Existence vs Awareness

[Iacchus]

Isn't it amazing that anything exists at all, let alone that it's capable of being aware of itself? The probabilities must have been astounding that anything should just up and appear out of nowhere (in other words from absolute nothingness), and then, for the whole thing to take form and ultimately become aware of itself? Dude, that's too much to fathom!

 

[Cosmo]

Isn't it amazing that anything exists at all,

Not really. After all, if nothing existed, we wouldn't be around to 'marvel' at our own existence or even care. Existence is kinda the 'default' in that respect.

The probabilities must have been astounding that anything should just up and appear out of nowhere (in other words from absolute nothingness),

Good thing that's not what science says; just your own straw man.

Dude, that's too much to fathom!

For you, perhaps.

 

[Iacchus]

Not really. After all, if nothing existed, we wouldn't be around to 'marvel' at our own existence or even care. Existence is kinda the 'default' in that respect.

Which is to say something has always existed then, correct? So, where did that come from?

Good thing that's not what science says; just your own straw man.

Why does it have to be a strawman? If the Universe is continually evolving which, I guess is what science purports(?), what did it evolve from? From something which is lessor to something which is greater or, something which is greater to something which is lessor? How far back can you go if, in fact it always began with something that is lessor? Or, if it began with something that is greater, how far can you go in that regard as well?

For you, perhaps.

Or, so folks continue to remind me.

 

[RandFan]

Isn't it amazing that anything exists at all, let alone that it's capable of being aware of itself? The probabilities must have been astounding that anything should just up and appear out of nowhere (in other words from absolute nothingness), and then, for the whole thing to take form and ultimately become aware of itself? Dude, that's too much to fathom!

Argument from incredulity

One of the oldest fallacies invented by man.

Since then, avoiding fallacy and using logic, humans figured out what causes disease, how birds fly, the basic building blocks of matter, the true relationship of the solar system, how to split an atom, how to go to the moon, how to synthesize carbon molecules, etc., etc. Yet for some odd reason mankind hasn't quite conquered ignorance. Thanks Iacchus.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Why does it have to be a strawman? If the Universe is continually evolving which, I guess is what science puports(?), what did it evolve from? From something lessor to something which is greater or, something greater to something which is lessor? How far back can you go if, in fact it always began with something that is lessor? Or, if it began with something that is greater, how far can you go in that regard as well?

That is not what science purports at all. Evolution is a concept applied exclusively to biology, not to physics, cosmology, etc. And even in biology there is no concept of things evolving from lesser to greater or vice versa, only in adapting to fit the conditions they find themselves.

Read a science book sometime, if you plan to spout off on what science 'purports'.

 

[Cosmo]

Which is to say something has always existed then, correct? So, where did that come from?

No, that's not at all what I was stating or implying. Re-read and try again.

Why does it have to be a strawman? If the Universe is continually evolving which, I guess is what science purports(?), what did it evolve from?

The universe is a big bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It is nonsensical to suggest that it can therefore 'evolve', and this rather sounds like another strawman.

From something which is lessor to something which is greater or, something which is greater to something which is lessor? How far back can you go if, in fact it always began with something that is lessor? Or, if it began with something that is greater, how far can you go in that regard as well?

You're anthropomorphizing the universe. 'Greater' and 'lesser' are meaningless to the universe, they're just words that you throw around.

Or, so folks continue to remind me.

To little effect.

 

[Iacchus]

That is not what science purports at all. Evolution is a concept applied exclusively to biology, not to physics, cosmology, etc. And even in biology there is no concept of things evolving from lesser to greater or vice versa, only in adapting to fit the conditions they find themselves.

Read a science book sometime, if you plan to spout off on what science 'purports'.

Which is to say the Big Bang just happened and, that everything as it is right now, is exactly as it was at the moment the Big Bang occurred? Boy, have you got a lot of explaining to do!



You're not by any chance a Young Earth Creationist are you?

 

[Cosmo]

Which is to say the Big Bang just happened and, that everything as it is right now, is exactly as it was at the moment the Big Bang occurred? Boy, have you got a lot of explaining to do!



You're not by any chance a Young Earth Creationist are you?

No, you're wrong again. That's not what he was saying at all.

STOP ignoring what people are saying.
STOP "which is to say"-ing your strawmen into other people's posts.

START reading.

 

[Iacchus]

No, you're wrong again. That's not what he was saying at all.

STOP ignoring what people are saying.
STOP "which is to say"-ing your strawmen into other people's posts.

START reading.

Really? How so? Perhaps we should look at this again? ...

That is not what science purports at all. Evolution is a concept applied exclusively to biology, not to physics, cosmology, etc.

Are you implying that he's saying something other than this?

 

[Cosmo]

I imply nothing. This is your original sentence:

If the Universe is continually evolving which, I guess is what science puports(?), what did it evolve from?

You got it wrong. That is not what science purports - your guess was wrong. Nyar said as much:

That is not what science purports at all. Evolution is a concept applied exclusively to biology, not to physics, cosmology, etc.

What's the big deal here, Iacchus?

 

[Iacchus]

Please explain to me how we get from the Big Bang to how life evolved on earth. Are you suggesting it's not all part of the same process? How many billions of years did it take before life began to evolve?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Which is to say the Big Bang just happened and, that everything as it is right now, is exactly as it was at the moment the Big Bang occurred? Boy, have you got a lot of explaining to do!



You're not by any chance a Young Earth Creationist are you?

Is that what I said? I don't think so. The fact that you have no idea what evolution means <> the universe never changes in any way.

 

[Cosmo]

Please explain to me how we get from the Big Bang to how life evolved on earth. Are you suggesting it's not all part of the same process? How many billions of years did it take before life began to evolve?

Before you change the subject, go back and look at my reply. Do you understand yet how you've been mangling Nyar's words?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Please explain to me how we get from the Big Bang to how life evolved on earth. Are you suggesting it's not all part of the same process? How many billions of years did it take before life began to evolve?

Well, the best estimate for the age of the universe is some 14 Billion years, give or take. The best estimate for life on Earth beginning is about 8 billion years ago. That means it took roughly six billion years before the conditions were right and life here began.

As for how we got from the big bang to here. Again, there are entire books on the subject. Read one.

Oh, and I am indeed suggesting that it isn't part of the same process, because there is no process. Process implies a guided plan, which there most likely isn't.

ETA, my memory is faulty, life is estimated to have began FOUR billion years ago, thus it took 10 billion years

 

[Iacchus]

Before you change the subject, go back and look at my reply. Do you understand yet how you've been mangling Nyar's words?

If the conditions were just right (which of course they weren't), life should have sprang up instantaneously at the moment the Big Bang occurred. So obviously something had to evolve over the eons (the Universe in fact) in order for this to occur.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

If the conditions were just right (which of course they weren't), life should have sprang up instantaneously at the moment the Big Bang occurred. So obviously something had to evolve over the eons (the Universe in fact) in order for this to occur.

No. Things had to change. This is not the same as evolving. There was no selection pressure, the universe is not self replicating, etc. IT DOES NOT EVOLVE!

 

[RandFan]

Forgive my butting in but it seems to me that Carl Sagan in his show Cosmos used the word evolution in reference to the universe. Am I missing something?

 

[RandFan]

Doing some googling I have found Carl Sagan's book, Cosmos (The Story of Cosmic Evolution, Science and Civilisation) - Carl Sagan

I'm a bit confused.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Forgive my butting in but it seems to me that Carl Sagan in his show Cosmos used the word evolution in reference to the universe. Am I missing something?

If he did, he was using 'poetic license', or somesuch. He was a very smart man so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was using it incorrectly out of ignorance. The universe may change, but it is no more evolution than clouds forming different shapes as wind blows on them is the clouds 'evolving'. Onlyt hings that replicate evolve, that means living beings.

 

[Iacchus]

No. Things had to change. This is not the same as evolving.

Since when? Things have to change in order to evolve don't they? What is evolution, but developmental change? Are you suggesting the Universe undergoes no such processes?