Posted on 05/20/2009 12:19:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
In the latest act of media hyped pseudo-science, aka liberal/conventional science, the discovery of the crushed and flattened fossil of a lemur monkey, that while alive had a shattered left wrist, is being touted as the needed “proof” of Darwinian theory.
For the first time, all scientists interviewed freely admit that the theory of evolution had gaping holes in it. They just claim that all of the answers lie in the packaged, crush fossil that spent the last 20 years hanging on someone’s wall. In other words, they admit that until yesterday, anyone who claimed that there was anything close to conclusive proof of evolutionary was wrong, despite having sold that line for decades. The extent of the absurdity of their new “proof” will be outlined below.
The media, which specializes in hyping the ordinary, went as far as to call this spectacle the possible eighth wonder of the world. These are the same crowd that revels in referring to every new president (regardless of party) as the next possible Lincoln or FDR, every foreign leader the next possible Churchill and every Vice President of the United States…. Well, I guess there are some things that even today’s media cannot hype.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
“I know of nothing material without a cause.”
Right, but imagining a non-material thing without a cause to solve the First Mover problem doesn’t remove the elephant in the room: in creates a far bigger one. That is, if we have to accept that SOMETHING had to have come into being without a cause, it’s easier for me to imagine that being a blob of very simple stuff (hydrogen) from which—over an exceedingly long period of time and through processes we now readily can explain—eventually became a universe with stars, planets and living things. In contrast imagining that Perfection Personified magically appeared out of nothing requires a far larger leap of faith IMHO.
If science had deduced that humans had been instantaneously created in the Big Bang, THAT would be far more compelling evidence of the hand of God than a simple blob of hydrogen. Humans are so complex it would seem hard to imagine how they could have emerged fully formed.
As for entropy, this has a good explanation of the “problem” entropy poses for a natural explanation of the universe: http://www.mbbc.us/creation/universeorigin.htm
The universe has a boundary. At this point we’re not entirely sure whether the universe is open (will expand forever) or closed (will eventually collapse back in on itself). But the point is that all the laws of thermodynamics apply to post-Big-Bang conditions. That is, the universe has been “winding down” ever since the Big Bang, but this does not mean such laws governed the space that existed before the Big Bang.
It’s just like Newton’s laws do quite nicely for slow-moving objects, but make prediction errors when applied to objects moving at a high rate of speed, at which point the effects of speed on time and mass have to be taken into account. No one argues that because the laws change under identifiable conditions, this is evidence of the hand of God.
I believe you are confused on the issue here. No one believes man was instantaneously created at the moment of the Big Bang
THAT would be far more compelling evidence of the hand of God than a simple blob of hydrogen.
Not really, the precisely balanced forces necessary for the creation of an atom of hydrogen also permits the creation of water as well as the creation of all the other elements on the periodic table and the materials created from their combination. Physicists have been able to show that was created the moment of the Big Bang.
That is, the universe has been “winding down” ever since the Big Bang, but this does not mean such laws governed the space that existed before the Big Bang.
What "space" existed before the Big Bang? According to the knowledge of man - our 'space' didn't exist until after that event. Physicists and mathematicians cannot develop equations to represent the moment of the Big Bag, let alone prior to it - to attempt to do so is clearly speculation and unsupportable by any of the sciences.
I find your reply interesting. Thanks for a good discussion. Clearly we disagree, but I’m OK with that.
some follow up comments...
“That is, if we have to accept that SOMETHING had to have come into being without a cause, it’s easier for me to imagine that being a blob of...”
That’s one point where we differ. Since God has no beginning, as matter does, I do not have to accept something coming into being without a cause. You do.
“In contrast imagining that Perfection Personified magically appeared out of nothing requires a far larger leap of faith IMHO.”
Again. God has no beginning, since he is not part of the created material universe. My view is that your view - something from nothing with no cause, requires faith and a leap of logic. We differ. :-)
“Humans are so complex it would seem hard to imagine how they could have emerged fully formed.”
Humans are so complex, it would seem hard to imagine any process would produce them other than an incredible creator.
Again, thanks. The good news is that we will know the correct view someday.
I wish you the best and again, I thank you for the rare cordial conversation between differing views - uncommon on FR these days.
Best,
ampu
Hmmm. Just saw the “invisible keyboard” gag on Pundit Kitchen.
Nor do I. I was simply making an "If-Then" statement. Given what we now know about biology, which ranges from extremely "simple" life forms such as amoeba that are just a step away from raw chemistry, vs. much more complex life forms having brains, consciousness etc., in my view a Big Bang from which "mere chemicals" emerged and then over billions of years evolved into much more complex life forms seems more probable than a hypothetical alternative: a Big Bang that instantaneously produced human beings from the get-go.
the precisely balanced forces necessary for the creation of an atom of hydrogen also permits the creation of water as well as the creation of all the other elements on the periodic table and the materials created from their combination. Physicists have been able to show that was created the moment of the Big Bang.
I understand what you're saying, but my point is that science can now take us back to within the first 3 seconds of the Big Bang, explaining "naturally" all the processes by which we went from simple hydrogen to the much more complex world of 92 natural elements and from raw chemicals to simple life and from simple life to complex life. In contrast, they'd have explained a lot less IF human beings emerged fully formed from the Big Bang, since then they wouldn't even have to explain how things evolved from hydrogen to helium to more complex elements and eventually life itself.
Physicists and mathematicians cannot develop equations to represent the moment of the Big Bag, let alone prior to it - to attempt to do so is clearly speculation and unsupportable by any of the sciences.
But that's my point. There is nothing "illogical" or "impossible" about all the mass/energy that is and ever will be appearing at the Big Bang. So to use the laws that govern the post-Big Bang universe to invalidate this possibility is inappropriate. In short, one cannot apply the laws of thermodynamics to the pre-Big Bang conditions. Those laws preclude the creation of matter out of nothing given the conditions (fundamental laws governing space, time and energy/matter) arising out of the Big Bang. What existed before that time could have had very different condition/laws. Yes, it is impossible for science to ever "see" what happened before that time or "prove" that any particular set of alternative conditions/laws applied in that period. But it is "unscientific" to resort to supernatural explanations simply because we lack the tools to explain what happened. There are and always will be "dark areas" of science where we haven't had the tools or theories to fully understand/explain nature: just think how much more we understand the universe today compared to just a century ago. But we don't resort to simply throwing up our hands and saying "this must be God's will" to "explain" what science can't understand. From where I sit, introducing a God to "explain" where matter came from is no explanation at all: the very idea of God raises far more problematic and disturbing questions than it answers such as where did God come from? How could a perfect God willingly and knowingly create such manifestly imperfect things such as humans (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) capable of wreaking such massive misery and destruction upon their fellow human beings?
Good point. They’d sell their honesty for something that intrinsically promotes hedonism and selfishness. That’s why evolution is so popular with liberals. The conservatives who fall for it are just affected by the group think. I’ve yet to find many who have much knowledge of the issue other than the cult like chant of “it’s science.”
Your underlying point is valid - that eugenics have led to racism and have sometimes been inherently race focused, i.e. racist.
You apparently don't understand the incredible complexity of such 'simple' life forms - such complexity that science cannot explain how it came together via random events.
in my view a Big Bang from which "mere chemicals" emerged and then over billions of years evolved into much more complex life forms seems more probable than a hypothetical alternative: a Big Bang that instantaneously produced human beings from the get-go.
A ludicrous strawman, as already pointed out no one considers to be valid.
In contrast, they'd have explained a lot less IF human beings emerged fully formed from the Big Bang, since then they wouldn't even have to explain how things evolved from hydrogen to helium to more complex elements and eventually life itself.
Uh, hello - all life, including human, could not exist immediately after the bang. You logic is illogic and no longer worth my effort responding to.
How could a perfect God willingly and knowingly create such manifestly imperfect things such as humans (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) capable of wreaking such massive misery and destruction upon their fellow human beings?
The same God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ to show man the way. You weren't created a robot, but a person with a free will - free to accept God or reject. Your choice, smoking or non-smoking.
I agree they haven't nailed it down, but they are moving closer to a plausible explanation: http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/2009/05/13/how-rna-got-started-scientists-examine-the-origins-of-life.html
A ludicrous strawman, as already pointed out no one considers to be valid.
You apparently completely missed my point. I wasn't arguing that anyone believed humans emerged at the Big Bang. What I was saying is that if science had "proved" this had happened (in the same way it has proved what actually happened within seconds after the Big Bang), then this finding would make the idea of a creator more plausible in my mind.
You weren't created a robot, but a person with a free will - free to accept God or reject.
OK, that "explains" evil as a choice made by individuals with free will. I'll even concede that one cannot have free will (which we all highly value) without such choice. What I find problematic is the literally hundreds of millions of innocent victims brutally tortured and/or killed at the hands of these despots. They certainly did NOT choose their fate. Indeed, in some cases they met their fate in spite of or even because of their devotion to God and their abiding by his/her/its commandments. If this was an unanticipated consequence of free will, then it is obvious that God actually is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Conversely, if this horrific aspect of the exercise of free will was fully contemplated and expected by God, then that calls into question his/her/its benevolence. And if benevolence is in question, then it is fundamentally unclear why anyone would worship him/her/it unless out of abject fear rather than adoration.
Even that study doesn't begin to scratch the surface.
What I was saying is that if science had "proved" this had happened (in the same way it has proved what actually happened within seconds after the Big Bang), then this finding would make the idea of a creator more plausible in my mind.
That is, by definition, a strawman argument, which you later knocked down.
Indeed, in some cases they met their fate in spite of or even because of their devotion to God and their abiding by his/her/its commandments.
What is the comparison of say 30 to infinity?
What I find problematic is the literally hundreds of millions of innocent victims brutally tortured and/or killed at the hands of these despots.
Its called sin and it is ugly. And how many of these despots were those who denied that there is a God???
And if benevolence is in question, then it is fundamentally unclear why anyone would worship him/her/it unless out of abject fear rather than adoration.
Once again, you have to face Jesus Christ, who's self sacrifice made the way for relationship which God out of love, not abject fear - an act of God's initiative, not man's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.