I am a materialist, and believe that the "big bang" cosmological narrative along with evolution is correct.

The question of origins (i.e. what caused the big bang?...what was there before it?...OR...what created God?) is a whole different question, and I have no opinion on it because there is not enough information for me to base that on, and I believe it's unlikely that there ever will be.

I can also understand the narrative and opinion that, say, evolution is the work of God (though I don't accept that it is evidence of God).

To wit...this answer would apply to the origin prior to the big bang.

(02-13-2015 12:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is one of those issues I have no interest in. It's the kind of stuff where science and philosophy meet and battle for the high ground a continent away from the war. It's pointless.

(02-13-2015 01:18 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  For the rest of us that came from a man and not a monkey:
<<images deleted for brevity>>

(02-13-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And I find something insanely narcissistic about ever claiming that we'll 'never know something', as if you're so intelligent, that you know more than the entirety of human civilization will from this point on. It's absurd, and every breakthrough or invention we make shows how absurd it is.

You will see above my assertion that we will likely or may never know the cause of the big bang. I don't think that's absurd or narcissistic, but simple a statement that there may be very good reason that we will be unable to identify or measure forces or particles that are involved. In some circumstances, we can theorize and observe the creation of virtual particles that arise out of nothing, and can surmise that the universe may have arisen out of nothing in a similar manner. But, nothing we have observed can explain anything close to the amount of energy that would be required to create a universe. It may be that if we could observe such things that the explanation of origin of the universe would be relatively simple. We have theories like multiverses and string theory without any way - even theoretical - to verify their existence or plausibility.

I may never know for sure why my son comes home and can't focus on two tasks without playing with the dog or kicking a ball against the wall until he's pissed off every other human being in the household. But, it's absurd to claim that I couldn't know the reason. That is a far cry for saying that there may be very good reason that we will never know the cause of a singularity like the cause of the big bang or the origin of God...

(02-13-2015 01:54 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 10:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm curious as to the positions the usual suspects take on these 2 questions. I'm not looking for an outright debate on these topics because it's way too involved for just 1 thread. Knowing that people will want to debate it anyways, no biggie. Just try to let us all know what your positions are up front before the debates begin. I'll start.

Origin of Universe and Earth: I believe the most likely theory for when the universe began is the big bang roughly 13 billion years ago. Around 4.5 billion years ago, the earth formed and took millions of years to eventually become habitable for carbon based life.

Origin of Life: I believe that the most likely origin of life was from what some people on here call the "primordial goo". I believe chemicals had to come together and at some point those chemicals formed organic compounds and life developed from that. Life then evolved over billions of years from one organism to the rich diversity we see today.

I do not believe that accepting the theory of evolution and the big bang theory is incompatible to religion. However, that requires that people will have to view some or up to all of the holy scriptures that you follow have to be allegorical.

I always wonder what started the Big Bang. What started the thing that cause the big bang...and so on. At the end of it all there is God. (jmo)

Could be, since we have no idea what happened before the big bang, if there was a before.

(02-13-2015 01:18 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Here's where some people came from, but only a small minority.





For the rest of us that came from a man and not a monkey:

Ha, I like that second picture.

I believe that the earth and we were created by God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came to Earth to die for us. Beyond that it doesn't really matter how or how long it took us to get here but here's my best answers for the OP.

I'm not sure if I believe in a literal 7 day creation or that Earth is only a few thousand years old. I also don't think that belief in God or the Bible necessarily evolutionary means processes don't or cant exist. If there is an all powerful God He can use whatever he wants to make us, so who knows really? IMO, the Young Earth theory is a flawed concept that is a strict (no evolution possible) creationists' best guess at how things came to be.

My belief on the Origin of Life is that God created us at some point. Personally I believe that since there wasn't a literal 7 day creation that God probably created us after the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. I think that the creation of man occurred sometime after the Ice Age and whatever killed off the dinosaurs. I think mankind is only a few thousand years old, which would line up with the timeline of the origin of Earth according to Young Earth theory.

Quote: 2 Peter 3:8–9
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

(02-13-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:54 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 10:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm curious as to the positions the usual suspects take on these 2 questions. I'm not looking for an outright debate on these topics because it's way too involved for just 1 thread. Knowing that people will want to debate it anyways, no biggie. Just try to let us all know what your positions are up front before the debates begin. I'll start.

Origin of Universe and Earth: I believe the most likely theory for when the universe began is the big bang roughly 13 billion years ago. Around 4.5 billion years ago, the earth formed and took millions of years to eventually become habitable for carbon based life.

Origin of Life: I believe that the most likely origin of life was from what some people on here call the "primordial goo". I believe chemicals had to come together and at some point those chemicals formed organic compounds and life developed from that. Life then evolved over billions of years from one organism to the rich diversity we see today.

I do not believe that accepting the theory of evolution and the big bang theory is incompatible to religion. However, that requires that people will have to view some or up to all of the holy scriptures that you follow have to be allegorical.

I always wonder what started the Big Bang. What started the thing that cause the big bang...and so on. At the end of it all there is God. (jmo)

Could be, since we have no idea what happened before the big bang, if there was a before.

We don't know the big bang happened either. It is a theory and remotely plausible if everything fell into place perfectly over the course of 15 billion years. That would have had to have come from one hell of a piece of matter. What was it and where did it come from?

(02-13-2015 01:56 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I am a materialist, and believe that the "big bang" cosmological narrative along with evolution is correct.

The question of origins (i.e. what caused the big bang?...what was there before it?...OR...what created God?) is a whole different question, and I have no opinion on it because there is not enough information for me to base that on, and I believe it's unlikely that there ever will be.

I can also understand the narrative and opinion that, say, evolution is the work of God (though I don't accept that it is evidence of God).

To wit...this answer would apply to the origin prior to the big bang.

(02-13-2015 12:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is one of those issues I have no interest in. It's the kind of stuff where science and philosophy meet and battle for the high ground a continent away from the war. It's pointless.

(02-13-2015 01:18 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  For the rest of us that came from a man and not a monkey:
<<images deleted for brevity>>

(02-13-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And I find something insanely narcissistic about ever claiming that we'll 'never know something', as if you're so intelligent, that you know more than the entirety of human civilization will from this point on. It's absurd, and every breakthrough or invention we make shows how absurd it is.

You will see above my assertion that we will likely or may never know the cause of the big bang. I don't think that's absurd or narcissistic, but simple a statement that there may be very good reason that we will be unable to identify or measure forces or particles that are involved. In some circumstances, we can theorize and observe the creation of virtual particles that arise out of nothing, and can surmise that the universe may have arisen out of nothing in a similar manner. But, nothing we have observed can explain anything close to the amount of energy that would be required to create a universe. It may be that if we could observe such things that the explanation of origin of the universe would be relatively simple. We have theories like multiverses and string theory without any way - even theoretical - to verify their existence or plausibility.

I may never know for sure why my son comes home and can't focus on two tasks without playing with the dog or kicking a ball against the wall until he's pissed off every other human being in the household. But, it's absurd to claim that I couldn't know the reason. That is a far cry for saying that there may be very good reason that we will never know the cause of a singularity like the cause of the big bang or the origin of God...

I wasn't aiming my comment at all towards people who make the claim we may never know, that's absolutely agreeable and more of a statement on the current difficulties in trying to answer those questions than a statement on the likelihood we will ever know. What I have no patience for is people who unambiguously state that we'll 'never know' something. That's an absurdly narcissistic and idiotic statement, one that has been disproved with every invention and discovery. And more importantly, it's a sign that a person has no desire to know the actual answers themselves. It's more of a mantra of those interested in being intentionally uneducated than an actual statement of the research difficulties.

(02-13-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  He's not exaggerating in the least, btw. Neuroscience and Psychiatry are relatively poorly understood compared to other physical sciences, but that doesn't mean we'll never understand them or that the science is a 'waste of time'. It's simply harder to study brains, for obvious reasons, and our brains are very unique which also makes animal models more difficult.

And I find something insanely narcissistic about ever claiming that we'll 'never know something', as if you're so intelligent, that you know more than the entirety of human civilization will from this point on. It's absurd, and every breakthrough or invention we make shows how absurd it is.

I said some pursuits. There are some disorders of the brain that can be shown to have physical causes like plaque to Alzheimer's and demylenation for MS. When you can identify an actual physical abnormality that leads to certain mental symptoms (sort of like you do with Koch's postulates of pathogens) then you can use that knowledge in medicine.

Much of psychiatry and some other cognitive sciences just don't work like that, though…it's basically fiddling with neurotransmitters and brain chemistry in hopes it will fix symptoms. Now I'm not saying there aren't some people genuinely have better quality of life because of these drugs, just that these sciences don't have the same rigor as other branches of medicine.

And I would argue it's more narcissistic to think you can know anything and to deny that some things are just not possible. I'm not saying I think I have the authority

(02-13-2015 02:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:54 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 10:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm curious as to the positions the usual suspects take on these 2 questions. I'm not looking for an outright debate on these topics because it's way too involved for just 1 thread. Knowing that people will want to debate it anyways, no biggie. Just try to let us all know what your positions are up front before the debates begin. I'll start.

Origin of Universe and Earth: I believe the most likely theory for when the universe began is the big bang roughly 13 billion years ago. Around 4.5 billion years ago, the earth formed and took millions of years to eventually become habitable for carbon based life.

Origin of Life: I believe that the most likely origin of life was from what some people on here call the "primordial goo". I believe chemicals had to come together and at some point those chemicals formed organic compounds and life developed from that. Life then evolved over billions of years from one organism to the rich diversity we see today.

I do not believe that accepting the theory of evolution and the big bang theory is incompatible to religion. However, that requires that people will have to view some or up to all of the holy scriptures that you follow have to be allegorical.

I always wonder what started the Big Bang. What started the thing that cause the big bang...and so on. At the end of it all there is God. (jmo)

Could be, since we have no idea what happened before the big bang, if there was a before.

We don't know the big bang happened either. It is a theory and remotely plausible if everything fell into place perfectly over the course of 15 billion years. That would have had to have come from one hell of a piece of matter. What was it and where did it come from?

Recall that what is meant by "theory" in a science context is much different than what is meant by a theory in everyday life.

The human body is too complex to just have evolved by luck. The simple ATPase protein which is the basis for all biological energy is too simple yet complex to just have evolved from a bunch of various proteins.

I believe in the Christian God and his son Jesus Christ. If anyone else is interested in learning about him feel free to PM me.

(02-13-2015 02:13 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  He's not exaggerating in the least, btw. Neuroscience and Psychiatry are relatively poorly understood compared to other physical sciences, but that doesn't mean we'll never understand them or that the science is a 'waste of time'. It's simply harder to study brains, for obvious reasons, and our brains are very unique which also makes animal models more difficult.

And I find something insanely narcissistic about ever claiming that we'll 'never know something', as if you're so intelligent, that you know more than the entirety of human civilization will from this point on. It's absurd, and every breakthrough or invention we make shows how absurd it is.

I said some pursuits. There are some disorders of the brain that can be shown to have physical causes like plaque to Alzheimer's and demylenation for MS. When you can identify an actual physical abnormality that leads to certain mental symptoms (sort of like you do with Koch's postulates of pathogens) then you can use that knowledge in medicine.

Much of psychiatry and some other cognitive sciences just don't work like that, though…it's basically fiddling with neurotransmitters and brain chemistry in hopes it will fix symptoms. Now I'm not saying there aren't some people genuinely have better quality of life because of these drugs, just that these sciences don't have the same rigor as other branches of medicine.

And I would argue it's more narcissistic to think you can know anything and to deny that some things are just not possible. I'm not saying I think I have the authority

It's like you don't even realize that what you're saying and your stance is objective wrong based on your own summation of the facts as they currently are.

(02-13-2015 02:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  The human body is too complex to just have evolved by luck. The simple ATPase protein which is the basis for all biological energy is too simple yet complex to just have evolved from a bunch of various proteins.

I believe in the Christian God and his son Jesus Christ. If anyone else is interested in learning about him feel free to PM me.

So then the DNA evidence linking all of us to a common ancestor is...?

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  The human body is too complex to just have evolved by luck. The simple ATPase protein which is the basis for all biological energy is too simple yet complex to just have evolved from a bunch of various proteins.

I believe in the Christian God and his son Jesus Christ. If anyone else is interested in learning about him feel free to PM me.

So then the DNA evidence linking all of us to a common ancestor is...?

nobody saw this coming....

it's undefinable based on 'fact'....

hence, a pointless argument....

HOD nailed it.....I just like to laugh at the lot of yaz.....

(02-13-2015 02:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's like you don't even realize that what you're saying and your stance is objective wrong based on your own summation of the facts as they currently are.

Not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll give it a try...

I'm a dualist. That doesn't mean you deny there's no physical component of cognition. It's not like I think you can damage someone's physical brain and they can function normally just by will.

I never claimed that certain scientific pursuits should just be abandoned because they are impossible in my opinion. I'm just saying a lot of pursuits won't lead to any answers and there is a "ceiling" to how some things can be explained from a strictly physicalist/materialist persepctive.

(02-13-2015 02:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 02:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  The human body is too complex to just have evolved by luck. The simple ATPase protein which is the basis for all biological energy is too simple yet complex to just have evolved from a bunch of various proteins.

I believe in the Christian God and his son Jesus Christ. If anyone else is interested in learning about him feel free to PM me.

So then the DNA evidence linking all of us to a common ancestor is...?

nobody saw this coming....

it's undefinable based on 'fact'....

hence, a pointless argument....

HOD nailed it.....I just like to laugh at the lot of yaz.....

What's undefinable?

Quote:Not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll give it a try...

I'm a dualist. That doesn't mean you deny there's no physical component of cognition. It's not like I think you can damage someone's physical brain and they can function normally just by will.

Ok, then what do you use to support the belief in non-physical 'components of cognition'? A lack of evidence is not evidence of anything, and all evidence we do have points to causes firmly within the physical world.

Quote:I never claimed that certain scientific pursuits should just be abandoned because they are impossible in my opinion. I'm just saying a lot of pursuits won't lead to any answers and there is a "ceiling" to how some things can be explained from a strictly physicalist/materialist persepctive.

Yes, and one of those pursuits you mentioned was wholly inaccurate. Name another pursuit, and please be specific.

(02-13-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 01:54 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 10:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm curious as to the positions the usual suspects take on these 2 questions. I'm not looking for an outright debate on these topics because it's way too involved for just 1 thread. Knowing that people will want to debate it anyways, no biggie. Just try to let us all know what your positions are up front before the debates begin. I'll start.

Origin of Universe and Earth: I believe the most likely theory for when the universe began is the big bang roughly 13 billion years ago. Around 4.5 billion years ago, the earth formed and took millions of years to eventually become habitable for carbon based life.

Origin of Life: I believe that the most likely origin of life was from what some people on here call the "primordial goo". I believe chemicals had to come together and at some point those chemicals formed organic compounds and life developed from that. Life then evolved over billions of years from one organism to the rich diversity we see today.

I do not believe that accepting the theory of evolution and the big bang theory is incompatible to religion. However, that requires that people will have to view some or up to all of the holy scriptures that you follow have to be allegorical.

I always wonder what started the Big Bang. What started the thing that cause the big bang...and so on. At the end of it all there is God. (jmo)

Could be, since we have no idea what happened before the big bang, if there was a before.

how could there not be a before? I think before the big bang was other big bangs but God started the process.

I think the earth is an atom in Gods body... I think humans are little creepy crawly thingies on the outside an atom in God's body...

(02-13-2015 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We came from a common ancestor as monkeys.

I cannot speak for you, sir. But my ancestors were not monkeys. They were orangutans. Hard working, patriotic orangutans.

(02-13-2015 01:38 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  For anyone that finds that hard to believe, you will believe in the whole amoeba to monkey species to human thing. I don't fault you for that, nor will I try to force my reasons upon you, we can disagree and then go on our merry ways.

If nature and physics obey identical laws everywhere like on earth, then surely the vast reaches of space contain many cauldrons where energy is stirred into water and rock until the three mix magically into life. I think that is tremendously exciting from a scientific, philosophical and religious point of view.

(02-13-2015 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-13-2015 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We came from a common ancestor as monkeys.

I cannot speak for you, sir. But my ancestors were not monkeys. They were orangutans. Hard working, patriotic orangutans.

Great episode

(02-13-2015 10:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm curious as to the positions the usual suspects take on these 2 questions. I'm not looking for an outright debate on these topics because it's way too involved for just 1 thread. Knowing that people will want to debate it anyways, no biggie. Just try to let us all know what your positions are up front before the debates begin. I'll start.

Origin of Universe and Earth: I believe the most likely theory for when the universe began is the big bang roughly 13 billion years ago. Around 4.5 billion years ago, the earth formed and took millions of years to eventually become habitable for carbon based life.

Origin of Life: I believe that the most likely origin of life was from what some people on here call the "primordial goo". I believe chemicals had to come together and at some point those chemicals formed organic compounds and life developed from that. Life then evolved over billions of years from one organism to the rich diversity we see today.

I do not believe that accepting the theory of evolution and the big bang theory is incompatible to religion. However, that requires that people will have to view some or up to all of the holy scriptures that you follow have to be allegorical.

On the Origin of the 'Verse: The Big Bang Theory conveniently answers some questions while opening up a vast array of others. I don't think smashing particles together a near light speed is in any way representative of the Beginning of Everything. I think that the incompatibility of the Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity highlight the limits of man's understanding of the universe.

On Evolution: While the theory has some serious holes in it, I think it is mostly true.

I don't believe either of of these positions is incompatible with Christianity. If one believe in an omnipotent God, the he is unbound by human limitations and perceptions. Christians who typically contend that Evolution and the Big Bang run counter to God's will are individuals who ascribe to the inerrancy of the Bible. Which is odd considering the Bible contains two Creation stories and 4 POV on Christ in Jerusalem before his death.

Quote:The Big Bang Theory conveniently answers some questions while opening up a vast array of others. I don't think smashing particles together a near light speed is in any way representative of the Beginning of Everything. I think that the incompatibility of the Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity highlight the limits of man's understanding of the universe.

Based on what?

Quote: On Evolution: While the theory has some serious holes in it, I think it is mostly true.

It honestly doesn't. I'm not being glib, but the mountain of evidence in favor of evolution dwarfs everything this side of Gravity. I fully believe that anthropomorphic global warming exists and that those who deny it are ignoring vasts amounts of evidence in support of this assertion, but that evidence pales in comparison to the amount of evidence in favor of evolution. Remember, evolution as a theory does not posit any stance on the creation of life, just that we all came from a common ancestor. There isn't a single organism whose existence defies that premise, geographically or genetically.