Probably because he was too funny, so people thought he was trolling. It doesn't say banned under his nickname though, so maybe you mean he was banned sometime before.
Yes, some of the species now may have evolved from one to another, but some mutations must have occured (I wasn't saying that every single case of one species turning into another was through mutation).
Those two sentences are contradictory.
Would you mind telling me what the contradiction is?
*sigh* Will you at least acknowledge that you were confusing terminology when you originally said that each species has a different amount of chromosomes? It's not hard. Just write something like: "Oops, yeah. I was confusing chromosomes with something else entirely. Sorry."
Okay, then. Sorry, I was getting confused with terminology. And I wasn't saying that every species has a different number, I was just saying some of them. And here is a page (yes, I know it's on wikipedia, but it does have a lot of references) that lists various species with their chromosome number. And also, how could the genus Ophioglossum have 1200 to 1260 chromosomes (I didn't know this when I mentioned the crab) when there is no species that has a chromosome number greater than around the 250 of crabs and less than the 1200 of it?
You haven't even clearly defined this mythical "microevolution" of yours. Apparently "microevolution" can form new species, yet it's different from "macroevolution", which also can form new species... How exactly are they different?
I have defined this difference multiple times. Microevolution is when the small changes that happen through normal reproduction keep on piling up and forms something a little different from what is was originally (this can even result in creating another species). Nothing happens to the chromosome number. Macroevolution is when the chromosome number actually changes through some kind of reproductive mutation. Some mutations must occur for some of the species to evolve into other species.
More importantly: What exactly stops these two new species from deviating more and more from each other during eons, until they look nothing like each other? Also, what stops these two species from spawning yet other new species in a similar way (which then may spawn yet new species, and so on)?
The reason that that can not happen is because microevolution has limits. Macroevolution must happen for a dog to evolve into a horse. Dogs (both wild and domestic, showing that they are a result of microevolution) have 78 chromoses. Horses have 64. Macroevolution must happen for the chromosome number to change.
I am saying that first, the Bible is more reliable than observation, measurement and testing
That's your belief, but what's your justification for it? Why do you think that?
I have found the Bible reliable before, it's never let me down, and I know cases where science was not reliable. And yes, I was tought this way when I was a kid, so that does have something to do with it.
EDIT: Also, I feel that you are ignoring some of my questions. I would like you to answer some of them.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
(this is because Biblical Scholars believe that Genesis 2 was written in around 1000 BCE whereas Genesis 1 was written around 600 BCE)
I have never heard this, and I also just researched a bit and it seems it was written around the second millenia BC.
I think Genesis 2 is a more in depth version of day six in Genesis 1. People today do this in movies (you know, when a movie says "this and this and this happened... This is the story of how that happened...").
And why do you believe that a distinction was intended when there's no evidence that one was?
I feel there is evidence that one was. Genesis 2 starts talking about what God did in Eden.
And:
1. Genesis 2:5: "bushes had not appeared on the earth..." So maybe bushes weren't there yet. Maybe it's talking about the land.
2. "...Plants had not come up on the fields..." That's just in the fields. This could even be said to be fields that men make. There are other places than fields for plants to be.
3. "...The Lord God had not sent any rain to work the ground..." People have hypothesized (I'm not sure if that's how you spell it) that it didn't rain before the flood. It goes on to say that streams watered the earth.
Yes, some of the species now may have evolved from one to another, but some mutations must have occured (I wasn't saying that every single case of one species turning into another was through mutation).
Those two sentences are contradictory.
Would you mind telling me what the contradiction is?
First you say that some mutations must have occurred for a species to have evolved into another, and then you say it's not necessary.
And also, how could the genus Ophioglossum have 1200 to 1260 chromosomes (I didn't know this when I mentioned the crab) when there is no species that has a chromosome number greater than around the 250 of crabs and less than the 1200 of it?
I'm not a biologist, but it's not odd at all that no "in-between" species exist today, even if the transition from 250 to 1200 happened one chromosome at a time (although I believe duplication of whole chromosome sets is possible and has been observed). It simply means that the ancestral species with chromosome amounts between those two have all gone extinct. IIRC significantly more species have gone extinct during the history of the Earth than exist today. It's no surprise that each ancestral species has not survived to this day.
A typical creationist objection is that evolution of more complex organisms from simpler organisms requires adding information to the gene pool, and that this is, according to them, somehow impossible. Yet many of these same creationists don't have the problem with the idea that chromosomes are self-replicating and that small changes can happen to alleles/genes from one generation to the next. They are unable to see how the latter is a mechanism for the former (although it's probably not the only mechanism, but probably an important one).
In other words, if a descendant has somehow duplicate copies of one or more chromosomes, no new information per se has been added. It simply has two copies of some of the chromosomes instead of one. I don't think these creationists would disagree with this: It's just the same information duplicated (and chromosomes can be duplicated), so there's no new information added.
But now the second effect kicks in: As this descendant has its own descendants, each can have small changes to the alleles of their chromosomes. Small mutations might also happen, although they are not strictly necessary. (Btw, the vast majority of mutations are so minuscule that they have no or extremely little effect on anything.) Creationists do not deny that changes happen to alleles on each new generation.
Nothing forces the exact same changes to happen to the duplicated chromosomes. Different changes can happen to each one. They will start differing more and more until they are effectively not duplicates of each other anylonger. It's very similar to what happens to two species that are separated and isolated, but on the chromosome level instead of a species level.
Now, do you see how your "microevolution" can create new information? (Which makes it no different from your "macroevolution".)
(Disclaimer: As said, I'm not a biologist.)
Macroevolution is when the chromosome number actually changes through some kind of reproductive mutation. Some mutations must occur for some of the species to evolve into other species.
Your definition of mutation is that the amount of chromosomes changes? I don't think that's how mutation is defined. Also, I don't think mutations are necessary for chromosome duplication to happen.
The reason that that can not happen is because microevolution has limits.
And what exactly limits this? An unknown force? God?
Macroevolution must happen for a dog to evolve into a horse.
Dogs don't evolve into horses. Dogs and horses have a common ancestor species (a freaking long time ago).
Dogs (both wild and domestic, showing that they are a result of microevolution) have 78 chromoses. Horses have 64. Macroevolution must happen for the chromosome number to change.
Does that mean that you consider it possible for a starfish to have evolved into a red panda via "microevolution" because they both have 36 chromosomes? Or will you now invent another made-up reason why that's not possible?
And the hundreds of thousands of astrophysicists around the world, from different countries, cultures and religious backgrounds, are all in a huge world-wide conspiracy to keep quiet about this, and have all decided on the exact same lies, and have all agreed to not to publish research result indicating a young universe, and have successfully pulled off this stunt for over a hundred years.
Actually, only the editors of said publications need to censor differing opinions in order to provide the impression that everyone in a field believes whatever theory they personally uphold. There are astrophysicists who believe in creation, like Dr. Lisle.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Then how would you explain the order of creation presented in Genesis 2 as compared to Genesis 1?
If you want, you can read this for an in-depth treatment of the topic. I would summarize it, but it's quite technical.
Warp wrote:
And yes, there are other possible explanations, both natural and supernatural, even when assuming it was a true "miracle".
Only one of them is correct, however.
BTW, have you guys even agreed on what you mean by species? It's difficult to argue about something if each party is using a different meaning.
Warp wrote:
The most distant stars in our universe are moving away from us faster than c. However, we cannot see them (for that very reason). However, that's an entirely different subject.
Not meaning to get further off topic, but how do we know these stars exist if we can't see them?
Warp wrote:
Nothing forces the exact same changes to happen to the duplicated chromosomes. Different changes can happen to each one. They will start differing more and more until they are effectively not duplicates of each other anylonger. It's very similar to what happens to two species that are separated and isolated, but on the chromosome level instead of a species level.
That explanation doesn't account for why each subsequent generation would acquire the duplicated chromosomes. What type of reproduction are you envisioning?
Warp wrote:
The creationist will, of course, immediately argue that it's a fatal condition and that it's impossible for chromosome duplication to be beneficial.
Do you have any examples of beneficial chromosomal duplication? Something not generated in a lab, ideally, since even cancer can be "beneficial" in a laboratory environment.
Actually, only the editors of said publications need to censor differing opinions in order to provide the impression that everyone in a field believes whatever theory they personally uphold.
Yeah, and these editors have a secret society where they hold secret meetings to decide what is and isn't currently accepted as the truth, and no person shall ever get an editorial position without being inducted to this secret society. They also employ contract killers to silence any scientists who would publicly complain about editorial bias, so that the dissenting scientists will never form an independent peer-reviewed publication of their own.
Sure, sure. And the Illuminati controls the world banking system.
There are astrophysicists who believe in creation,
Newton himself believed in alchemy. Individual scientists can believe whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Warp wrote:
And yes, there are other possible explanations, both natural and supernatural, even when assuming it was a true "miracle".
Only one of them is correct, however.
The point is that you can't argue for one of them to be correct over the others based on an unknown or personal conviction.
Warp wrote:
The most distant stars in our universe are moving away from us faster than c. However, we cannot see them (for that very reason). However, that's an entirely different subject.
Not meaning to get further off topic, but how do we know these stars exist if we can't see them?
The age and rate of expansion of the universe can be estimated, and it's quite likely that the universe is larger than the observable part of it. There's no reason to believe that all the matter in the universe was confined to the part of the universe that is visible to us. If stars and galaxies have formed here, why shouldn't they form everywhere? The Earth is not in any kind of special position.
That explanation doesn't account for why each subsequent generation would acquire the duplicated chromosomes. What type of reproduction are you envisioning?
I am saying that first, the Bible is more reliable than observation, measurement and testing
Speaking of which, how exactly do you estimate the reliability of the Bible?
At the very least, it isn't very unambiguous. AFAIK there are over 30000 denominations of Christianity. No two of them interpret the Bible 100% the same. Many of them have wildly different interpretations, even in the most basic core tenets, not just unimportant minutia. All of them believe that their interpretation is correct. (The interpretation of other denominations is usually correct in their view only to the same extent that it agrees with theirs, or at least doesn't heavily contradict it.)
A significant portion (if not even the vast majority) of them claim to have a literal interpretation, so it's not enough to say "the Bible is literally true", because almost all of the denominations claim to interpret it literally. (There might be some denominations who say that the Bible is only an approximation to the real truth, more metaphoric than literal, but I'd estimate those are only a small minority of all denominations.)
Which one of these differing (but allegedly literal) interpretations is the most reliable one, and why? And why do you consider your own personal interpretation of it to be more reliable than someone else's, who also claims to interpret it literally (but differently than you)?
Actually, only the editors of said publications need to censor differing opinions in order to provide the impression that everyone in a field believes whatever theory they personally uphold.
Yeah, and these editors have a secret society where they hold secret meetings to decide what is and isn't currently accepted as the truth, and no person shall ever get an editorial position without being inducted to this secret society. They also employ contract killers to silence any scientists who would publicly complain about editorial bias, so that the dissenting scientists will never form an independent peer-reviewed publication of their own.
They do not need secret societies or contract killers when they can use employment interviews to screen out applicants. There is also the widespread ridicule, like calling dissenting theories
Warp wrote:
pseudoscientific crap[.]
Do you expect that someone with a similar attitude would publish a dissenting article regardless of how methodologically sound it is? Would you?
Furthermore, independent peer-reviewed publications do exist, like the Answers Research Journal and CRS Quarterly.
Warp wrote:
Individual scientists can believe whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.
I agree, but I don't limit it to individuals. Even if every scientist in the world agrees about something, that doesn't make it true. Truth isn't defined by popular opinion, scientific opinion, religious opinion, or any other kind of opinion one may invoke.
Warp wrote:
The age and rate of expansion of the universe can be estimated, and it's quite likely that the universe is larger than the observable part of it. There's no reason to believe that all the matter in the universe was confined to the part of the universe that is visible to us. If stars and galaxies have formed here, why shouldn't they form everywhere? The Earth is not in any kind of special position.
Other than those estimates and assumptions, are there any measurements to support the existence of these stars?
Warp wrote:
AFAIK there are over 30000 denominations of Christianity. No two of them interpret the Bible 100% the same. Many of them have wildly different interpretations, even in the most basic core tenets, not just unimportant minutia.
Where did you get that 30,000, and how do you know how "wildly different" the interpretations are? In other words, please provide references for those claims.
They do not need secret societies or contract killers when they can use employment interviews to screen out applicants.
*sigh*
Furthermore, independent peer-reviewed publications do exist
I was talking about peer-reviewed scientific publications, not peer-reviewed pseudo-scientific publications. Of course there exist peer-reviewed publications of all kinds, in ufology, homeopathy, astrology, cryptozoology, and so on.
Even if every scientist in the world agrees about something, that doesn't make it true. Truth isn't defined by popular opinion, scientific opinion, religious opinion, or any other kind of opinion one may invoke.
That's why the scientific method is based on evidence, observation, measurements and testing, not opinions nor preconceived biased notions.
Science does not start with an alleged truth, such as "the universe is 6000 years old", and then proceed to find evidence that supports this preconceived truth. Instead, science makes observations and then tries to find out why and how it happens. This is much unlike "creation science" which starts from a preconceived notion and then tries to force all evidence to fit it. If some evidence does not seem to fit the preconceived truth, it's mangled and maimed until it does.
Naturally creationists try to reverse this and claim that science does exactly this.
Warp wrote:
AFAIK there are over 30000 denominations of Christianity. No two of them interpret the Bible 100% the same. Many of them have wildly different interpretations, even in the most basic core tenets, not just unimportant minutia.
Where did you get that 30,000, and how do you know how "wildly different" the interpretations are? In other words, please provide references for those claims.
*sigh* Not everything needs references.
If I say that millions of people around the world drove a car today, I don't need to point to factual references to back that up. It's a well-known fact. The number "30000" isn't, but that's not the point. It means "a lot, and a bit more", and that's well-known fact. I could probably list about a hundred different Christian denominations from the top of my head with ease. There are lots and lots more of them around the world.
Many of them do have wildly different interpretations of the Bible, even in its most basic core tenets. For example, some denominations believe that Jesus is not God while others do. Some denominations believe that you can pray to God for your sins only through Jesus, while others believe that you can do it also through others (Mary, various saints...) There's a wild variety of dogmas about what constitutes sin, and how one should repent, and how one is saved. Likewise there's a wild variety of dogma on how much Moses' laws should be obeyed (all kinds of nuances between and including the two extremes, ie. "they should be followed strictly and literally" to "they must not be followed at all".)
If you don't know about basic Christian theology, then you should read some online literature about it. I'm sure you'll find plenty.
Where did you get that 30,000, and how do you know how "wildly different" the interpretations are? In other words, please provide references for those claims.
It is from the World Christian Encyclopedia, and the number is closer to 38,000 today (see url=http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm]this[/url] for an elaboration and partial breakdown).
BTW, have you guys even agreed on what you mean by species? It's difficult to argue about something if each party is using a different meaning.
You saying this made me think I should define a bunch of other things as well.
Species: A unit of one or more populations of individuals that can reproduce under normal conditions, produce fertile offspring, and are reproductively isolated from other such units.
Basicaly, two organisms that can not reproduce are from different species.
I have two definitions for mutation:
Mutation: A radical chemical change in one or more alleles.
Mutation: An abrubt and marked difference between offspring and parent.
I have been using the word to signify either:
1. allele mutation (where one of the alleles get changed significantly)
2. change in the chromosome structure (where a chromosome gains or loses genes)
3. change in the chromosome number (where the actual amount of chromosomes changes)
By looking at these definitions again I remembered (so I was a bit off about the whole thing with the numbers of chromosomes, sorry) that there are more ways that chromosomes can change beside their number. The structure and the genes themselves can change. So now I will redefine microevolution and macroevolution:
Microevolution: When small changes through reproduction pile up so that a new specialized/new species emerges that still has the same number of chromosomes. The chromosomes also have the same structure as the original one.
Macroevolution: When large changes through mutation pile up so that a new species emerges that has a different number of chromosomes and/or the chromosomes/genes have a different structure.
Warp wrote:
"sudgy wrote:
Warp wrote:
Yes, some of the species now may have evolved from one to another, but some mutations must have occured (I wasn't saying that every single case of one species turning into another was through mutation).
Those two sentences are contradictory.
Would you mind telling me what the contradiction is?
First you say that some mutations must have occurred for a species to have evolved into another, and then you say it's not necessary.
What I meant by it was that some examples of species (my definition of it) changed through microevolution, but for some different examples mutations must have happened.
Now, do you see how your "microevolution" can create new information? (Which makes it no different from your "macroevolution".)
(I didn't want to quote the whole explanation, so I just did the end)
Yes. Microevolution can create new information. But the long story you just described was an example of macroevolution, not microevolution. If a mutation occurs and somehow changes the organism, it is macroevolution. And, we don't have any fossils of these "in between chromosome 250 and 1200" creatures. We know that there are more species extinct than alive today because of these fossils.
The reason that that can not happen is because microevolution has limits.
And what exactly limits this? An unknown force? God?
The limit is the amount and structure of genes and chromosomes.
Macroevolution must happen for a dog to evolve into a horse.
Dogs don't evolve into horses. Dogs and horses have a common ancestor species (a freaking long time ago).
But that common ancestor must have gone through some mutations to evolve into the dog and the horse.
Does that mean that you consider it possible for a starfish to have evolved into a red panda via "microevolution" because they both have 36 chromosomes? Or will you now invent another made-up reason why that's not possible?
Their chromosomes have a different structure. Sorry for not explaining this earlier. This is still an example of macroevolution.
Also, with the reliability of the Bible, all historic/religious texts can be interpreted differently. The Bible is the one that this has happened to the most probably because it's been used for a long time and because there are many different people that have interpreted it. And I do feel like some of the interpretations do go against what the Bible says. For example, you said some people believe that Jesus is not God. This clearly goes against what the Bible says.
John 1:1: "In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God."
It goes on to say that "The Word became a human being." (John 1:14). And throughout it, is shows that the Word is Jesus.
A few more things I want to say. First, I looked up more on abiogenesis, and they do say that it started out as little blobs that could split. But they still have to say that proteins were made randomly. They have performed experiments that show that amino acids can be made naturally, and that they can link up randomly. It would still be a very small chance that the amino acids would link just right.
Also, with your hypothesis that there may be another universe that created this one (along with an infinite amount of others), what if one of those other ones happened to create a god? What if he found a way (because of what his physics were like) to travel to other universes? There would still be a god! And I feel this hypothesis is as far fetched as the hypothesis you made earlier.
And third, just curious, Warp, how do you think Christianity got started? Was it the twelve disciples wanted to try to make a new religion, they were mislead or what? This is just a curiosity.
I don't know if there's a God.
I see no reason to believe in him.
I see lots of stuff I can't explain, but that doesn't mean I should believe in him. It simply doesn't follow.
I have had some strange personal experience that I can't explain (déjà vus, something that could have been interpreted as telepatically communicating with the dead and back) but that doesn't mean I should believe in him either.
Not being able to explain something doesn't make it reasonable to believe in something that would explain it all. The only available explanation at the time that fits isn't necessarily the correct one. There is no reason to believe in it just because it seems to fit. Especially not if there are countless ones that would fit just as well.
Why believe in exactly this God and not another one? There doesn't seem to be a good reason to it, except it feeling just right.
Making 100 predictions 2000 years ago, most of them come true, for some it's up to interpretation, others are still pending, doesn't prove anything either, unfortunately. How can predictions with no specified conditions of when they need to be coming true ever be proven to be wrong? They can't, so there can only be evidence supporting the predictions. 2000 years are a long time for stuff to come true, especially if predictions have been vaguely worded.
Hearing God talk to you unfortunately doesn't make it reasonable to believe in him either. How do you know it was God? Could have been many other things. "You just know" just means you are already believing in him. But why was it reasonable to start believing in him in the first place?
I can't see any good reason to start believing in God and would be curious to hear some. What is it that makes it reasonable to do so?
sudgy, have you watched the video I've posted? I think it raises some interesting questions for creationists. It's also making fun of them, which I find kind of unfortunate though.
Basicaly, two organisms that can not reproduce are from different species.
Ring species contradict that definition. Each adjacent pair of populations can produce fertile offspring between themselves, but when you reach the ends of the two chains, you end up with two populations that cannot. Hence if you follow the chain in one direction you get a contiguous list of populations that can reproduce between themselves and thus are by definition the same species, but if you follow it the other way, you get a pair of populations that cannot reproduce, and hence are by definition not the same species.
However, this is not a contradiction in evolution, but on the contrary, conforms perfectly with evolution (and is predicted by it). (Ring species are also a marvelous example of "transitional fossils", except that instead of being fossils they are actually alive and we can study their full biology. Not only is the mantra "there are no transitional fossils" untrue, but there are actually living species that are "transitional" between two different species.)
I have two definitions for mutation:
Mutation: A radical chemical change in one or more alleles.
Mutation: An abrubt and marked difference between offspring and parent.
You are inventing your own definition of mutation, which differs from how it is defined in biology. (The vast majority of mutations have no or extremely little effect. There's nothing "radical" about them. That doesn't make them any less of a mutation.)
Apparently your definition of mutation comes from sci-fi, where "mutants" are always hideous deformed abominations, or superpowered freaks.
Yes. Microevolution can create new information. But the long story you just described was an example of macroevolution, not microevolution. If a mutation occurs and somehow changes the organism, it is macroevolution.
How can I make you understand that your personal definitions of those terms isn't how things work in real life?
The vast majority of mutations have no or very little effect, and do not produce new species (they may cause small variations inside a species, what is usually called "microevolution"). In fact, while biologists believed in the past that mutations were the main force behind evolution, it has now become clearer that it's not so. Mutations can drive evolution (and it's possible, even probable, that new species have formed via significant mutations), but this is significantly less prevalent than once thought. In fact, it is estimated that even human DNA experiences hundreds of mutations during his lifetime; however, by far the vast majority of them have no effect on anything.
New species can form without significant mutations. Even you agree with this.
And, we don't have any fossils of these "in between chromosome 250 and 1200" creatures.
Fossils are minerals. They do not contain DNA nor chromosomes that we could count. (I'm not a biologist, but I'm assuming one cannot even guesstimate the amount of chromosomes that a species had by simply examining its skeletal structure.) Any of the fossils could contain any amount of chromosomes between those two numbers.
Does that mean that you consider it possible for a starfish to have evolved into a red panda via "microevolution" because they both have 36 chromosomes? Or will you now invent another made-up reason why that's not possible?
Their chromosomes have a different structure. Sorry for not explaining this earlier. This is still an example of macroevolution.
Your definition of "macroevolution" becomes more and more complicated.
Also, with the reliability of the Bible, all historic/religious texts can be interpreted differently. The Bible is the one that this has happened to the most probably because it's been used for a long time and because there are many different people that have interpreted it.
So is, for example, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Many religions (especially the oriental ones) also have really old literature. Age means nothing.
First, I looked up more on abiogenesis, and they do say that it started out as little blobs that could split. But they still have to say that proteins were made randomly. They have performed experiments that show that amino acids can be made naturally, and that they can link up randomly. It would still be a very small chance that the amino acids would link just right.
That sounds like you have been reading creationist websites rather than scientific ones (because that info is a bit outdated AFAIK). There's much more research that has been done. I could find a youtube video giving a brief introduction if you like.
Also, with your hypothesis that there may be another universe that created this one (along with an infinite amount of others), what if one of those other ones happened to create a god? What if he found a way (because of what his physics were like) to travel to other universes? There would still be a god! And I feel this hypothesis is as far fetched as the hypothesis you made earlier.
Of course that could have happened, as well as a myriad of other possible combinations. The thing is: That kind of "god" would be completely different from the God of the Bible (or at least your interpretation of it). This "god" has not always existed, but was created. And we still wouldn't know anything at all about this supposed god (for example, we wouldn't know if he still exists, if there's more than one, or what kind of properties he has).
However, the hypothesis that random universes are randomly popping into existence all the time (possibly in positive-negative pairs to keep the balance of energy) makes less assumptions and thus is more plausible than a sentient, intelligent "god" popping up into existence at random and then creating this universe. (Of course there's still no evidence of either, but usually the hypothesis that makes less assumptions is preferable.)
And third, just curious, Warp, how do you think Christianity got started? Was it the twelve disciples wanted to try to make a new religion, they were mislead or what? This is just a curiosity.
The historically most neutral and accurate information we have is that a jewish preacher named Paul (the one who wrote all those letters) existed some time at the beginning of the first century, who advocated that the Messiah of the jewish religion had come. He created several congregations at different locations and preached in them and sent letters to them. (AFAIK there's little doubt among historians that Paul existed, although there's some discussion that at least one or a few of the letters might not have been penned by him.) There are of course letters from a few other people in the New Testament as well.
Some decades later at least two people (but possibly more) wrote the four gospels and Acts of the Apostles. It's estimated that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the others later. Regardless of the names, their authorship is not clear.
Those are the most well-known facts that we have strongest evidence for. Other details claimed in the texts themselves are not as clear-cut from a historical point of view.
However, the hypothesis that random universes are randomly popping into existence all the time (possibly in positive-negative pairs to keep the balance of energy) makes less assumptions and thus is more plausible than a sentient, intelligent "god" popping up into existence at random and then creating this universe. (Of course there's still no evidence of either, but usually the hypothesis that makes less assumptions is preferable.)
I wonder if you can really apply that kind of logic when it comes to hypotheses that go beyond the known universe. What if in all meta-universes (I hope this is the correct term) intelligent beings that naturally create universes all the time emerge at one point? What if the chances of a universe being created without their aid are miniscule in comparison? Since we know hardly anything about these meta-universes, is it really reasonable to assume they are damp, uninteresting and of low complexity? Is that the nil assumption? Or is the nil assumption that they are in general full of highly complex stuff, and wouldn't we call forms of higher complexity than ours that can create universes "intelligent beings" and more specifically "Gods"? Which one is more farfetched? I honestly don't think we can make any claims about this. We simply don't know how likely it is for the average universe to be created by a God. Of course the more assumptions you make about the attributes of such Gods, it gets less and less likely that exactly those exist in our meta-universe, so that doesn't give religions a green light no matter what. F.e. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they would be interested in communicating with us.
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Kuwaga wrote:
Warp wrote:
However, the hypothesis that random universes are randomly popping into existence all the time (possibly in positive-negative pairs to keep the balance of energy) makes less assumptions and thus is more plausible than a sentient, intelligent "god" popping up into existence at random and then creating this universe. (Of course there's still no evidence of either, but usually the hypothesis that makes less assumptions is preferable.)
I wonder if you can really apply that kind of logic when it comes to hypotheses that go beyond the known universe. What if in all meta-universes (I hope this is the correct term) intelligent beings that naturally create universes all the time emerge at one point?
There is a theory in which I naturally create universes all the time through quantum multiverse splitting, as do you and everything else!
It's a nice, plausible theory. I don't see more evidence for it than for the many other possible explanations of quantum effects though. Even if it's true, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that consciousness plays an essential role in creating parallel universes, as quantum effects can be triggered by any measuring device no matter if you observe what the device is doing at that point.
When I spoke about creating universes, I was referring to "seeding" a universe, creating something that resembles a big bang.
It goes on to say that "The Word became a human being." (John 1:14). And throughout it, is shows that the Word is Jesus.
I'm not sure if I agree that a human is a word, it's more like Jesus spoke the word of god, not that he was the word.
I also think that when it says the word created the world, he could have meant that when the words were written in the Bible, it created the Christian worldview and that the word "world" created the world. It's saying that words created us and our world. After all, if we didn't have words and language, our world certainly wouldn't be like it is today, we would be animals locked into mere instincts. So it's possible that words and language are god, just like computers need binary language in order to display or do anything, so does this world.
Warp wrote:
However, the hypothesis that random universes are randomly popping into existence all the time (possibly in positive-negative pairs to keep the balance of energy) makes less assumptions and thus is more plausible than a sentient, intelligent "god" popping up into existence at random and then creating this universe. (Of course there's still no evidence of either, but usually the hypothesis that makes less assumptions is preferable.)
Only materialists would probably agree that it makes less assumptions. I think it's more logical to assume that consciousness was created first, because we don't even know if matter exists separately from us (it's an unfalsifiable assumption), while it's a certainty that our consciousness exists.
If the universe is physical, how could it come into being from nothing? Or if it has always existed, what is the cause for its eternal existence? It's more simple to explain an illusion coming from nothing. We have many examples, like computers creating extremely complex illusions of everything from something very simple (ones and zeroes).
Kuwaga wrote:
What if in all meta-universes (I hope this is the correct term) intelligent beings that naturally create universes all the time emerge at one point?
Even if we see this from a materialistic viewpoint, considering the vastness of the universe, it's possible that some lifeforms out there could eventually evolve into god-like beings that can create an entire universe. We have evolved technologically so much in just a couple of hundred years, so imagine if we could live just 500 millions years more, how supernatural our technology would seem.
I wonder if you can really apply that kind of logic when it comes to hypotheses that go beyond the known universe. What if in all meta-universes (I hope this is the correct term) intelligent beings that naturally create universes all the time emerge at one point?
The hypothesis was that there might be a "meta-universe" which contains "normal" universes (which pop up into existence at random, via some property of said meta-universe).
The beauty of this hypothesis is that it doesn't require an intelligence to have created our universe. If countless universes appear all the time, each with a randomly varying set of natural laws and constants (as well as energy), some of them are bound to have the proper constants for life to be possible. This without the need for them to have been specifically "fine-tuned".
The hypothesis that a supernatural (meaning "not bound to this universe") god formed somehow, and it was this god that created this universe, only adds an unneeded additional complex step to the process. It only adds more questions than it answers.
Either way, be there a god or not, it's just not possible to know what kind of "god" it might be, and arguing from ignorance is quite useless.
nfq wrote:
Only materialists would probably agree that it makes less assumptions. I think it's more logical to assume that consciousness was created first, because we don't even know if matter exists separately from us (it's an unfalsifiable assumption), while it's a certainty that our consciousness exists.
(I'm sorry to be a bit prejudiced against you, but I find it a bit surprising that you sometimes make quite sensible posts to these types of threads, instead of your usual nonsensical ramblings.)
I think you got it backwards. It's not very likely that matter is bound to our consciousness, but quite likely that it's the other way around, ie. our consciousness is bound to matter (well, energy, really). There's little reason to believe that human consciousness could exist without a physical brain. Instead, there are tons of reasons to believe that it's tightly bound to it. (For example, an injury to the brain could change your personality and belief system radically and permanently. It's quite evident that the brain is not simply some kind of physical conduit for a "soul" to express its independent consciousness and thinking. A damage to this "conduit" could only lose part of such thinking, not change it radically, even to the opposite of what it was before.)
There's certainly absolutely no reason to believe that the universe could not exist without us. Even the idea would be bizarre in the extreme.
If the universe is physical, how could it come into being from nothing?
It's part of common sense to think that something cannot appear from nothing. However, even inside the confines of this universe that's not necessarily the case. You just have to study a bit of quantum mechanics to realize that the answers are not that simple, and that the world does not always work like our common sense dictates. For instance, quantum fluctuations can produce virtual particle pairs from nothing (and without any apparent cause). This does not violate any conservation laws. (What the conservation laws cause is precisely the production of virtual particle pairs. AFAIK if a single virtual particle appeared from nothing, that would break a conservation law.)
If there exists a metaverse where our universe resides in, it's not completely inconceivable that some kind of fluctuations cause universe pairs to pop up "from nothing". (And this isn't even completely far-fetched, even though we know nothing about the properties of this hypothetical metaverse.)
The hypothesis was that there might be a "meta-universe" which contains "normal" universes (which pop up into existence at random, via some property of said meta-universe).
The beauty of this hypothesis is that it doesn't require an intelligence to have created our universe. If countless universes appear all the time, each with a randomly varying set of natural laws and constants (as well as energy), some of them are bound to have the proper constants for life to be possible. This without the need for them to have been specifically "fine-tuned".
The hypothesis that a supernatural (meaning "not bound to this universe") god formed somehow, and it was this god that created this universe, only adds an unneeded additional complex step to the process. It only adds more questions than it answers.
Either way, be there a god or not, it's just not possible to know what kind of "god" it might be, and arguing from ignorance is quite useless.
The fist assumption is that something, whatever it might be, creates universes at random (random is just another way of saying "in a way we don't completely understand"). If you want to claim that it's less likely for that process to be triggered by complex processes than by a simple processes, you have to add a second assumption. Namely that it's more likely for the meta-universe to be of low complexity. It's a bit like saying, "we don't know anything about it, so I guess there is not all too much to know about it". If universes arise from immensly complex processes, it would be very much justified to call them God from our perspective.
Of course it's unlikely that we will be able to grasp this complexity (if it's there) at first. If we can ever find out how universes are created, it will indeed seem to result from random processes at first. Though whether these processes can be part of something that's in itself bigger and more complex and organized, something that could very well be called God is an entirely seperate question.
I don't think you can argue from Occam's razor (which I suspect is what you are doing internally) that it's more reasonable to assume a meta-universe of low complexity. All Occam's razor states is that in essence, scientific development is always a step by step process, each step building upon the last. Because if you don't and try to take multiple steps at a time, you are more likely to be wrong. To conclude from it that everything in the world is of as low a complexity as possible, can't be logically sound. Think from the perspective of the Ancient Greeks. Would you have argued that if matter consists of small, indivisable parts, then it's very unlikely for there to be more to it? I think the widely spread idea that it's "less likely" for there to be a God than no God at all arises from this fallacy/misinterpretation. You can't talk about likeliness without statistics or sound logic to back it up, else it's just a random belief.
Warp wrote:
However, the hypothesis that random universes are randomly popping into existence all the time (possibly in positive-negative pairs to keep the balance of energy) makes less assumptions and thus is more plausible than a sentient, intelligent "god" popping up into existence at random and then creating this universe. (Of course there's still no evidence of either, but usually the hypothesis that makes less assumptions is preferable.)
If all you were saying was that it's not necessary or reasonable to just assume that there is a God, I'd agree, but you aren't. I cannot agree with your statement that it's relatively unlikely for there to be a God. I simply fail to see the logic behind that claim. The hypothesis that makes less assumptions is preferable because it leads to faster scientific progress. It's easier test- and verifyable. That's the whole reason to it. Not because it's unlikely for there to be more to it.
I realize that my argument in part relies on the fact that our definition of God is pretty flexible.
If universes arise from immensly complex processes, it would be very much justified to call them God from our perspective.
You can also call it Berta, but neither is a very useful label. Most religions assign more properties to their gods than just being the creator of our universe. Properties one wouldn't assign to a meta-universe by default.
Is your meta-universe sentient? Does it provide moral guidance? Does it harbor love for humanity, create miracles and react to prayers? Does it give rise to an immortal soul in each of us, judging us after death to deliver eternal salvation or damnation based on our deeds, adherence to a book and sexual preferences? Does it have a human son? Does it explain the trinity and the existence of the holy spirit? Is it omnipotent, capable of influencing our universe on both large and small scales? Is it omniscient? Omnibenevolent? Does the meta-universe need to be worshipped?
If you answered "no" to any of the above, then it's not the christian god. (Fill in your own questions for other religions.)
If you answered "I don't know" to all of the above, then it's premature to label it "God".
If universes arise from immensly complex processes, it would be very much justified to call them God from our perspective.
The major problem with labeling this unknown with the name "God" is that this name is very loaded. People tend to make all kinds of unjustified assumptions immediately when the word "God" is used (usually without even considering what the definition meant by the speaker/writer actually is). Thus using this name to label the unknown is very misleading.
Take Einstein, for instance. He famously said "God doesn't play dice with the world". Many creationists have jumped to the conclusion that Einstein believed in God (moreover, that he believed in the Christian God) and use this as an argument that even many of the top scientists in the world believe in God.
Of course they completely ignore what Einstein said later, when explicitly asked about God. He specifically answered that he does not believe in a personal God. With "God" he meant the universe and its laws. (Technically speaking this would be materialistic pantheism, where "God" means the same thing as "the Universe". This "God" is not sentient, because it's nature itself.)
This is the problem that happens when you use the word "God" for something else than the Christian one.
Anyways, the issue is not whether the mechanism that caused our universe to exist (assuming it started to exist in the first place, which isn't actually a given) is simple or complex. The issue is whether it's sentient, intelligent and made this universe deliberately according to its will and with a purpose (ie. to create life). A random process would not have such purpose and sentience.
I don't think you can argue from Occam's razor
I disagree. The more assumptions one makes, the more unreasonable the position. When talking about an unknown, the less things you assume, the better. "I don't know" is always better than "I believe it's X, even though I don't have any actual evidence for it". This works in practical situations much more often that it doesn't.
There's certainly absolutely no reason to believe that the universe could not exist without us. Even the idea would be bizarre in the extreme.
Yeah, I agree, I didn't mean that the world couldn't exist without us, just that it can't exist outside consciousness. I mean, how would it be possible to be conscious of something outside our consciousness? When we observe or feel something, it's in our consciousness.
It's like in a video game: The characters seem to move around in a world external to them, but in reality there is no external world, the characters don't even move, it's all an illusion inside a monitor, like this world is inside consciousness. Not only human consciousness, but the same consciousness that animates/controls everything, including 'inanimate' objects. Some call it god.
There's little reason to believe that human consciousness could exist without a physical brain. Instead, there are tons of reasons to believe that it's tightly bound to it. (For example, an injury to the brain could change your personality and belief system radically and permanently.
Our consciousness is obviously connected to our brain, but not necessarily only able to exist in it. Our brain could work similarly to a TV: If you damage a TV, it could radically change how the picture is displayed, but the broadcasted information would be unchanged, and it exists without the TV.
But I think we have to have a body and brain in order to be conscious, even though these may be less solid in spiritual worlds. Without a body, we would have no limit. Infinity can't be conscious. In order to be conscious, we have to have a way of appearing separate from the world around us.
For instance, quantum fluctuations can produce virtual particle pairs from nothing (and without any apparent cause).
Space isn't the same thing as nothing according to scientists though. I wouldn't be surprised if entire planets and galaxies could appear from space, it's probably full of more spiritual dimensions beyond its apparent emptiness, just like ancient mythology teaches.
