Rationality

[(Q)]

But it still can't explain how there was anything to explode in the Big Bang. Where did the original "gunpowder" come from? No one seems to know, even those supporting the Big Bang theory.

It doesn't have to explain where the "gunpowder" came from, that is not the intent of the theory. The intent of Big Bang Theory is only to describe what happened AFTER the initial event. What happened at and before the event MUST be described by different theories altogether.

 

[Baron Max]

The intent of Big Bang Theory is only to describe what happened AFTER the initial event. What happened at and before the event MUST be described by different theories altogether.

Agreed. So what explanation does "evolution" provide for us? What explanation does any science provide for us? And if they don't provide an explanation for it, then believing in evolution is not much different to believing in an intelligent designer ...it's a belief, just like a religious belief.

Baron Max

 

[(Q)]

So what explanation does "evolution" provide for us?

Evolution IS the explanation for us.

What explanation does any science provide for us?

Science provides explanations to observations and experiments. Is that not useful? Are you not living a long healthy life with conveniences like electricity, a computer, internet connection...?

believing in evolution is not much different to believing in an intelligent designer ...it's a belief, just like a religious belief.

Of course, that is, if you ignore the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, then one can pretty much believe in anything, including intelligent designers.

 

[charles cure]

Agreed. So what explanation does "evolution" provide for us? What explanation does any science provide for us? And if they don't provide an explanation for it, then believing in evolution is not much different to believing in an intelligent designer ...it's a belief, just like a religious belief.

Baron Max

well the explanation evolution provides is one that is based in reality. the explanations that science in general provides are explanations that contribute to the building of a framework within which to develop a understanding of our world and how it works. evolution isnt a belief. its a theory that is supported with proof and can be observed in the natural world even now. religion doesnt work that way. theres no proof for an intelligent designer.

 

[Baron Max]

Of course, that is, if you ignore the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, then one can pretty much believe in anything, including intelligent designers.

I'll ask it all over again just for those who refuse to read my posts.

The theory of evolution is fine as far as it goes .....but how and when did evolution even begin? And on what did it begin to exhibit changes? Where did the very, very first "thing" come from? Evolution does NOT answer that question, does it? And thus we're right back to where we started ...not knowing!

I believe in the theory of evolution. As far as I'm concerned, it's a proven fact of nature. But it doesn't go far enough ....it doesn't answer what and when the very first "thing" came into existence.

Baron Max

 

[SnakeLord]

The theory of evolution is fine as far as it goes .....but how and when did evolution even begin? And on what did it begin to exhibit changes? Where did the very, very first "thing" come from? Evolution does NOT answer that question, does it?

Of course evolution does not answer that question.. It has no relevance to it. What you should be looking at is abiogenesis.

 

[charles cure]

I'll ask it all over again just for those who refuse to read my posts.

The theory of evolution is fine as far as it goes .....but how and when did evolution even begin? And on what did it begin to exhibit changes? Where did the very, very first "thing" come from? Evolution does NOT answer that question, does it? And thus we're right back to where we started ...not knowing!

I believe in the theory of evolution. As far as I'm concerned, it's a proven fact of nature. But it doesn't go far enough ....it doesn't answer what and when the very first "thing" came into existence.

Baron Max

good luck getting that question answered anytime soon.

 

[Baron Max]

Of course evolution does not answer that question.. It has no relevance to it. What you should be looking at is abiogenesis.

So ....is "abiogenesis" sorta' like a new religion for evolutionists? Is there any sort of worship services or religious chants or prayers to it? Or is it only a bit different from the usual religious worship?

Baron Max

 

[Raithere]

Max:

The difference between science and religion here is that science does not presume to have an answer when there is not enough data to substantiate one.

Evolution explains how life has developed but not how it originated. Likewise the Big Bang theory explains how the Universe has developed but not how it originated. Both theories are substantiated by large amounts of evidence but, in both cases, there is a point in the past beyond which there is very little evidence (presently).

Does this mean that these theories are dependent upon faith? No.

The mistake you make is here: " The Big Bang theory would be empty without the Big Bang, the Big Bang which the theory tries to prove, is as such needed for the theory itself allthough unproven."

The Big Bang theory is NOT dependent upon the Big Bang, nor is Evolution dependent upon the origin of life. Unlike religion, science does not begin with the conclusion, it begins with the evidence. Where religion begins with the premise that God exists and then looks for proof for this assertion, science looks at the evidence and then attempts to develop an explanation that fits the facts.

For both theories the cause of origin is actually irrelevant. It does not matter, for instance, if life on Earth began with God, aliens, or a chemical broth because no matter how life on Earth began we have plenty of evidence that substantiates that it subsequently developed through Evolutionary processes.

~Raithere

 

[SnakeLord]

So ....is "abiogenesis" sorta' like a new religion for evolutionists? Is there any sort of worship services or religious chants or prayers to it? Or is it only a bit different from the usual religious worship?

Not in the slightest, the main difference having been pointed out succinctly by Raithere on the previous post.

" Unlike religion, science does not begin with the conclusion, it begins with the evidence."

 

[(Q)]

I'll ask it all over again just for those who refuse to read my posts.

Your posts were read and were answered. It appears it is you who have not read them or understood them.

but how and when did evolution even begin? And on what did it begin to exhibit changes? Where did the very, very first "thing" come from? Evolution does NOT answer that question, does it?

Again, evolution, like the Big Bang theory, does not answer those questions. Some other theory is required, and if no theory is available, no observations were probably made, hence your questions can only be answered by speculation.

And thus we're right back to where we started ...not knowing!

No, we know a lot about evolution. We don't know the answers to your questions, but that doesn't mean they will someday not present themselves.

Theists are under the illusion that science has already answered all questions or can answer all questions, and if it can't, its somehow useless.

 

[Baron Max]

We don't know the answers to your questions, but that doesn't mean they will someday not present themselves.

But isn't that exactly what theists say also -- that someday god will present himself to us as the answer?

I guess the difference is that they propose that an intelligent life/god not only started all life, but also introduced the evolutionary processes to keep it going strong and healthy.

As I've stated, I do believe in evolution ...I'm uncertain how one can even deny it. But to consider that evolution is the answer to life is not much different to considering that "god" introduced BOTH life AND evolution. Evolution does not and never has negated the belief/faith in god.

Baron Max

 

[SnakeLord]

But isn't that exactly what theists say also -- that someday god will present himself to us as the answer?

I am amazed you cannot see the distinct difference. Q is stating that with time and effort man will come to find out the answers to questions we still have not answered.

You on the other hand are giving answers before even asking the questions - based on nothing more but personal assumption, hope and the need to excercise fantastical imagination.

Evolution does not and never has negated the belief/faith in god

Once again: That's not what evolution is for or about. The only reason evolution even comes up in discussion is generally because of those sick whacko creationists who hold that the world and all life on it was created exactly as it is now several thousand years ago. They then back the claim up with complete idiocy - and claim their idiocy to be science <-- and that's the smarter creationists. The average halfwit creationist still asks: "If evolution is true why don't cows have wings?", or "if man came from monkeys why do monkeys still exist?", and other vulgur displays of total ignorance.

 

[Sarkus]

As I've stated, I do believe in evolution ...I'm uncertain how one can even deny it. But to consider that evolution is the answer to life is not much different to considering that "god" introduced BOTH life AND evolution. Evolution does not and never has negated the belief/faith in god.

Put simply - evolution explains how we got from the first life-form to where we are now - and will explain where life on this planet is in another million and billion years.

Evolution is a process.

You're asking why the workings of an internal combustion engine doesn't explain who built the car.

And unlike theists, science doesn't even pretend that it will definitely have the answer. It accepts that there are somethings we just will never know from our limited viewpoint of being internal to the universe.

 

[Raithere]

But to consider that evolution is the answer to life is not much different to considering that "god" introduced BOTH life AND evolution. Evolution does not and never has negated the belief/faith in god.

This is quite true. The only people for whom Evolution becomes a religious issue are those who insist upon a literal interpretation of religious creation stories (typically Biblical Creationists). For anyone else Evolutionary theory should have no more effect upon their beliefs about God than the theory of Gravity does.

For science there are simply unanswered questions. Perhaps they will be answered some day, perhaps not. But this doesn't change what we are able to know.

~Raithere

 

[Baron Max]

You on the other hand are giving answers before even asking the questions - based on nothing more but personal assumption, hope and the need to excercise fantastical imagination.

Ha! I gave absolutely NO answer anywhere in any of my post on this topic! If you think so, please be so kind as to point it out, then I'll go back and edit it and note it as changed!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Perhaps they will be answered some day, perhaps not. But this doesn't change what we are able to know.

And isn't that almost exactly what many theists say? ...that someday we'll know the real truth?

Oh, sure, they claim to already know via their faith, but they, too, are expecting to know all of the answers sometime in the future. And ye're saying the same thing. But until you do know (or science knows), how are you so sure that the very first spect of "anything" was NOT from an intelligent being? See? Your faith in science is not much different to the theists faith in god.

Baron Max

 

[Raithere]

And isn't that almost exactly what many theists say? ...that someday we'll know the real truth?

Yes. Many theists do say this. There remains, however, a very vocal minority that insists that science conform to their religious beliefs. One that demands, for instance, that ID be taught as if it were science when it is nothing of the sort or that Evolution not be taught with the certitude it deserves.

Oh, sure, they claim to already know via their faith, but they, too, are expecting to know all of the answers sometime in the future. And ye're saying the same thing.

There is something of a difference in the methodology, but yes. All it really entails however is admitting that some things are not known.

But until you do know (or science knows), how are you so sure that the very first spect of "anything" was NOT from an intelligent being? See? Your faith in science is not much different to the theists faith in god.

Where do you get the idea that I am certain that a god did not create the Universe? I simply find no reason to believe that it is true. I find it unlikely for reasons of logic and history and I find it even more unlikely that presuming there is indeed a creator that we have even the slightest inkling of its motive and purpose but I make no claim of knowing the origins of the Universe. The scientific explanations remain hypothetical at this point which make them stronger arguments logically but nowhere near approaching certainty.

~Raithere

 

[comisaru]

The science could be the final religion, but the religion will never be the final science.

Let's imagine: the scientists, seeing the waste of resources, the indolence of politicians, less fund for research, will establish a world wide interdisciplinary consortium. They will promise the eternal life on a base already scientific proved. Your memory stored in huge servers, the genes written down and the body kept in liquid nitrogen. What for? The message, adjusted to each religion, will promise another life, after death, on a heaven new planet.

 

[SnakeLord]

Ha! I gave absolutely NO answer anywhere in any of my post on this topic! If you think so, please be so kind as to point it out, then I'll go back and edit it and note it as changed!

My apologies, it was an open "you", (with reference to religious folk in general that claim knowledge of the answer {god did it} irregardless to the question).

I didn't mean you specifically.. Sorry, bad habit of mine.