I want to believe in evolution

[Lorizael]

Kid struggles to complete sentences. Why would anyone bother to argue metaphysics with him?

[Aeson]

Kid was obviously confused.

Expecting me to drop the context of my original post where I specifically used the term "science" in regards to it's claims (or rather, lack thereof) in regards to the creation of the universe, and to address Kid's direct response to my post about what science claims in regards to the creation of the universe (in which was using the term "science"), and assume that by "science" he meant "materialists" is just absurd.

You had an opportunity to clear things up. I commented because I expect you to do so.

a) not my problem in any case
b) unconfirmed assumption on your part that it even was a problem
c) your earlier attempt to "prove" your comment is not the same argument you're using now

[Jon Miller]

I was pointing you to the place where you obviously went wrong.

JM

[Kidlicious]

I'm not an astrophysicist and haven't even spent much time reading up on it in general. As such, my opinion about what the good theories in this regard wouldn't be worth much.



If (a hypothetical theory) really can't be verified, it's not a good theory. Falsifiability is a good thing in a theory.

So you aren't familiar (or aren't able to talk about) the "good theories" in science about how things exist? I'm only familiar with people saying "it just happened." Too me that's saying it was a miracle (which can't be verified). But I don't know of anyone who has ever said that who believes in miracles.

[Kidlicious]

Uhm nope...
Creationism asumes that everything is created ...
Science assumes that the universe as we know it is the result of natural laws as well as a lot of random events (like, for example, Supernovae whose explosions create clouds of heavier elements which then hit somewhere else a star in being which finally forms planets ... or mass extinctions which make the way free for some species to become dominant.

Science doesnt´need a creator

Ah yeah "created" was a bad choice of words on my part. Let me ask you this. How did the natural laws come to exist, and why do things randomly? I don't understand your belief in randomness.

[Kidlicious]

Kid struggles to complete sentences. Why would anyone bother to argue metaphysics with him?

It's not my fault that the best explaination that you can give for your beliefs is that "things are just that way."

[kentonio]

I'm only familiar with people saying "it just happened." Too me that's saying it was a miracle (which can't be verified). But I don't know of anyone who has ever said that who believes in miracles.

There's a difference between 'we think that happened but we don't know why yet' and a miracle.

AHow did the natural laws come to exist, and why do things randomly?

What are natural laws? The way you're looking at it depends on the possibility that things could just easily have been another way, and that's not necessarily true. Whatever process was involved in the creation of the universe could well mean that the 'natural laws' are just a natural by product of the process. When people say 'if x was just slightly different the universe would implode in on itself' or 'if x was just slightly different life could not exist' they are already pre-presuming there was some kind of choice in the matter, and as we don't know how universes work that seems a pretty daft presumption.

[Kidlicious]

There's a difference between 'we think that happened but we don't know why yet' and a miracle.

You really are thinking about this is such a limited way. How can things exist without being created? Your answer is "they can but we just don't know how yet." That's just unacceptable.

[kentonio]

You really are thinking about this is such a limited way. How can things exist without being created? Your answer is "they can but we just don't know how yet." That's just unacceptable.

You just misquoted me. I did not say 'they can', I said 'we think that happened'. Those are very different things.

It's only in the last half century that we've started getting the kind of tools that allow us to study space in a semi-decent way. It's a much more honest approach to create theories based on how we've witnessed the world/universe to work previously and build upon that than to just make up an answer like 'x deity did it'.

Btw, I edited my previous post to add a chunk. Didn't expect you to reply so fast.

[Lorizael]

It's not my fault that the best explaination that you can give for your beliefs is that "things are just that way."

It is your fault if you misunderstand my beliefs, however.

[Kidlicious]

What are natural laws? The way you're looking at it depends on the possibility that things could just easily have been another way, and that's not necessarily true. Whatever process was involved in the creation of the universe could well mean that the 'natural laws' are just a natural by product of the process. When people say 'if x was just slightly different the universe would implode in on itself' or 'if x was just slightly different life could not exist' they are already pre-presuming there was some kind of choice in the matter, and as we don't know how universes work that seems a pretty daft presumption.

First, you just said "the creation of the universe." Thanks, now I don't feel so dumb for saying that you science guys assume that everything has to be created. But yeah, what I meant by that is that you believe there is a cause to every effect that can potentially be explained by science. What I'm talking about is a first cause. You call that big bang maybe, but you assume that something caused big bang? Don't you believe in cause and effect or what. You don't believe in miracles, but sometimes you talk as if you do.

Re: natural laws. I have never heard it suggested that the natural laws have been different. We generally say that anything that can't be explained by the natural laws is a miracle. Of course there are those who say that everything is explained by natural laws. Scientific discovery has led some to believe more in randomness which isn't caused by natural laws. That really confuses the matter. I don't see any reason to believe in randomness. Why isn't it just miracles?

[Kidlicious]

It is your fault if you misunderstand my beliefs, however.

I understand that you believe that the natural laws have always been, that there is no beginning to time. Thanks, I don't.

[Kidlicious]

You just misquoted me. I did not say 'they can', I said 'we think that happened'. Those are very different things.

It's only in the last half century that we've started getting the kind of tools that allow us to study space in a semi-decent way. It's a much more honest approach to create theories based on how we've witnessed the world/universe to work previously and build upon that than to just make up an answer like 'x deity did it'.

Btw, I edited my previous post to add a chunk. Didn't expect you to reply so fast.

Ahem. Believing that the universe was created does not require that one not observe the natural world and study it. This has nothing to do with the question of how the universe exists. In fact, if you study the natural world you see the law of cause and effect. That should lead you to ask how can an effect exist whithout a cause. Ok, now we see that sometimes there is no cause (just randomness). This is my point. What exactly are you seeing in the natural world which leads you to the belief that it wasn't created?

[Lorizael]

I understand that you believe that the natural laws have always been, that there is no beginning to time. Thanks, I don't.

Sorry. Nope.

[Kidlicious]

Sorry. Nope.

Oh well then. So what? That's what I remember you saying, but not going to bother to search for it. So what if I don't understand your beliefs even though I think you are a lying corward and a fool.