Existence vs Awareness

[Mercutio]

You seem to be using "evolve" in two different sense. First, there is "evolve" as used in the theory of evolution. Secondly, there is "evolve" as used to mean "change over time". However, neither uses of the word "evolve" can be used to decribe the creation of something. Things evolve after they exist. Evolution does not deal with the creation of things. You should try to understand this, Iacchus.

This has been explained to him countless times on this forum. By now, he is merely trolling. I agree; he should try to understand this. But if he understands this, he has to face the fact that the evidence contradicts his philosophy. So he remains actively and aggressively ignorant.

You will have better luck trying to convince Hovind that his definitions of evolution are wrong. Come to think of it, the two are very similar in this...

 

[Mercutio]

But you are doing it the other way round. You are saying that because it is logical there must be a god.

Once again, this is something that has been explained to him at least a dozen times here. Circularity (begging the question, assuming his conclusions) is his argument of choice. He is trolling.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, isn't it amazing how the whole Universe is practically explainable, except for how it got here? Do you think that for whatever reason it did, that it too might be logical? Of course if that were possible, it tells us that logic (and/or truth) preceded the beginning of the Universe. Now how is that possible? It sounds to me like it must have been a part of some "grand plan."

You are making a god of the gaps argument. And BTW, there was a time when all of those things I listed were considered unknowable and therefore the providence of god. Your argument is illogical. Questions aren't answers. Ignorance is not an answer. That you don't know something does not give you license to insert fantasy to try and explain it. In the past people simply said "god did it". Thankfully science didn't rely on god for explanation. Rational humans, AKA scientists, using logic didn't rely on ignorance as you are doing now. Instead they assumed there were answers and went looking for them. Every year our gap of knowledge and the place for your god to hide shrinks. Yet ignorance still demands that there must be something to our ignorance. No Iacchus. Ignorance is simply ignorance nothing else. Believing that there is some meaning to that ignorance is simply ignorant.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'll give Iacchus credit, for my limited time on the forums, this has been one of his better word-game trolling attempts.

 

[Belz...]

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!

Wow. For a moment there I thought Iacchus was Iamme's sock puppet.

 

[Belz...]

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?

The strawman was that you said it came from "absolute" nothingness.

 

[Belz...]

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!

Well it does EVOLVE in the sense that it changed over time, but not in the biological meaning of the word.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since Iacchus seems to play fast and loose with definitions; per m-w.com:
evolve
One entry found for evolve.
Main Entry: evolve
Pronunciation: i-'välv, -'volv, E- also -'väv or -'vov
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): evolved; evolv·ing
Etymology: Latin evolvere to unroll, from e- + volvere to roll -- more at VOLUBLE
transitive senses
1 : EMIT
2 a : DERIVE, EDUCE b : to produce by natural evolutionary processes c : DEVELOP, WORK OUT <evolve social, political, and literary philosophies -- L. W. Doob>
intransitive senses : to undergo evolutionary change
- evolv·able /-'väl-v&-b&l, -'vol- also -'vä-v&- or -'vo-v&-/ adjective
- evolve·ment /-'välv-m&nt, -'volv- also -'väv- or -'vov-/ noun

Suggests to me that, at the very least, "evolve" has connotations of biological evolution.

 

[Belz...]

Do star systems evolve? Or, do they just pop into existence whenever they feel like it? Just think where life would be if that didn't happen. Wouldn't it suffice to say that this whole thing about existence (in every single last aspect) is conditional?

If I understand your definition of "evolve", that's a false dichotomy.

 

[Belz...]

By the way, life is the only thing that appears to be an anomaly, in a Universe which otherwise conducts itself in an orderly and predictable fashion.

Once again, Iacchus, you are quite simply wrong1. Life forms operate in a way just as predictable as the rest of the universe.

1 : material copyrighted by Mercutio.

Indeed, look at how widespread and evenly distributed the star systems are, and how much they entail the same process of formation and, are comprised of the same thing. Almost as if it was instinctively understood how to do this, right after the Big Bang occurred. Hmm ...

"Hmm..." as in "look how smart I am to have asked this question". That's a Iammism.

You mean, instinctively like rocks know "instinctively" how to fall to the ground ?

 

[roger]

The OED has 12 definitions for evolution. Including this one for the cosmic meaning:

The formation of the heavenly bodies according to the received theory which supposes it to have taken place by the concentration and consolidation of cosmic matter. 1850 NICHOL Archit. Heav. Pt. III. (title) Psyche, or Evolution. Ibid. 239 (heading of page) Universal Evolution. 1851 Ibid. (ed. 9) 289 As on Earth, there is [sic] also

ruling these high Heavens

vast processes of evolution. 1880 HAUGHTON Phys. Geog. i. 2 The idea of the evolution of planets is due to the great astronomer..Laplace.

As other's have pointed out, evolution means different things in different contexts. The biological mechanisms have nothing to do with cosmic evolution (or change), and vice versa.

Sagan was entirely right to title Cosmos as he did.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, isn't it amazing how the whole Universe is practically explainable, except for how it got here?

Isn't it amazing that, just a few centuries ago, someone could say:

"isn't it amazing how the whole Universe is practically explainable, except for how it got here, how life forms change over time," etc. etc.

Our knowledge grows over time, Iacchus. Just because we still don't know things, doesn't mean there's no explanation.

Of course, that was the WHOLE point of RandFan's post that you were answering, so it is kinda ironic that you'd answer that.

 

[Belz...]

And therein lies the problem. For without said processes put in place, there would be nothing for science to predict.

That in no way supports your position.

Evolution is a process, and it requires whatever it is that put that process into effect.

If you use that as your premise, then sure, whatever you want. Your premise seems wrong, however.

And, if God does exist? All we are merely doing is suggesting God works in a logical and progressive manner. What's wrong with that?

It isn't "wrong", just inaccurate.

Do you believe that truth existed before the advent of humans? If so, then at what point did truth not exist?

Truth didn't exist any more than there were lies. There just was.

 

[Belz...]

No, as I consider 'truth' subjective. But if you take "truth" to mean "properties of things", then yes, of course. They didn't exist before the big bang, as nothing existed before the big bang.

Careful, Taffer. Iacchus may think we mean "absolutely" nothing.

 

[Belz...]

You are making a god of the gaps argument. And BTW, there was a time when all of those things I listed were considered unknowable and therefore the providence of god. Your argument is illogical. Questions aren't answers. Ignorance is not an answer. That you don't know something does not give you license to insert fantasy to try and explain it. In the past people simply said "god did it". Thankfully science didn't rely on god for explanation. Rational humans, AKA scientists, using logic didn't rely on ignorance as you are doing now. Instead they assumed there were answers and went looking for them. Every year our gap of knowledge and the place for your god to hide shrinks. Yet ignorance still demands that there must be something to our ignorance. No Iacchus. Ignorance is simply ignorance nothing else. Believing that there is some meaning to that ignorance is simply ignorant.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Would you go so far as to suggest that when a star system forms, it is just "following the script?" Or, what exactly do you mean by it not being an "adaptive change?" By the way, life is the only thing that appears to be an anomaly, in a Universe which otherwise conducts itself in an orderly and predictable fashion. Indeed, look at how widespread and evenly distributed the star systems are, and how much they entail the same process of formation and, are comprised of the same thing. Almost as if it was instinctively understood how to do this, right after the Big Bang occurred. Hmm ...

By adaptive change, I mean change that is in response to outside pressures that make succeeding generations better able to withstand those pressures. I.e. you have a bug that looks kind of like a leaf, this helps camoflauge it from predators; over time, the ones that look the most like a leaf have the best chance at survival and their offspring look more and more like leaves until you have a species of insect where looking almost exactly like a leaf is the norm. They have adapted to the pressure of predation by looking like a leaf. THAT is evolution.

As for life being an anomaly, we simply don't know enough to say HOW common life is. We do not yet have enough information to say whether life will spring up under a given set of conditions or not. So it may be an anomaly, and it may not. No one can really say, including you.

As for stars always foring the same way, etc. It is simply because the laws of physics seem to be uniform across the solar system. Thus anywhere you have a sufficient amount of dust, it will begin to coalesce under the force of gravity, until it has gotten big enough to combust under its own weight and POOF, a star. And the stars are NOT distribute evenly, there's a lot of space between galaxies and the galaxies themselve form clusters with even more space between them. IIIRC, one of the big puzzles in cosmology right now is exactly WHY things aren't spread out more evenly.

As for the universe "instinctively" knew how to form, that's just plain silly. But if you have evidence that the universe is intelligent and can thus have "instincts", by all means present it.

 

[rharbers]

Well, is there a point to existence?

I would venture to say that a universe without something conscious would be pointless. It just doesn't have to be a God.

Have you been hitting the sauce again, Dionysius?

 

[Iacchus]

The OED has 12 definitions for evolution. Including this one for the cosmic meaning:

As other's have pointed out, evolution means different things in different contexts. The biological mechanisms have nothing to do with cosmic evolution (or change), and vice versa.

Sagan was entirely right to title Cosmos as he did.

It's all comprised of the same stuff ... energy and/or matter. In fact when a living organism dies, at least that part which is comprised of matter, it is returned to that part which is merely elemental. And, unless its seed is maintained (its constituent DNA), it will not reproduce.

 

[Iacchus]

I'll give Iacchus credit, for my limited time on the forums, this has been one of his better word-game trolling attempts.

Another stab in the dark, eh? Yes, I understand your orientation fully well.

 

[Iacchus]

I would venture to say that a universe without something conscious would be pointless. It just doesn't have to be a God.

Have you been hitting the sauce again, Dionysius?

Would you suggest that consciousness was a beginning then, with respect to understanding the Universe? But then again that really doesn't make a lick of sense, because consciousness only acknowledges that which already is. In which case we must ask (by means of consciousness of course), why the Universe is so readily understandable? Obviously the science behind the makeup of the Universe is already there, it's just a matter of us acknowledging it.