| Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit! |
| The Entropic Principle; and the evolution of DNA | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 14 2005, 03:12 AM (316 Views) | |
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 14 2005, 03:12 AM Post #1 |
|
I will start this thread with the counter i posted to the entropic argument in the previous topic. I started this new thread Charlie, because i want to hear more of your oppinion and you stated you would not post in that topic anymore.
|
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 14 2005, 03:50 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
Actually one of my priciple points is just the opposite Mar. In many instances in order to explain universal phenomenon, science does exactly that, make a presumption. As a matter of fact you did just that in your opening staement when you say
How can you prove that the universe's big band was caused by a singularity in the first place? Well obviously you can't. Your whole explanation for creation is based upon that initial presumtion or suppostion and built from there. I don't make light of it, I simply point out that there are huge jumps from the known to unknown that science makes at times. In regards to the universe's creation I choose to believe in Gods explanation vs mans, thats all.
I have not tried to prove the existence of God in this or the other thread, and will not. I am just examining the evidence for evoultion and the big bang. I'm comparing and contrasting a few of sciences basic laws and theories and making observations.
One of the points I make is that what is obvious to one side is not to the other. One persons half full is anothers half empty. For me its quite obvious how much a stretch it is to imagine something as complex and beautiful as the earths ecosystems and the human body "evolving" out of the big bang. You say its a stretch to believe in the existence of God, and I simply disagree. Each of us is making a personal choice in what he believes to be the correct universal paradigm.
Say's who? Although I am abelieving christian I don't simply check in my brain at the door. Ther is nothing wrong with crtitical evaluation of either science or religion. As a matter of fact some of the most brilliant creation science speakers I've heard started of as atheist or agnostic. One of the factors that helped move them to believe in a creator was science itself.
|
![]() |
|
| Aelwyn of Breconshire | Oct 14 2005, 04:03 AM Post #3 |
|
Retired Knight
|
No person can prove anything in regards to this matter....of course. But the Big Bang theory is supported by the discovery of background radiation that is equivalent in temperate and intensity in very opposite parts of the universe...and all places tested in between. This radiation was thought to be created at the singularity...otherwise differences in local particle composition/random chance would make it extremely hard to account for this phenomenon. Sure, you could attribute anything and everything to pure act of God... |
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 14 2005, 05:17 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
Or you could attempt to attribute it to a singularity as well. In either case you have to make a jump from what is known, to the unknown.
|
![]() |
|
| Aelwyn of Breconshire | Oct 14 2005, 05:44 AM Post #5 |
|
Retired Knight
|
If you're trying to come up with the truth in comparison between possibilities, many times the first things thrown out are common variables, as they don't help distinguish which side is more correct...they are equal in both counts, and don't add to the validity of one theory over another. So... (if you get my drift)Anyways, I agree with you in:
IMO its when one is followed strictly on faith, even if there is a much greater chance that the other possibility is true that the choice is made blindly. I know, this takes away the underlying reason for having faith...oh and I never said which is more true, just so we don't go that route, as I don't know myself. I too find it hard to believe that things could be the way they are simply by chance...but the opposite is difficult to understand/accept as truth also. The thing I wonder about is, what scientific evidence is their for the existence of God? I ask simply because I haven't done any research, and find it hard for someone to prove the existence or absence of God. And I do mean Prove, not theorize. Eh. I'm going to have some chips and watch TV. And I can prove that.
|
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 14 2005, 06:05 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
Well my point was in either case either science or religion their are certain pre-suppositons. In Christianity there is the presuppostion of an eternal God. And in science there is the pre-suppostion of an eternal energy force or forces that created the big bang. It takes a certain ammount of faith to believe in either.
I agree with you on this
Well if you like we could examine the historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.
|
![]() |
|
| Viktor of Astaroth | Oct 14 2005, 12:43 PM Post #7 |
|
Retired Apprentice
|
(someone in the podium speaks)....the relativity adds to the remainder of the plutonic abstract, that of which who is divided by the relativity of the "bing-bang"...and to which its originally and potentially elevated to the maximun exponent that in the end will only result in the mix between religion and physics, that of course will without a doubt give us the most major "baloney" of all times... (Viktor looks confused):if by now one has notice, that which i wrote right now, was a bunch of nonesense., hoping you could had figure it out. *Ppl, people plz.!!, for the luv of Jebus, speak some english plz...i got lost before i was able to find myself in all this "jibby-jibba". Can it just be dropped.?, i mean really...guys this is all about "fun", it doesnt matter if you are Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Pagan, or watever other religion i cant think of right now .Seiously now, guys stop it already...this argument is nice right now...but if it continues its gonna end up in a big bunch of baloney, which obviously wont like noone..l.
|
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 14 2005, 12:43 PM Post #8 |
|
Firstly, Charlie, thx for continuing the debate. I will begin by quoting a few of my posts from the last thread.
Now what you have said in your posts is both thought prevoking and intelligent and i do not seek to undermine your oppinion. I must say however, that the big bang is a logical conclusion when considering the above evidence and i must except the most probable when any other explaination is so improbable. (thats what i meant by 'damn obvious') In the unlikely event that was proved wrong of course i would abandon the idea, which is why i have no 'faith' in it. A true faith would imply i throw down all conjecture. I must go with the logical conclusion when confronted with this evidence despite how much i'd love to believe in God. (I refer to the big bang only) *All my theories of how the big bang happened are only theories, i do not presume to know the answer to this. I have no great faith in my oppinion on this. If you imply that simply entertaining the idea of other dimensions is no more far flung than entertaining the idea of god. Well i strongly disagree. Your respectfully, Page_Marauder. Ps i am away for the weekend so I'll catch up on monday. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 14 2005, 12:49 PM Post #9 |
|
Victor you posted that just before me. This is not an argument but a debate. Other peoples oppinions are extremely valuable to me, they do not anger me. What use is there of an oppinion if it doesn't stand up to public debate? One of the problems with the world today is that not enough people even form oppinions. See you all monday. *gathers his notes and tattered old books and leaves room* |
![]() |
|
| Viktor of Astaroth | Oct 14 2005, 01:00 PM Post #10 |
|
Retired Apprentice
|
I have no problem wiith this, butt ...watching so many ppl arguing and debating at the same time about the "same, and the same"...its just like trying to find the straight line on a circle..O :lol: I mean really, like stated before...its all about how you act, even if there's really a god, whats the diff.?...its okay to beleive in something, but why not beleive on You.?, it is you who "was there, its here, and will be there" soon enough... is truly you the one that has in their hands the keys to change and mold the path you take. You must, and always must show...that you are here 'cuz its you who has control of your life, and you must decide that in the end all the concequences you receive are gonna be provoked by you, and you only. P.d: remember, its You who has the keys, beleive in Yourself always.!!! :lol: (raises and puts "big" cross on his back, *walks away) Thanks, Page_Viktor "the Saint" |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 14 2005, 03:52 PM Post #11 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Galahad, I'll just repeat again that impossible is not a correct term for a very very very low probablility (nor for 0 probability in general), but you are free to use "forgetaboutit" ![]() As to the quote from Crick, that is the probability of randomly selecting a sequence of the length of 200 with 20 equally probable possibilities on each place. This has nothing to do with evolution. An exact sequence today was not the only exact sequence made, it is one that survived. The (survival) selections in evolution are not made by equal chances. Some entities have a high chance to survive ("to work"), and others have a low chance. Evolution is not defined as mere chance in the way you think of it. This gives several answers to your amino acid problem. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 14 2005, 04:10 PM Post #12 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
thnx fer that link Dinadan.....it will take me a long time to absorb it. Kinda technical...but if I take er slow, i can get through it...check back here in a year for my review. Seriously, i will study it and what what different scientists have to say on this issue.As to the Crick explanation, you made an effort to be claer and I thank ye for that, but I am still not clear ....I don't mean to bug ye, but can you better clarify what you mean there. I am under the assumption that when Crick is saying that the formation of these rather small strands are improbable as to be equated as a Miracle...it sorta is self explanitory. Evolution is a system whereby random mutations happen with out rhyme or reason to organisms, right? And admittingly, most mutations case harm, not something good and benefitial, right? But once in a while, I guess your say ing that a good mutation will happen, strengthen that organism, and because they now will be dominate, they will florish while the lesser ones die off thereby progating the stronger species, right? So even though its a low chance to alomost impossible, because it only hyas to happen once, that makes up fpr it? Again, im all confused and would love clarification here...would hate to miss the point. Respectfully, galahad |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 14 2005, 04:44 PM Post #13 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Well, I can't really clarify more, but I can answer the questions
No. If a change is caused by events we can't model (yet), it might be random to us in a sense, but at the same time it has had its natural cause.
That's feasible.
That's about the theory of natural selection I guess.
I was saying the chances don't look that way. I wouldn't know if what you say would make up for 20^xxx if that was correct, I have no idea of the numbers needed to tell. |
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 16 2005, 09:17 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
So I am to assume Mar that you feel that believing in unknown, unseen dimensions, that are not proven to exist, is more logical than an unseen God that has not been proven to exist? As I said before, Each of us is making a conscious choice in the creation paradigm he wishes to believe in BTW I am sorry to hear you lost your mother at a young age, as I lost mine at age 11 m8....
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 16 2005, 04:44 PM Post #15 |
|
Master of Spam
|
I would say that's exactly the case, it's more logical. Remember, the word "dimension" marks something we can actually understand and even "see", but the word "God" maks something we can neither understand nor see. That does makes it more logical to assume the existence of another dimension than to assume the existence of God; it's a fact that dimensions do exist. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 18 2005, 05:00 PM Post #16 |
|
Well, we currently exist within 4 dimensions, is it not a logical presumption that a 5th exists, or even a 6th,... 7th, 8th etc? This is not evidence but it is logical, unlike God. Respectfully, Marauder. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 18 2005, 05:52 PM Post #17 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
.....sounds like faith to me
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 18 2005, 08:09 PM Post #18 |
|
Master of Spam
|
How about "logical assumption based on facts"? :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 18 2005, 09:06 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
Oh I did'nt realise we were having a conversation with someone who had actually seen the 5th dimension....
As a science major I make the logical assumption that the universe as we know it could not have been created by random chance. Various fundamentals of science lead me to this conclusion.
In a word from my perspective ... NO
Based upon what I know of the Biological and Physical sciences the assumtion that God exists seems perfectly logical to me. The complexity and intricacy of the universe that we live live in, and the sentient creatures and ecosystems within it, cry out Intelligent Design to me....
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 18 2005, 09:23 PM Post #20 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Well, what Laws of Nature do those other dimentions operate under?
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 19 2005, 05:49 PM Post #21 |
|
Master of Spam
|
That would be funny, if it didn't miss the point
I don't need to be a science major to know that anything in nature, that someone calls "random chance", would in fact only be called that because the event couldn't be modelled well enough, not because there were no determining factors. Nothing suggests to me that there is any actual "random chance" to be found in reality. The anti-creationist theories don't do that either.
What prespective would make it illogical (i.e. not based on valid reasoning)?
God is not a logical answer to the questions inspired by the complexity of the world. Instead, God is an idea that stops you from seeking a logical answer, casually giving the ultimate solution for everything: omnipotence. This is not logic, it's an escape from logic. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 19 2005, 05:55 PM Post #22 |
|
Master of Spam
|
PS. (in case it's not clear what I mean under the 2nd quote) Scientific anti-creationist theories aren't based on "random chance" even if they are based on something that couldn't be exactly modelled when the theory was formed. You only say chance if you can't determin an outcome with your current models.
We don't even know what laws apply to the first few ones for sure. They are still there
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 19 2005, 06:28 PM Post #23 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
As an example of what some of us have been saying....check out this short article... http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-cr...mer-atheist.htm
|
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic » |








Kinda technical...but if I take er slow, i can get through it...check back here in a year for my review.
7:32 PM Jul 11