Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How did the Universe come in to existence? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    You understand what you've said is pseudo-science, right?

    The geological record shows the simplest organisms occur in the oldest areas of the earth while the more complex organisms are more recent arrivals. We can see regional specialization.

    All this suggests that evolution -probably- resulted in the species we have today and is the best explanation.

    It is evidence - compelling, certainly, but not ironclad.
    Evolution occurs, it is a fact, the evidence is from virtually every science field not just the geological record. Biology would not make sense without evolution. The Theory may not be finished but denying that evolution, the process of, is pseudo-science is ridiculous and not worthy of internet ink.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    x.
    Nothing in science is fully proven. However, it is still worth believing, of course.

    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

    - Einstein
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Nothing in science is fully proven. However, it is still worth believing, of course.

    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

    - Einstein
    Absolutely. It is worth believing because it fits all the evidence we have so far. That was obviously not what I was arguing, since I agreed that evolution appeared to be how current species came in to being.

    That said, even if we forget the mystery of abiogenesis, there are several 'Steps' that we have never observed that would be required for evolution to be the answer for all current species. Those are:

    1) We have never seen single-celled organisms that did not have a predisposition towards community metabolism to gather in to symbiotic communities..
    2) We have never seen single-celled organisms in symbiotic communities that did not have a predisposition to doing so to specialize in to pseudo-organs or the like.

    And so on, and so forth.

    The counter-argument is, of course, "But ThatOldGuy - It may have taken the whole universe billions of years in a near infinite area to create both abiogenesis and the specializations you're talking about. The odds of being able to observe those in nature are staggeringly small."

    It is the scientific equivalent of a "God of the Gaps" argument, where things that have never been seen are assumed simply to support the hypothesis. Those are important questions - Ones where evolution is unsupported in observation(Which is required for the scientific method). These holes are both unobserved and, because of the nature and extent of the huge amounts of time and randomness that went in to it, unobservable in any real sense.

    Claiming that Evolution is an ironclad absolute known is pseudo-science because it denies all the rules of science. There -are- things we do not know about it and things we cannot know(Beyond simple hand-wavery like, 'We'll figure it out eventually'). It is -probably- true based upon our current understanding and observations, but that does not mean there is no room for dissent.

    Claiming otherwise is dogmatic rather than scientific.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    I too believe God created the universe.

    I find it amazing that even famous names like Stephen Hawking refuse to acknowledge the hand of God in creation yet still are able to see the impossibility of it occurring otherwise.

    Unless you are fooled by the hoax of evolution. It is only by the hoax of evolution and it's necessity for the immeasurable billions of years that a veil is pulled across the eyes of those to the simple truth.
    The hoax of evolution sounds interesting. I think there's enough evidence to show its a real thing
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    The Atom was considered indivisible, it is in fact what the word means, science may have got it wrong but it has been corrected. Exactly the same as the Theory of Evolution, it is not a finished Theory but it is still a fact.
    And the atom was thought indivisible at the time because we were looking for an indivisible particle. We were wrong only in that we were premature and had to look a little closer, into the atom, to find a fundamental particle (though I think we can split the electron now too, though the result is new particles that explain the property of the original particle). It's just a developing of our understanding and it's very strange when some religious types use it to tell scientific types that they are wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    I too believe God created the universe.

    I find it amazing that even famous names like Stephen Hawking refuse to acknowledge the hand of God in creation yet still are able to see the impossibility of it occurring otherwise.

    Unless you are fooled by the hoax of evolution. It is only by the hoax of evolution and it's necessity for the immeasurable billions of years that a veil is pulled across the eyes of those to the simple truth.
    Racoon, there is no simple truth to the universe and it's understanding is best left to the likes of Hawking who is an incredibly intelligent man who has dedicated his life to actually discovering the realities of this universe in observing it with an eager and open mind. The rest of us use what faculties we have to understand and question what people of Hawking's calibre present to us, and people like you refuse to believe anything other than what was written in a book written and barley modified over thousands of years ago.

    If you find it amazing that Hawking doesn't agree with you, it's very very very likely that it's because you are the lesser of these two brains.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    What do you mean that oxygen levels are just right? The Earth's oxygen levels did not change for our benefit. Rather, we adapted to the conditions on Earth. One only needs to look at people who live at high altitudes. Most people struggle to breath at really high altitudes, but the peoples who have lived for generations at high altitudes have adapted to these conditions.

    You question would be like asking why the oxygen pressure at high altitudes is perfectly tuned so as to provide the best environment for people who live at high altitudes.
    .
    I see where you're coming from - however this is a false dichotomy. The changing of earth's climate to a state that it is optimum for life is not an occurence that is mutually exclusive with the capacity of life to adapt and have variations in its compatibility with these conditions. Rather, the change in earth's climate was very much a more drastic change than the variation between one man's suitability to high altitudes to another's suitability to low altitudes, and therefore, one that was less likely than the latter. These various considerations show how the case is not as you proposed above.

    What is firstly undisputable is that the Earth's conditions did indeed change such that it became more favourable for man. Our point of difference is whether or not the primary causative agent was mere chance or a conscious entity referred to as God. What is secondly undisputable is that man has within him an unconscious capacity to adapt to variable conditions, to a certain extent, and thus become more suited to the particular environment. Our point of difference here is concluding whether or not this capacity to adapt came about solely by chance and evolution, or whether man was created with this innate capacity to adapt and evolve to ensure his survival for the era of his existence.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    I see where you're coming from - however this is a false dichotomy. The changing of earth's climate to a state that it is optimum for life is not an occurence that is mutually exclusive with the capacity of life to adapt and have variations in its compatibility with these conditions. Rather, the change in earth's climate was very much a more drastic change than the variation between one man's suitability to high altitudes to another's suitability to low altitudes, and therefore, one that was less likely than the latter. These various considerations show how the case is not as you proposed above.
    What do you mean the change in Earth's climate was more drastic? What change are you talking about here?

    But yes, human adaptation is slow. It is a process of evolution.

    What is firstly undisputable is that the Earth's conditions did indeed change such that it became more favourable for man.
    It didn't change for our benefit. Glaciation is a continuous cycle and we just happened to benefit from the holocene interglacial period. Over the next 100,000 years time, there should be another "ice age" in which conditions will become largely unfavourable again.


    Our point of difference is whether or not the primary causative agent was mere chance or a conscious entity referred to as God.
    There is no logical reason to jump to God here when talking about the oxygen levels on Earth. Species evolve and adapt to the conditions on Earth. That is why we can find thermophilic microbes living in hot springs. The water did not become hot enough so as to provide a favourable condition for them to live, but rather they evolved to live in such conditions.

    What is secondly undisputable is that man has within him an unconscious capacity to adapt to variable conditions, to a certain extent, and thus become more suited to the particular environment.
    What do you mean by the "unconscious capacity to adapt"?

    Our point of difference here is concluding whether or not this capacity to adapt came about solely by chance and evolution, or whether man was created with this innate capacity to adapt and evolve to ensure his survival for the era of his existence.
    Can you link me to a peer reviewed scientific journal where this innate unconscious capacity to adapt has been studied?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    God certainly created the universe, it has a beginning and an end - I agree with the OP


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    there is so many things I can say about how dumb this thread is, to destroy your thread, but it has already been destroyed, I wish I could have been here sooner to burn your thread, The big bang created the Universe, we cant win against your kind of people, you people are just impossible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    I see where you're coming from - however this is a false dichotomy. The changing of earth's climate to a state that it is optimum for life is not an occurence that is mutually exclusive with the capacity of life to adapt and have variations in its compatibility with these conditions. Rather, the change in earth's climate was very much a more drastic change than the variation between one man's suitability to high altitudes to another's suitability to low altitudes, and therefore, one that was less likely than the latter. These various considerations show how the case is not as you proposed above.

    What is firstly undisputable is that the Earth's conditions did indeed change such that it became more favourable for man. Our point of difference is whether or not the primary causative agent was mere chance or a conscious entity referred to as God. What is secondly undisputable is that man has within him an unconscious capacity to adapt to variable conditions, to a certain extent, and thus become more suited to the particular environment. Our point of difference here is concluding whether or not this capacity to adapt came about solely by chance and evolution, or whether man was created with this innate capacity to adapt and evolve to ensure his survival for the era of his existence.
    What absolute rubbish, Humans are relatively late in the timeframe of life and have always breathed oxygen, only a few simple organisms would have been there at the anoxic-aerobic change. Your answer is only viable with a non evolutionary progress of life formation. or the god magic nonsense.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    You're all wrong. The universe was created by the Giant Spaghetti Monster.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josie_7)
    God certainly created the universe, it has a beginning and an end - I agree with the OP


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I wonder what you mean by "a beginning and an end", it is a very lax description. It is most likely that the universe came about by some natural process as it is evident that natural processes are driving it's evolution. Even if there was some unknowable magician who had a hand in the evolution of the universe, it could not be any god dreamt up by men, not if the creation rubbish of any religion is to be believed.
    What does it matter if you agree with the OP, you have hardly shown any evidence for your claim or even any evidence of this god.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If God did it, he must be quite bad at it. Out of billions of planets he managed to only create one that's suitable for humans.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    What do you mean the change in Earth's climate was more drastic? What change are you talking about here?
    But yes, human adaptation is slow. It is a process of evolution.[/quote]

    Atmospheric constituents, temperature, etc.
    You seem to neither affirm nor deny your false dichotomy.

    It didn't change for our benefit. Glaciation is a continuous cycle and we just happened to benefit from the holocene interglacial period. Over the next 100,000 years time, there should be another "ice age" in which conditions will become largely unfavourable again.
    This very manner of repetition is why I no longer bother with debates here. Your response was to as follows:

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    (Original post by ash92:))
    What is firstly undisputable is that the Earth's conditions did indeed change such that it became more favourable for man.
    It didn't change for our benefit. Glaciation is a continuous cycle and we just happened to benefit from the holocene interglacial period. Over the next 100,000 years time, there should be another "ice age" in which conditions will become largely unfavourable again.
    It is more conducive to discussion when the response is actually addressing the quoted segment of text.

    There is no logical reason to jump to God here when talking about the oxygen levels on Earth.
    Nobody is 'jumping' to anything. I stated 2 variant views as they are.
    Species evolve and adapt to the conditions on Earth.
    There is no disagreement on this point. This should have been adequately clear to you from my previous post. This is part of your false dichotomy - that you believe evolution/adaptation and the creation of beings with the capacity to evolve as mutually exclusive.

    That is why we can find thermophilic microbes living in hot springs. The water did not become hot enough so as to provide a favourable condition for them to live, but rather they evolved to live in such conditions.
    In light of the aforementioned, I don't feel there is a need to comment on this.

    What do you mean by the "unconscious capacity to adapt"?
    Possessing the capability to adapt to the environment without any conscious involvement. This should be simple enough to understand as a description of the evolutionary process.

    Can you link me to a peer reviewed scientific journal where this innate unconscious capacity to adapt has been studied?
    Oh dear.

    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    What absolute rubbish...
    A useful contribution, as always.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))

    A useful contribution, as always.
    You are somehow giving the impression that Humans have evolved to live under aerobic conditions, it is very simple life that evolved from anoxic conditions to aerobic ones. So your contribution IS rubbish. If you are going to explain your religious beliefs in the light of evolution at least know what you are talking about.Humans have always metabolised oxygen because oxygen has always been on Earth in the time of humans. Photosynthesis started very early after life started with bacteria and eukarya, so humans have nothing to do with the beginnings of life.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    Atmospheric constituents, temperature, etc.
    If we look at the changes that occurred from the Pleistocene to the Holocene, many species died off, but many more also survived and evolved. CO2 levels and temperatures changed quite drastically over a period of a few thousand years. This happens about every 100,000 years. So species are clearly able to survive these changes and evolve and adapt, despite how quick they happen.

    You seem to neither affirm nor deny your false dichotomy.
    To be honest, it was a convoluted paragraph that I couldn't quite grasp what you were saying. I still don't understand what you are trying to say is a false dichotomy. Maybe you could explain the point differently?

    This very manner of repetition is why I no longer bother with debates here.
    I was emphasising a point. The fact that conditions changed and became more favourable does not lead to the conclusion that it changed for our benefit.

    It is more conducive to discussion when the response is actually addressing the quoted segment of text.
    What I typed was relevant. The major change in Earths condition that were favourable to humanity was the shift that took place at the end of the Pleistocene. This however is part of a cycle that occurs roughly every 100,000 years. This is not a permanent change, but is a cycle that continues. See the image below to see what I am referring to and look at the CO2 levels and the temperature changes. We live within the yellow region, the so-called "favourable conditions" you refer to, but it is merely part of a cycle, wherein a large portion of that cycle doesn't present favourable conditions to humanity. The current glaciation period we live in started 18,000 years ago.



    Nobody is 'jumping' to anything. I stated 2 variant views as they are.
    I just don't see how God is relevant here when discussing oxygen levels on Earth being 'favourable' when it is clear species adapt to conditions.

    There is no disagreement on this point. This should have been adequately clear to you from my previous post. This is part of your false dichotomy - that you believe evolution/adaptation and the creation of beings with the capacity to evolve as mutually exclusive.

    In light of the aforementioned, I don't feel there is a need to comment on this.
    But there is. You and the OP seem to be trying to go down the route of arguing that conditions are favourable to humans, therefore God. We have adapted to the conditions. Hence my taking thermophilic microbes to belabor this point of adaptation being the explanation of 'favourability'. So I don't see why the 'favourable' oxygen levels of Earth are being used to argue for Gods existence.

    Possessing the capability to adapt to the environment without any conscious involvement. This should be simple enough to understand as a description of the evolutionary process.
    What you said was extremely vague. So you are basically saying that species evolve?

    Oh dear.
    Well, maybe it would help to be less vague. What you wrote sounded as if you were talking about some wishy-washy new-age spirituality.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Absolutely. It is worth believing because it fits all the evidence we have so far. That was obviously not what I was arguing, since I agreed that evolution appeared to be how current species came in to being.

    That said, even if we forget the mystery of abiogenesis, there are several 'Steps' that we have never observed that would be required for evolution to be the answer for all current species. Those are:

    1) We have never seen single-celled organisms that did not have a predisposition towards community metabolism to gather in to symbiotic communities..
    2) We have never seen single-celled organisms in symbiotic communities that did not have a predisposition to doing so to specialize in to pseudo-organs or the like.

    And so on, and so forth.

    The counter-argument is, of course, "But ThatOldGuy - It may have taken the whole universe billions of years in a near infinite area to create both abiogenesis and the specializations you're talking about. The odds of being able to observe those in nature are staggeringly small."

    It is the scientific equivalent of a "God of the Gaps" argument, where things that have never been seen are assumed simply to support the hypothesis. Those are important questions - Ones where evolution is unsupported in observation(Which is required for the scientific method). These holes are both unobserved and, because of the nature and extent of the huge amounts of time and randomness that went in to it, unobservable in any real sense.

    Claiming that Evolution is an ironclad absolute known is pseudo-science because it denies all the rules of science. There -are- things we do not know about it and things we cannot know(Beyond simple hand-wavery like, 'We'll figure it out eventually'). It is -probably- true based upon our current understanding and observations, but that does not mean there is no room for dissent.

    Claiming otherwise is dogmatic rather than scientific.
    I think you make a very important point, but I just wanted to comment on what I have emboldened and coloured in your quote.

    You've done what a lot of people do nowadays, which is to equate philosophical naturalism to science. You've said "the scientific equivalent to the God of the Gaps argument". I know what you actually mean. You mean "the naturalistic equivalent to the God of the Gaps argument".

    The reason why I point that out really is to help people see the popular opinions of our day. In general conversation, people often imply that science is naturalism. Science is a means of learning about mechanisms, that assumes naturalism (methodological naturalism), in order to get reproducible results. You don't have to be a naturalist (philosophical bent; a worldview) to believe in the validity of, or to do science.

    Out of interest, can I ask you whether you are a naturalist/atheist or some other belief system? One of the reasons why I'm so curious is because normally, it's only theists (like myself) who make that argument. It's only theists who tend to criticise the popular atheists' arguments. But then later on you say things like "It is -probably- true based upon our current understanding and observations,", which sounds like something only an atheist would say. You don't really know the probability of whether it'll be figured out eventually. That sounds more like a hopeful statement that presupposes that abiogenesis, evolution and the general naturalistic explanation for our origins happened.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    I think you make a very important point, but I just wanted to comment on what I have emboldened and coloured in your quote.

    You've done what a lot of people do nowadays, which is to equate philosophical naturalism to science. You've said "the scientific equivalent to the God of the Gaps argument". I know what you actually mean. You mean "the naturalistic equivalent to the God of the Gaps argument".

    The reason why I point that out really is to help people see the popular opinions of our day. In general conversation, people often imply that science is naturalism. Science is a means of learning about mechanisms, that assumes naturalism (methodological naturalism), in order to get reproducible results. You don't have to be a naturalist (philosophical bent; a worldview) to believe in the validity of, or to do science.

    Out of interest, can I ask you whether you are a naturalist/atheist or some other belief system? One of the reasons why I'm so curious is because normally, it's only theists (like myself) who make that argument. It's only theists who tend to criticise the popular atheists' arguments. But then later on you say things like "It is -probably- true based upon our current understanding and observations,", which sounds like something only an atheist would say. You don't really know the probability of whether it'll be figured out eventually. That sounds more like a hopeful statement that presupposes that abiogenesis, evolution and the general naturalistic explanation for our origins happened.
    No! This is not a reverse GOTG argument. The god hypothesis has no evidence to recommend it, the ToE is swimming in an ocean of evidence. There are limits to what we can see, but we can still deduce what is happening from the techniques that we use, before the microscope was invented we had no way of knowing what bacteria could do, but now that we have moved away from the previous idea of prayer as a cure we actually have cures from all kinds of diseases. Your pathetic god and his answering prayer cure-all has lost. That is why we no longer die at an average age of 25 but actually live into our eighties and counting.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Magic and the supernatural.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 12, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.