am focusing other places on things I've been reading but thanks for the clarification.

Brotherman
reply to post by Phage

 

Thus, inquisitive minds ask: When light is redshifted by the expansion of the universe, where does its energy go? Is it lost, in violation of the conservation principle?

www.scientificamerican.com... leaking-energy


This is from the other members post. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Just because something is stretched does it mean it is losing energy or gaining it? I know If I stretch a rubber band to its limit it builds potential energy, if I cross this threshold it releases it violently, or something to this affect. Right

?

Energy described in a most simple sense might help you out here.

Potential energy + Kinetic energy is [mass x gravity (varies) x height] + 1/2[mass x velocity^2]. This energy is supposed to be conserved meaning it cannot be created or destroyed.

The wavelength stretching indicates reduced energy, ie gamma radiation vs alpha radiation have different energy levels and different wavelengths. It is best represented with sine and cosine functions to calculate the frequency or the cycles per second, more energy more cycles as shown in the simple conservation of energy formula above. The greater the velocity the greater the energy which would increase the frequency and 'shorten' the wave and vice versa.


In regards to your other post, I don't think discovery of other universes would do anything but reinforce the religious beliefs of those who actually read their texts. Especially if the physics of those universes operated in a way which correlated with their religious texts. The heavens always came before the Earth if you get my meaning.

Finding intelligent life elsewhere in this universe would likely cause a crisis for the Judeo-Christian faiths however life in other universes would mean nothing as their texts specifically discuss life in other dimensions called the heavens. The angels and the djinn are prime examples of this. Other faiths have the devas or asguardians (spelling?).

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

The greater the velocity the greater the energy which would increase the frequency and 'shorten' the wave and vice versa.

Light has one "velocity".

Phage
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

The greater the velocity the greater the energy which would increase the frequency and 'shorten' the wave and vice versa.

Light has one "velocity".

Exactly the point.

This would be why people are concerned about the shift.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

No. Redshift is well understood. Ever since Christian Doppler. It's what waves do.

Woodcarver
reply to post by Brotherman

 

We actually do see new species all the time.

yes, when we discover them!

we don't see them made.