Author |
Topic: Creation vs Evolution (Read 24150 times) |
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender: 
Posts: 2872
|
 |
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #75 on: Apr 29th, 2008, 6:31am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 5:49am, skeptic1000 wrote:| That's fine because the complexity argument still shows that X=Y+1. (i.e., God arising from nowhere requires more faith than humans arising from nowhere). |
|
Yes, God is generally accepted as being more complex than an individual human being, but that's largely irrelevant to the amount of faith required to believe in various purported origins.
Which is simpler? A universe with a 30 light-year radius that appeared on its own 28 years, 1 month and 3 days ago, or a universe with a history of 10-15 gigayears that includes as part of it the 30 light-year radius and 30 years duration of the first universe? Obviously, the larger universe contains all the present complexity of the smaller and vastly more besides, and there is no conceivable evidence that could distinguish the two from our position at the centre of the bubble, so, since, by your assumption, it takes less faith to believe in a less complex object appearing from nowhere, we should believe in the 30 light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere rather than the 10 giga-light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #76 on: Apr 29th, 2008, 6:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 6:31am, rmsgrey wrote:
Yes, God is generally accepted as being more complex than an individual human being, but that's largely irrelevant to the amount of faith required to believe in various purported origins.
Which is simpler? A universe with a 30 light-year radius that appeared on its own 28 years, 1 month and 3 days ago, or a universe with a history of 10-15 gigayears that includes as part of it the 30 light-year radius and 30 years duration of the first universe? Obviously, the larger universe contains all the present complexity of the smaller and vastly more besides, and there is no conceivable evidence that could distinguish the two from our position at the centre of the bubble, so, since, by your assumption, it takes less faith to believe in a less complex object appearing from nowhere, we should believe in the 30 light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere rather than the 10 giga-light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere? |
|
Apples and oranges again...
The problem with your analogy is that faith is the belief in the unknown. You are comparing things that we can observe so there is no faith required to pick which one to believe. I am comparing the faith required to believe in the unknown portions of two theories: 1) the belief that god exists and created life (of which pretty much all information is still unknown), and 2) the belief that life evolved on its own (of which there is still some debatable amount of unknown information).
So if you want to continue to try pick two things to make an opposing analogy (which I encourage you to do), you need to stick the guidelines. I've picked two things that I feel have complexities that can be compared (at least relatively), and two things that could* be said to require some amount of faith to wholly believe in.
*I say "could" because some would argue that evolution requires no faith at all, but that point is trivial to my proof of which one requires more faith. Again, the reason being that whatever value you pick for the faith required for evolution of humans, creationism must require some arbitrary more amount of faith to first account for the existence of a more complex creator.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2008, 6:58am by skeptic1000 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #77 on: Apr 29th, 2008, 7:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 5:49am, skeptic1000 wrote:| That's fine because the complexity argument still shows that X=Y+1. (i.e., God arising from nowhere requires more faith than humans arising from nowhere). |
|
I don't think it does. If only because very few religious people (afaik) believe God ever came into existence; he simply always was.
Quote:| Or, just going back to my original proof, you simply use 0 for Y. Like I said, it doesn't matter what initial values you use for X and Y. |
|
But it does matter whether one set of beliefs subsumes the other or not; and I don't think they do. But feel free to try and convince me (of the argument; personally I have no qualms with the conclusion.)
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #78 on: Apr 29th, 2008, 7:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 7:03am, towr wrote:
I don't think it does. If only because very few religious people (afaik) believe God ever came into existence; he simply always was.
|
|
Now there's a good point. I'm not sure how one would incorporate that into the proof since the idea of timelessness is aBStract. I wouldn't say that being timeless requires less faith though, it is just a completely impossible concept to put into a scientific model. Which brings us back to idea of "intentional untestablility" that religion is so good at putting into their claims.
on Apr 29th, 2008, 7:03am, towr wrote:
But it does matter whether one set of beliefs subsumes the other or not; and I don't think they do. But feel free to try and convince me (of the argument; personally I have no qualms with the conclusion.) |
|
My claim is essentially that creation subsumes evolution (and then even adds an extra unit of faith equal to the delta of complexity between the creator and its creation). Which is pretty much the same argument as the "Ultimate 747" which went something like this:
Someone (I think Hoyle) made the bold statement that believing in evolution is the equivalent of believing that a hurricane could sweep through a junkyard and randomly assemble a 747. And it became known as the "Ultimate 747" analogy. (The obvious fallacy here is that evolution does not work on randomness alone. Yes, the mutations are random, but natural selection is also at work making sure that positive traits are rewarded and then passed on...etc) So then intentionally following the same flawed logic, I think Dawkins retorted something like "Well, his God must be the Ultimate 747 then".
A similar question that was posed to me is "Isn't believing evolution the same as saying that you truly believe a monkey would write War & Peace given enough time to hammer away at a keyboard"? Again, the fallacy here being that even though the mutations of evolution are random, the process that preserves positive traits (natural selection), is absolutely not random.
So then I figured there must be a way to incorporate all the forces and mechanisms involved in evolution into the typing-monkey story so that it does make sense. This is what I came up with:
If you add to that analogy that letters in the correct sequence receive some form of positive feedback (which would be analogous to our "survival of the fittest"), and that once a correct letter is in the right place it stays there (which would be analogous to our genetic replication and reproduction), then you'd be getting closer to making an analogy that accurately captures all the mechanisms and forces involved in Evolution AND Natural Selection. No one would say that evolutionary mutations alone would lead to complexity, because there has to be a need, or a driving force behind the evolution that somehow favors progress. That is exactly what natural selection does, it exploits our method of reproduction in order make sure positive traits are rewarded and passed on.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2008, 8:22am by skeptic1000 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
SMQ
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2084
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #79 on: Apr 29th, 2008, 8:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 7:49am, skeptic1000 wrote:| A similar question that was posed to me is "Isn't believing evolution the same as saying that you truly believe a monkey would write War & Peace given enough time to hammer away at a keyboard"? Again, the fallacy here being that even though the mutations of evolution are random, the process that preserves positive traits (natural selection), is absolutely not random. |
|
Even without the fallacy, that one's easily refutable, as any statistician worth his or her beans assuredly believes exactly that!
Taking a modern English translation, Project Gutenberg puts Tolstoy's War and Peace at ~3.25 million characters. Let's call it an even 100 typographical characters used, so, assuming all character values are equally likely, the chances of any random three-and-a-quarter-million typed characters being War and Peace are about 1 in 106,500,000. And since by that point sacle is pretty well irrelevant, the expected time for a monkey at a keyboard to produce War and Peace is about 106,500,000 seconds/days/years/whatever. In a hundred times as long -- a mere 106,500,002 years -- it's all but certain that War and Peace is in there somewhere.
Sure, that's a heck of a long time -- well beyond the heat death of the universe -- but we're talking about infinity here, and compared to infinity that's just peanuts. 
--SMQ
|
|
IP Logged |
--SMQ
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #80 on: Apr 29th, 2008, 9:10am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 8:39am, SMQ wrote:
Even without the fallacy, that one's easily refutable, as any statistician worth his or her beans assuredly believes exactly that!
|
|
Hopefully no one would say it couldn't eventually be done even with the fallacy, but certainly some would try to label the the two concepts (typing-monkey and evolution) as having the same probability. So to finish off your argument we need to show that life evolving is more probable than 1 in 106,500,000. I think the Drake Equation would tell us that the chance of life forming is MUCH better than that.
But even if you don't accept that life evolving is inevitable, and think that it is completely improbable, I once heard it explained this way:
The "the needle in a haystack" principle is not all that hard to overcome when you consider that the only reason we even know the needle exists is because we are standing on it.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2008, 10:32am by skeptic1000 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #81 on: Apr 29th, 2008, 10:23am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 9:10am, skeptic1000 wrote:| I think the Drake Equation would tell us that the chance of life forming is MUCH better than that. |
|
Only because the factor accounting for the emergence of life in the Drake equation is much larger; so that's really tautological. Drake's equation doesn't have anything of itself to say about the probability of life, or even intelligent civilizations; those are all factors it uses, and the values are estimates. (Ignoring the way they interact, the orders of magnitude they may be off, the number of different types of life that might exist etc)
To illustrate the problem ( http://www.xkcd.com/ ):
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2008, 10:25am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #82 on: Apr 30th, 2008, 4:51am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 29th, 2008, 6:54am, skeptic1000 wrote:| The problem with your analogy is that faith is the belief in the unknown. You are comparing things that we can observe so there is no faith required to pick which one to believe. |
|
What possible observation can we make now to distinguish between the 10-15 gigayear-old Big Bang universe beloved of cosmologists, and the 30-year-old bubble universe that started out in exactly the same state as the equivalent chunk of the Big Bang universe? Sure, if we wait a few years, the two universes' divergence becomes observable, but, then there's still the 50-LY radius universe... Or the single galaxy universe, or...
The point I was aiming my analogy at is that, in deciding what to believe, we don't just look at the raw complexity of the objects involved, but also their probability of coming about. Barring outside intervention, it seems far more likely that a universe that appears to have developed from a Big Bang did than that a much smaller, younger, simpler universe happened to start out looking just like part of a Big Bang universe.
In the case of life-as-we-know-it, the probability of it developing if God exists and intends it to develop is 1; the probability of it developing if God does not exist is x<1; the probability of God existing and intending life as we know it is y<1. Both figures are wildly unknown and can be heavily influenced by choices of assumptions and definitions, and lack any obvious relationship (unless God is an example of life-as-we-know-it, there's no reason to suppose the likelihood of his existence is linked in any way to the likelihood of life-as-we-know-it in the absence of God)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #83 on: May 1st, 2008, 12:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 30th, 2008, 4:51am, rmsgrey wrote:What possible observation can we make now to distinguish between the 10-15 gigayear-old Big Bang universe beloved of cosmologists, and the 30-year-old bubble universe that started out in exactly the same state as the equivalent chunk of the Big Bang universe? Sure, if we wait a few years, the two universes' divergence becomes observable, but, then there's still the 50-LY radius universe... Or the single galaxy universe, or...
|
|
When you can't directly observe, you make predictions about how the things you would have hoped to observed should have effected the things that you can observe. I'm not a cosmologist, but as far as I know most (if not all) of the predictions that we make about the universe based on a Big Bang style birth have turned out to be true. Potentially with the exception of the few that I started The Big Bang thread about, but even those seem to not be that compelling.
Now I'm guessing you're saying that your fictional 30-year universe would fool us by producing all the same observations and predictions as the 15-gigayear universe. That is an interesting theory but it seems more philosophical than scientific. At some point you have decide if you are going to believe the evidence around you or not. If you decide not to, then your world falls apart way before you start contemplating these huge questions.
Either way, I don't think it's important because I don't think you actually believe in the 30-year universe, I think you were just criticizing my claim about not being able to observe it.
on Apr 30th, 2008, 4:51am, rmsgrey wrote:
The point I was aiming my analogy at is that, in deciding what to believe, we don't just look at the raw complexity of the objects involved, but also their probability of coming about. Barring outside intervention, it seems far more likely that a universe that appears to have developed from a Big Bang did than that a much smaller, younger, simpler universe happened to start out looking just like part of a Big Bang universe. |
|
Let me just make sure I am understanding you first. I think you are saying that a 30 year universe would be less complex than the 15 gigayear universe. But we know that the 15 gigayear universe (even though a more complex theory) is actually much more likely. So therefore, my argument about something more complex being less likely is not fair to presuppose. Correct?
If so, there is a huge distinction we need to make between something "being less likely" (as you said) and something "requiring more faith" (which is the original phrase I was using in my proof). Something can be not likely at all, but still require no faith to believe in if all the evidence is laid out before us. And on the flip-side, something can be extremely likely but require lots of faith if we don't have any of the evidence. Because faith is the belief in the unseen, not necessarily (but often) the belief in the unlikely.
So again I'm seeing apples and oranges here. You are using examples of things that are more/less likely, but I am talking about things that require more/less faith. So I still think my proof holds true.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #84 on: May 1st, 2008, 2:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 1st, 2008, 12:44pm, skeptic1000 wrote:| Now I'm guessing you're saying that your fictional 30-year universe would fool us by producing all the same observations and predictions as the 15-gigayear universe. That is an interesting theory but it seems more philosophical than scientific. |
|
Science needs a philosophical basis if it's going to make claims of truth. Why should observation be any basis for figuring out the cosmos? The greeks didn't do it that way.
If you want to prove all swans are white, is it valid to go out and find as many white swans as possible? You'll probably say "no, you should look everywhere for different coloured swans instead." But why is the second approach better than the first? That's a philosophical problem, and not one you can solve with empirical science; it's a problem that revolves around induction.
It doesn't suffice to say "well, this is the scientific method, and that defines what science is." Why is that a good method? Why should it define science? Is it the best? Will it get us at the truth? Will it get us there the fastest?
How would you convince the person looking for white swans that he's wasting his time? That requires a sound argument. Science needs a solid philosophical foundation.
Quote:| Either way, I don't think it's important because I don't think you actually believe in the 30-year universe, I think you were just criticizing my claim about not being able to observe it. |
|
He doesn't need to believe in a 30-year old universe to make a good argument about/with it.
Quote:| If so, there is a huge distinction we need to make between something "being less likely" (as you said) and something "requiring more faith" (which is the original phrase I was using in my proof). Something can be not likely at all, but still require no faith to believe in if all the evidence is laid out before us. And on the flip-side, something can be extremely likely but require lots of faith if we don't have any of the evidence. Because faith is the belief in the unseen, not necessarily (but often) the belief in the unlikely. |
|
And yet you use exactly the same reasoning in your argument: universe + god is more complex than just universe, so it requires more faith. But adding god might simplify the whole, even though it's a 'bigger' whole.
Quote:| So again I'm seeing apples and oranges here. You are using examples of things that are more/less likely, but I am talking about things that require more/less faith. So I still think my proof holds true. |
|
I'm seeing pet-theory syndrome here, to be honest.
You haven't made a convincing argument, and instead of improving it you just call objections to it irrelevant.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #85 on: May 2nd, 2008, 8:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 1st, 2008, 2:21pm, towr wrote:| Why should observation be any basis for figuring out the cosmos? The Greeks didn't do it that way. |
|
And does anyone still give any credibility whatsoever to any of the Greek Gods? Look, if you don't want to believe that scientific evidence makes for a compelling argument, then that is fine, but realize that that argument can be used in any debate against either side equally, so it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. It's kind of like whoever pulls it out first gets to use it. But in my opinion, whoever pulls it out first has just ran out of real arguments.
on May 1st, 2008, 2:21pm, towr wrote:And yet you use exactly the same reasoning in your argument: universe + god is more complex than just universe, so it requires more faith. But adding god might simplify the whole, even though it's a 'bigger' whole.
|
|
How is that the same? My whole point was that saying that something is more/less likely IS NOT the same as saying that something requires less/more faith. rmsgrey was talking in terms of something being more/less likely. Whereas, I was talking in terms of something requiring more or less faith. Since those two concept are not the same, then I wasn't using the same logic. Is that not how you read my first attempt at explaining this?
on May 1st, 2008, 2:21pm, towr wrote:I'm seeing pet-theory syndrome here, to be honest.
You haven't made a convincing argument, and instead of improving it you just call objections to it irrelevant. |
|
Certainly I am defending my theory, but I think you can see I've done a lot more than simply "call" the objections irrelevant. I've tried to explain (albeit, in vain) where they seem to fall apart logically, which I thought was the whole point of a debate.
|
| « Last Edit: May 2nd, 2008, 8:31am by skeptic1000 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #86 on: May 2nd, 2008, 9:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 1st, 2008, 2:21pm, towr wrote:
I'm seeing pet-theory syndrome here, to be honest.
You haven't made a convincing argument, and instead of improving it you just call objections to it irrelevant. |
|
One more thing, I will have no problem either retracting my argument or attempting to improve it as soon as a convincing argument is made against it. So far all the arguments against my proof have been of the form "I will use the same logic to try to prove something that is false, therefore your logic must be false". And that's exactly the method I would try to use, but so far the supposedly analogous claims that I have heard have not truly been analogous, so of course I would first reject those claims rather than try to improve my own argument.
Trust me, I would much rather have to spend time improving my own argument than continually explaining the false claims made in the arguments against it. So please, give me a reason to improve it...or maybe I should help you by coming up with one myself?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #87 on: May 3rd, 2008, 7:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
Let's see if I'm understanding your argument correctly.
It seems to me that it rests upon two principles:
1) A creator must be more complex than the creation.
2) It requires more faith to believe in the existence of something more complex than of something less complex.
For point 1, there are examples of less complex entities giving rise to more complex entities (with a potential quibble over the definition of complexity) so God being more complex than the entire universe (or multiverse) can't be established by invoking creation as a general principle.
For point 2, I offered an example universe, much less complex than that believed in by cosmologists, but impossible to distinguish from the standard model by observation alone, and pointed out that the simpler version requires rather more effort to believe in. So, again, relative complexity isn't sufficient to establish comparative levels of faith required.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #88 on: May 3rd, 2008, 11:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 2nd, 2008, 8:29am, skeptic1000 wrote:| And does anyone still give any credibility whatsoever to any of the Greek Gods? |
|
Neither did most Greek philosophers. Yet they still came up with physics that depended neither on gods nor on empirical research.
The point is there is a reason for the scientific method, it's not just, "Oh well, gods didn't work out, let's try whatever else; hey what about empirical evidence?"
What the best approach to understanding the universe is doesn't depend on how many people happen to support it. If every scientifically minded person where to inexplicably drop dead, the scientific method would still be as good as it is now, even though no one gives it any credence.
Quote:| Look, if you don't want to believe that scientific evidence makes for a compelling argument, then that is fine, but realize that that argument can be used in any debate against either side equally, so it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. It's kind of like whoever pulls it out first gets to use it. But in my opinion, whoever pulls it out first has just ran out of real arguments. |
|
No, whoever "pulls it out" wants an actual argument, rather than mere opinion, as to what is better. If you don't have an argument why scientific evidence matters, why do you believe it does?
Or is it really something you just take on faith? Is it really arbitrary?
Surely not.
Quote:| How is that the same? My whole point was that saying that something is more/less likely IS NOT the same as saying that something requires less/more faith. rmsgrey was talking in terms of something being more/less likely. Whereas, I was talking in terms of something requiring more or less faith. Since those two concept are not the same, then I wasn't using the same logic. Is that not how you read my first attempt at explaining this? |
|
As I said, I read your argument as "universe + god is more complex than just universe, so it requires more faith." I read rmsgrey's argument as "a 30-lightyear bubble of universe is less complex than 15-billion lightyear universe". I haven't mentioned, nor used, any argument regarding to likelihood, nor its relation to faith.
on May 2nd, 2008, 9:35am, skeptic1000 wrote:| So please, give me a reason to improve it...or maybe I should help you by coming up with one myself? |
|
It is unconvincing. If that isn't enough to try to improve on it, or at least clarify it -- since apparantly we greatly misunderstand what you're saying -- then what's the point?
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #89 on: May 5th, 2008, 2:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 3rd, 2008, 7:02am, rmsgrey wrote:Let's see if I'm understanding your argument correctly.
It seems to me that it rests upon two principles:
1) A creator must be more complex than the creation.
2) It requires more faith to believe in the existence of something more complex than of something less complex.
For point 1, there are examples of less complex entities giving rise to more complex entities (with a potential quibble over the definition of complexity) so God being more complex than the entire universe (or multiverse) can't be established by invoking creation as a general principle.
For point 2, I offered an example universe, much less complex than that believed in by cosmologists, but impossible to distinguish from the standard model by observation alone, and pointed out that the simpler version requires rather more effort to believe in. So, again, relative complexity isn't sufficient to establish comparative levels of faith required. |
|
Correct on point 1. And I do think there are hypothetical (but convincing) examples of things that might be more complex than their creator. I just wasn't happy with the examples you used, like acorn and oak trree, because there exists a very specific relationship between those two objects (one grows into the other), which does not exist between man and God. I tried to allude to the obvious example I was thinking of but you never used it, so I'll use it myself later in this post.
Incorrect on point 2, it should be re-worded as "It requires more faith to believe in something more complex evolving into existence from nothing, than to believe in something less complex evolving into existence from nothing." (Clearly we are not debating the the mere existence of man vs. the existence of God). Even so, I wasn't -- and am still not -- buying into the blurring between likelihood and faith. Your example did clearly show how a simpler universe is not necessarily more likely, but to me that's not the same as showing that it requires more or less faith. To back up why I don't see the correlation, I said that things can be likely but require lots of faith if the evidence is not present, and likewise, things can be unlikely but require no faith if the evidence is overwhelming.
on May 3rd, 2008, 11:14am, towr wrote:
If you don't have an argument why scientific evidence matters, why do you believe it does?
Or is it really something you just take on faith? Is it really arbitrary?
Surely not.
|
|
My answer to that has been stated at least twice here. The answer is because the results are measurable, predictable, verifiable, repeatable, observable, quantifiable etc... But I guess your question then becomes "Why do any of those traits make scientific evidence matter"? My answer to that is that if you don't think those traits matter then you should not be using a computer, you should not get on an airplane, and you should not have surgery, because all of the reliability that we assign to those activities are gleaned from science. And anyone that subscribes to those metrics of reliability is also saying that those traits matter very, very much. They matter so much that you put your life in their hands everyday when you decide to walk down the stairs from the 10th floor of a building rather than just jump out of the window. Maybe you have a better answer to than that though, so let's hear it.
on May 3rd, 2008, 11:14am, towr wrote:
I haven't mentioned, nor used, any argument regarding to likelihood, nor its relation to faith.
|
|
Sure you you did. You did it when you used rmsgrey's analogy of the two universes. His claim required that one of the universes be more likely than the other, and it also required that you then accept an inverse relationship between "likelihood" and "amount of faith required to believe". I don't see that relationship.
So here is the counter-argument to my proof that I was waiting to hear. I mentioned that humans are more complex than their computer creations (so far). But Moore's Law can probably provide us with an approximate date of when computers will surpass our own complexity. In that case we would have a concrete example of something being more complex that it's creator, and then my whole proof falls apart. So then the question is how were humans able to do it (assuming that we do, maybe it will turn out that Moore's Law has an asymptotic effect as we approach human complexity)? I think the answer is that we relied upon the technologies afforded to us by our existing environment. Clearly if we had nothing around us, and we were just floating around in empty space, we would never be able to create this potential future-computer.
So I think that in order for something to create something more complex than itself, it has to be able to exploit its surroundings in such a way that the creator and it's resources become more than the sum of their parts. So can we then apply this same logic to God creating humans? I don't think you can because to say that God exploited his surroundings in order to create something more complex than himself is to assume that those surroundings already existed outside of God's own creation, which then brings you back to the existence of something existing without God.
And I can guess that the Creationist argument would be that this God, that is less complex than humans, could have created things starting with the least complex and then used those as building blocks to create more complex things. But the funny thing about that is that now you have Creationists arguing that God is not more complex than humans. In which case that seems to be really silly and probably insulting to the God that you claim to believe in and worship.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #90 on: May 5th, 2008, 5:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
1. Four grades of scientific speculation
a. description of repeatable, observable phenomena - science has maximum credibility, though fallible
b. interpolation - assumes simplicity (without accepted definition or justification) - agreed upon in application and relatively safe
c. extrapolation - beyond tested boundaries - relatively daring - e.g. “cosmological hypothesis,” constancy of physical “constants”
d. deep theory - postulating unobservable entities on the sole ground that they would explain observations - e.g. molecules, particles, etc., the Big Bang, the id
Moving from a tod increases distance from the evidence and thus lowers credibility - we must become critical consumers of science
2. Scientists accept theories as true on the basis of inadequate evidence: Michaelson said in 1903 that physics is finished; Born said the same in 1928; Gamov said there is nothing smaller than particles (last ed. 1967!); paleontologists at La Brea; dumb, cold-blooded dinosaurs; oxygen/carbon-dioxide balance without quantitative analysis.
3. Although religion deals with many issues not directly relevant to science (the spiritual, the metaphysical, values, worship, etc.), it also makes assertions concerning matters of physical fact. In those assertions there can be conflict between science and religion. For Judaism this includes the age of the universe and the theory of evolution.
4. Solution to the problem of the age of the universe - the Jewish date 5756 is the age of the universe; the scientific date is the result of analyzing misleading data created by G-d
(1) “Why would G-d do that?” (a) the question is not relevant; (b) we can answer: to hide His presence; He told us the truth so He is not deceiving us
(2) “Would that not undercut all investigation?” Only if unconstrained - compare investigating claim of frame-up in law
5. The theory of evolution and its relation to Judaism
a. assume a certain order of appearance of life forms on earth - these are the facts which the theory of evolution is supposed to explain
b. the theory says: (1) there was a first nearly perfect self-replicator; (2) some of its mistakes in self-copying improved the copy’s ability to copy itself; (3) scarcity of resources with which to make copies creates competition between the self-replicators; (4) eventually only the better self-replicators will remain...until (2) repeats the process.
The central claim: (1)-(4) suffice to explain the existence and history of life.
c. G-d could have created the same sequence of life-forms, so there is no contradiction between that sequence and Judaism, but if the central claim is true then the existence of life is not evidence for G-d.
6. Problems with the theory of evolution
a. originally adopted against both the best current age of the earth and the conception of inheritance as blending, and missing its own crucial fossil evidence - this shows the bias of the scientific community in favor of the theory [better any naturalistic explanation than scientific bankruptcy!]
b. the theory asserts that life is the result of unguided, accidental, “random,” processes without providing an estimate of the probability of success - the theory is not precise enough to be evaluated for credibility
c. misuse of data - black/white moths - no new forms implies no support for evolution; persistence of white form implies (extremely weak) evidence against evolution
d. misuse of data - “evolution” of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, insects resistant to insecticides- can be explained without evolution if a su****pulation were already resistant
e. misuse of data - the gap between micro-evolution and macro-evolution
f. homology [def. limbs or organs with similar structure serving different purposes]
- the claim: evolution (common descent) and nothing else can explain homology - both parts of the claim are false: (1) evolution cannot explain homology since homologous structures have dissimilar genetic coding (due to pleiotropy) and embryological development; (2) usefulness and “parallel evolution” are alternative explanations
g. fossil record lacks intermediary forms - theory of “punctuated equilibria” explains why we will not find evidence of its truth [!] - does nothing for big gaps
(fox-like mammal to whale; insects; flowering plants; etc.)
h. most extinctions due to catastrophes - no evidence of any extinctions due to competition
i. no credible (even hypothetical) account of the origin of the first self-replicator,
DNA/proteins, the cell, human intelligence
j. the best available theory should be accepted only if it has enough evidence to be credible
k. CONCLUSION: The theory of evolution is too poorly defined and supported at present to be accepted as true. [It is NOT claimed that the theory is disproved, and NO SUPPORT IS CLAIMED FOR “SCIENTIFIC” CREATIONISM]
|
|
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
tohuvabohu
Junior Member
Gender:
Posts: 102
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #91 on: May 5th, 2008, 5:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
What's your definition of complexity? God has no moving parts. God does not change. God's motivations and purposes are simple, pure love and justice; much less complex than man's constant interplay of mixed emotions and cross-purposes.
One scientific theory that attempts to explain why this universe exists might be the brane theory (which I don't really understand, but I take it that some higher dimension membranes/universes collide every once in a while causing a big bang).
That brane is invisible, untestable, unverifiable. In short, the only difference between putting scientific confidence in that theory of origins and God, is that the brane is dead and God (The Brain)is alive.
Is a multiverse with an infinite number of universes in who knows how many dimensions less complex than a single universe and a single God?
They say that our universe is incredibly fine tuned. If any of the universal constants varied from observed values by even a tiny bit, stars, planets and life would almost certainly be impossible. The universe would not even exist without the incredible fine tuning of the Big Bang, in terms of the density of particles, the proportion of matter to antimatter, the perfect timing of inflation starting and then turning off--how easy it would be for this universe to be so dense you'd just have black holes everywhere, or so sparse you'd have one atom every few lightyears.
You can speculate that the fine-tuning is because there's an infinite number of universes, and therefore one with the right balance is inevitable (although who is to say the distribution curve of likely constants would result in our universe even then?) But given a choice between a lifeless, purposeless, intelligenceless brane and a purposeful omniscient, omnipotent Brain coming up with the right balance, I think it's very rational to go with the Brain.
The problem with the scientific method is that it starts with a philosophical assumption; that all things can be explained by the laws of nature. No miracles allowed. I agree it makes the science easier and more objective, but it's just an assumption, with no rationale behind except that it makes things easier for the scientist. But it's scientific, so it must be true. Ergo, God either doesn't exist or he's never done a single thing. And if God exists, and if he has ever done anything other than just sit around watching, then science is guaranteed to get it wrong. And they would rather be eternally wrong, but scientific, than actually find the truth, if the truth doesn't match their scientific philosophical assumption of naturalism.
I have no problem with science saying that evolution is scientific and creation isn't, or that all the evidence, when interpreted purely naturalistically, points to evolution. But there is no grounds for assuming naturalism is the only game in town. Or that science=truth.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #92 on: May 6th, 2008, 1:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 5th, 2008, 5:41pm, tohuvabohu wrote:| They say that our universe is incredibly fine tuned. If any of the universal constants varied from observed values by even a tiny bit, stars, planets and life would almost certainly be impossible. |
|
If you vary the constants while keeping the others the same then yes; however if you vary them together there's a multitude of combinations that seem to work.
Compare it to a point on a circle; if you change just the x coordinate you leave the circle, if you change just the y coordinate you leave the circle, but if you change them together in the right way, you can stay on.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #93 on: May 6th, 2008, 1:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 5th, 2008, 5:01pm, puzzlecracker wrote:If you copy a website wholesale, it's nice if you provide a link http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/lectures/religion_in_the_adolescence_of_s.h tm
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #94 on: May 6th, 2008, 3:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 5th, 2008, 2:39pm, skeptic1000 wrote:| The answer is because the results are measurable, predictable, verifiable, repeatable, observable, quantifiable etc... But I guess your question then becomes "Why do any of those traits make scientific evidence matter"? |
|
Indeed, and I'd expect an answer that shows how (or at least argues plausibly that) these factors work together to converge on the Truth more readily than alternative methods.
Quote:| My answer to that is that if you don't think those traits matter then you should not be using a computer, you should not get on an airplane, and you should not have surgery, because all of the reliability that we assign to those activities are gleaned from science. |
|
I wonder what kind of answers you give on math tests.
"Prove the graphs y=x^2 and y = 3x + 2 have two intersections"
"If you don't believe this is the case you should not be using calculators, drive cars or use anything that in any way relies on mathematics."
All you give is an argument to believe in it regardless of its truth: believe in anything as long as it works for you. Fair enough a rule to live by, true. As long as placebos help to cure your ailments, what does it matter that they don't have an active compound? You don't have to practically worry about why science work, as long as it does. And there is no reason to think it'll stop working. True, Newtonian physics seemed to be the say all and end all, yet ended up having to be replaced; but that was still the scientific method at work. Science works over and above what happens to be the theory at the time.
But then you can't argue against whatever else works for other people. Religious communities haven't lasted as long as they did because it shortened the lifespan of its members and reduced their ability to reproduce. Religion to some extent works. You can explain it as divine providence or in sociological terms; regardless, it work. If all the advantages of modern life count to the value of science, then all the advantages of religious life count toward the value of religion. But it doesn't say anything about their truth.
Quote:| And anyone that subscribes to those metrics of reliability is also saying that those traits matter very, very much. They matter so much that you put your life in their hands everyday when you decide to walk down the stairs from the 10th floor of a building rather than just jump out of the window. |
|
Quite a few religious people rely on God in the same way; to the extent of refusing vaccinations and such (whereas in their shoes one might think that God put doctors on earth for a reason.) People rely on the darnedest things; it doesn't necessarily speak in favour of what they rely on.
Quote:| Maybe you have a better answer to than that though, so let's hear it. |
|
I'd have to think about it more first. For the moment it's enough work to explain that it's an important question and not easily answered.
"Cogito ergo sum" (and even that's disputable); beyond that you can't get anywhere without assumptions. And some are more easily justified than others; that's what a large part of the answer consists of.
Quote:| Sure you you did. You did it when you used rmsgrey's analogy of the two universes. |
|
No, I didn't. The two universe argument doesn't rely an likelihood; it relies solely on complexity. I explained that; twice.
Quote:| So here is the counter-argument to my proof that I was waiting to hear. I mentioned that humans are more complex than their computer creations (so far). But Moore's Law can probably provide us with an approximate date of when computers will surpass our own complexity. |
|
Moore's law only says something about the number of transistors on a chip; and I don't really see a reason to view X transistors as less complex than 2X transistors. There should be an interesting configuration difference at least.
Why don't you take evolution as a counter-example? It may not be willful creation, but each ancestor 'creates' its offspring. And the archaeological record shows a definite increase of complexity.
Or take the universe as an example; from a fairly (but not completely) uniform plasma, we got all sorts of galaxies, solar systems, planets, life. The whole seems to have made itself more complex.
Quote:| So can we then apply this same logic to God creating humans? I don't think you can because to say that God exploited his surroundings in order to create something more complex than himself is to assume that those surroundings already existed outside of God's own creation, which then brings you back to the existence of something existing without God. |
|
Wasn't there chaos in the beginning? Out of which God created order. Seems to fit with what you're hypothesizing.
|
| « Last Edit: May 6th, 2008, 3:23am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #95 on: May 6th, 2008, 7:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
Any creation out of nothing will result in something more complex than what was there before - the combined creator-creation system - unless the creation also makes the creator less complex.
I strongly believe that estimated likelihood (given known facts) is a major determining factor involved in how much faith it requires to believe something. Yes, providing relevant evidence changes the amount of faith required, but it does it by changing the likelihood. It's more likely that my numbers won the lottery on Saturday if the papers reported those numbers as the winning numbers than if the papers reported some other combination. Not having seen the paper, my estimate of the likelihood my numbers came up is 1 in 14 million, and it's pretty hard for me to believe they did. Were I to see them reported as winning by some credible source, my estimated likelihood would be very close to 1, and it would be easy to believe; were I to see some other numbers reported, my likelihood estimate would (probably) drop significantly (if a near-miss set of numbers gets reported, it depends how likely I consider it for an error to generate that report from my numbers actually winning) with a corresponding shift in the amount of faith required to believe it to be the case.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #96 on: May 6th, 2008, 8:00am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 6th, 2008, 3:20am, towr wrote:
No, I didn't. The two universe argument doesn't rely an likelihood; it relies solely on complexity. I explained that; twice. |
|
Maybe that is your version of the analogy. But rmsgrey specifcally said:
on Apr 30th, 2008, 4:51am, rmsgrey wrote:Barring outside intervention, it seems far more likely that a universe that appears to have developed from a Big Bang did than that a much smaller, younger, simpler universe happened to start out looking just like part of a Big Bang universe.
|
|
...and that is what I am talking about when I say I don't see the correlation between the likelihood of something and the faith required to believe it. If the two types of universes are indistinguishable from each other then maybe it could be argued that they have the same complexity?
on May 6th, 2008, 3:20am, towr wrote:
Moore's law only says something about the number of transistors on a chip; and I don't really see a reason to view X transistors as less complex than 2X transistors. There should be an interesting configuration difference at least.
|
|
Maybe Moore's Law doesn't directly answer the question of complexity, but certainly a direct relationship can be drawn between the number of transistors on a chip and the potential to handle complex data operations more efficiently. A supercomputer would be considered more complex than a calculator for this very reason (with many other factors included also)
on May 6th, 2008, 3:20am, towr wrote:
Why don't you take evolution as a counter-example? It may not be willful creation, but each ancestor 'creates' its offspring. And the archaeological record shows a definite increase of complexity.
Or take the universe as an example; from a fairly (but not completely) uniform plasma, we got all sorts of galaxies, solar systems, planets, life. The whole seems to have made itself more complex.
|
|
Both are very good counter examples. We'd have to start defining what it means to "create" though. Does a creator have to be aware that they are trying to create something more complex, or is it enough that the laws of nature are coaxing them into it? If so, is God really still the same God if you say he is just the laws of nature at work? That certainly isn't the God that is under debate here.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #97 on: May 6th, 2008, 9:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 5th, 2008, 5:41pm, tohuvabohu wrote:| What's your definition of complexity? |
|
It doesn't matter how you define complexity since Creation subsumes Evolution.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #98 on: May 6th, 2008, 9:12pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 6th, 2008, 3:20am, towr wrote:
I wonder what kind of answers you give on math tests.
"Prove the graphs y=x^2 and y = 3x + 2 have two intersections"
"If you don't believe this is the case you should not be using calculators, drive cars or use anything that in any way relies on mathematics." |
|
That's cute (at best). But the true analogy would be to ask me the question, then let me prove it mathematically, and then you ask me why I think my mathematical operations are true. At which point I would respond in the way you suggest.
|
| « Last Edit: May 6th, 2008, 9:13pm by skeptic1000 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
skeptic1000
Newbie
Posts: 36
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #99 on: May 7th, 2008, 5:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
towr, I think I've come up with a better "proof" of why scientific evidence is true. Although I still stand by the other things I've said about all those traits that make scientific evidence important (predictable, measurable, repeatable, etc...), I forget that sometimes I have to start at the very beginning: That science is universal.
That means anyone can use it to try to prove or disprove anything, and the results matter. Science welcomes all other beliefs to use the same method to prove their own theories. Faith, however, does not do that. If one persons' faith is true, then why isn't the next persons'? If it uses the same faith and requires the same level of evidence (zero), then why can't it be true too?
So my claim is that if one thing founded on science is true, then another thing founded on science must also be true. And that is true. But is not true that if one thing founded on faith is true, then all things founded on faith are true. Because surely there is a whole ridiculous spectrum of contradictory things that one can believe purely on faith alone. If Creation is true because of faith, then Christianity must also be true on faith, and Judaism, and Islam, and Hare Krishna, and every other religion...and even more ridiculous faith-based claims like the cosmic teapot and the spaghetti monster must also be true...but we know they can't all be true.
To put it another way, if all faith based things are true then you should be able to switch between them without any logical conflict. Obviously this is not true. This is because most people's faith earns its loyalty from one factor: that they were brought up that way. That should not be a significant factor in determining truth given the sheer arbitrariness of it.
I don't think you can continue down your recursive path of questions and ask me "...and why does it matter that science is universally true?", because to say that something is universally true is the exact definition of truth.
There is a Dawkin's essay called "What is True?" that I know I read at some point but I can't find anymore than just a summary online. If you can find it, it does a much better job of explaining this.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print