Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:53 pm
I certainly see no relation either....
An independent forum for FlightGear users and developers
https://thejabberwocky-net.brendtandbrendt.com/~brendta1/thejabberwocky/
https://thejabberwocky-net.brendtandbrendt.com/~brendta1/thejabberwocky/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=165
It's not a matter of belief
Therefore it is a matter of which is more logical, believable, and sensible
What??? The next verses also describe the creation of the earth in that ONE day. These verses have been generally ignored or interpreted as a recap of Chapter one, by both scientific creationists and intelligent design proponents, but it does not really hold up to scrutiny.This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in that day that the Lord God made earth and heaven (New American Standard Bible)
pp. 276, 278Then I saw a towering structure in the distance. It hovered. It loomed. It soared. King's College Chapel is God's house in Cambridge. It physically dominates Cambridge's many houses of science. How many generations of science students had prayed, or at least pretended to pray, at that cathedral? Out of curiosity, I entered its hallowed interior. In that environment, even I--a scientist with not a religious bone in my body--found a certain hollowness in my belief that nothing exists but electrons, protons, and neutrons, that the evolution of life if no more than a computer-game competition between the most selfish genes. "Cathedralitis," the awe inspired by a cleverly assembled pile of stones and colored glass windows; I am almost, but not quite, immune to it ... It was hard to think in purely optical terms of the morning light as it filtered through the stained glass. So with a slight case of cathedralitis, I sat down on a bench with a good view of the impressive interior.
pp.281-282.But that morning, neither Stephen [Hawking] nor black holes were on my mind. King's College Chapel had left me with an entirely new scientific paradox to obsess over. It had nothing to do with physics, except in an indirect way. It was a paradox having to do with Darwinian evolution. How is it possible that human beings have evolved so powerful an impulse to create irrational belief systems and onto them with such tenacity? One might have thought that Darwinian selection would reinforce a tendency toward rationality and cull any genetic disposition toward superstitious, faith-based beliefs systems. After all, irrational belief can get one killed, as it did Joseph Smith. Undoubtedly, it has killed many millions. One might expect that evolution would eliminate tendencies toward following reckless leaders on the grounds of faith. But it seems the opposite is true. This scientific paradox has provoked my curiosity for the first time in Cambridge. Ever since, I've been fascinated by it and have spent a good deal of time trying to unravel it.
jwocky wrote:Oh my, this board has a tendency to take on spontaneously the biggest questions, mankind can ask on a very casual way. But fine, that is one of the side effects of free speech and thus totally in order here.
Personally, I can't vote because what I think, is not in the list either. So obviously, one point is already clear: The list of options seems to be quite incomplete.
Lets bring, just as food for thinking, another example: We build a new plane for FG ...
Now, in the beginning, someone makes a 3D model, some basic animations, a quite standard FDM and so on. One could say, this is an act of creation.
However, over time, some things don't work or need improvement. Users ask for this or that expansions, for additional functionalities. And things start to develop. As we know, not always in a linear way. Now, we coudl claim, to do all those little changes over time is an act of creation too or we can claim, it is an act of evolution. If our planes would randomly write those new versions however, in an act of procreation, we could observe evolution at work.
However, even if our planes would procreate in generations always with little changes, we would still retain the option for another manual change. We wouldn't always wait that evolution produces what we want, we would intervene and manipulate the ongoing evolution to get a result faster.
Thus we would never end up with a complete creation only or evolution only model.
To transfer this thinking example on the universe, we only need to keep in mind, there is no conclusive scientific evidence for the non-existence of God, flying green spaghetti monsters, aliens or any other form of manipulative entity, Lets bring just one example, the aliens:
The simplest self-replicating peptide is 32 amino acids long and the chance it would be pop up randomly is about 1 in 10^40. That is extremely unlikely but ... then, the Milky Way alone has about 100 billion of starts and each of them has at least a chance on one or more planets in a distance that would allow biological life to thrive. Thus if on each of those planets happen some billion random protein combinations, the range of 10^40 doesn't seem to be entirely impossible anymore, and given, that once self-replicating are in the game,t hey will mutate, even much lower probabilities become at some point more like an inevitability. The perception problem is, that humans always think, because it happened here, it wasn't accidental, it had to be a plan behind it. By all means, this is the Earth, the coolest thing since long before sliced bread. But in reality, Earth is a planet somewhere in the outer nothing, sharing alone this spiral arm with some other million planets. There are probably millions of planets that could carry life and once the step to life is made, development is inevitable. So the chance that out there in the universe exist other species who think, their planet is the coolest thing ever, is actually quite high, given all factors, nearer to a certainty than a mere probability (given the number of protein reactions/billion years multiplied by 100 billion stars under the assumption there is on average only one habitable planet per system).
However, having said that, there is always the door open for manipulation. If I would have the possibility to fly to a young planet and would introduce there some protein from good old earth, what would happen? Replicating peptides that are already quite complex? They would do the same thing as they always do, they would replicate and develop over time into similarly complex structures as they did on Earth. Adapted to the new circumstances, because evolution would also apply its filters, but basically, it would be still something like before. So, some billion years, later, some people on that planet would sit in a forum and have to discuss creation or evolution because their scientists would be confronted with the very same numbers as we are now and, that's the fun part, they would be as unable to detect any possible manipulation because the originally introduced self-replicating peptide is long gone and they would have nearly no chance to find some remains with still intact DNA to isolate this foreign peptides.
Just some early in the morning food for thought.
J.
jwocky wrote:Hummm, no, I don't ask to change the poll, I merely point out, I didn't vote because my take ont he subject is not in the list of options. And about your comment that planes don't have baby planes ... ever heard of a parasite fighter?