-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So what do religious people think about dinosaurs?
- Thread starter PocketMidget
- Start date
- Status
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/index.html
I think that is a better site if you want to see a good argument versus the creationist arguments.
I think that is a better site if you want to see a good argument versus the creationist arguments.
Fatghost said:
Again, there's a huge difference between the two answers. The first makes no attempt to explain why this is a universe where humans can live. The second explains it. There is no incompatibility between the two. Say hello to my friend the false dichotomy.
There are other explanations for the existence of a universe where humans can live, but the weak anthropic principle does not provide one - it just sidesteps the issue by saying that there must be one.
At least one common form of the Strong Anthropic Principle describes the universe as being 'designed'.
iapetus said:
Why do we have to have a reason for a universe that happens to allow human life to exist?
The universe came before people, so of course people can only exist to wonder about why the universe is the way it is in a universe where people can come about!
What makes dumb luck a bad answer? At least it doesn't require the addition of untestible supernatural entities.
Fatghost said:
No. The original question was why it is that the universe is so finely tuned for the existence of human life. The answer that you are proposing is not an answer to that question. Your answer says "it just is". It neither affirms nor denies any particular special reason for it to be the case. I find it difficult to see how you can fail to understand such a fundamental difference.
There is a reason for it. That may just be a phenomenal stroke of luck. It may be the result of a large/infinite number of universes ensuring that at least one has those exact conditions. It may be the result of a creating deity. It may be that there is some reason inherent in the way the universe comes into existence that means the constants have to trend towards their current values. Choosing to ignore the question of 'why' doesn't constitute an answer to it, though.
As for the special reason water is wet, that's a slightly different issue because wetness is generally defined in terms of water. Science does provide us with explanations of why water has the properties that we define as wetness, though.
Fatghost said:
Because extremely unlikely things tend not to happen - but at least now you're trying to answer the question. As I said, dumb luck is one possible (but very unsatisfying) explanation. Now, though, you're going beyond the WAP, and because dumb luck is an extremely unlikely cause, you've got to open your mind to other possibilities - such as the ones I've already mentioned and many others.
iapetus said:
Well, "why is the universe finely tuned to the existence of human life" is either a philosophical question assuming there is something special about that (ie: the existence of human life itself is something special, therefore there must be a special reason that the universe uniquely suited to human life came about)
or it's a physical question "what are the properties of the universe that allow it to be uniquely suited to human life" in the same manner science can provide an explanation of the wetness of water.
The problem I have with the first question is because it grants human life some kind of special status. Since the universe came before human life, I don't know why anyone would work backward and assume that the universe must have been made for people, when it's clear that people were made for the universe. It's asking the question from the wrong perspective.
Fatghost said:
Garbage, at just about every level. It assigns no special status to humans other than that they're the example we're looking at. You can make it a question of anything you like. Stars. Chocolate and courgette (or zucchini for the US audience) muffins. Antelopes. Alpha radiation. Without the universe operating within certain parameters these things cannot come into existence. And asking the question of why the universe is configured so that chocolate and courgette muffins are possible does not imply in the slightest that the universe was created that way for the purpose of such muffins coming into existence. You're making a bizarre and unwarranted logical leap when you claim that.
DeathCabCute
Banned
Don't mean to butt in since I had my round yesterday but I'd like to chime in quickly. I think the reason the world is so well suited for man is because we are an integral part of it and many of the rare elements that comprise our solar system are found in man. The earth isn't necessarily like a home and man moved in and happened to like it but rather it's a part of man and man a part of it. I'm not speaking in a metaphysical sense either, so many of the elements that comprise man and sustain him are rare and can only be found in our solar system. So it makes sense that they grew together.
So in this sense the earth wasn't prebuild for man nor did it just happen suite him. Man and all life on earth are an inegral part of the universe on an elemental level.
So in this sense the earth wasn't prebuild for man nor did it just happen suite him. Man and all life on earth are an inegral part of the universe on an elemental level.
iapetus said:
The question still infers that it is special that the universe is this way instead of other ways. For all we know, this universe could be the only universe possible. The existence of chocolate or human life or alpha waves doesn't imply a creator.
We know that if the universe was different, everything would be different. We don't know if that is special, we don't know if the universe could possibly be different. Our universe could be the only possible configuration for the universe. Although I kinda like the Fecund Universe explanation.
elektrotal
Member
thread necromancy for the loss.
JzeroT1437
Member
I think they're TOTALLY AWESOME. But I'm not religious.
chibcicylist
Banned
iapetus said:
That odd, no matter how remote and improbable it may have seemed, obviously happened. We're here!
We're not that special.
But they did....
edit: oh shit, old thread, lolz.
SpoonyBard
Banned
Eveyone knows that religious people don't believe in dinosaurs. Lock this silly old topic!
iced lightning
Member
jesus was a great boxer in his prime.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
You know, on the whole "chicken and egg" bit about the precise nature of the universe, one analogy I had always heard seemed pretty good to me:
The framework of the universe is like a bottle.
Everything in it is sand.
Pour sand into a bottle. Then show it to someone who doesn't understand what the bottle is.
They may, with a certain degree of sensibility, exclaim "how amazing it is that these random grains of sand are formed into such a precise structure! Surely, this structure must have been created just so."
The sand however, is merely conforming to the shape of the bottle. The bottle has no concern for what is in it, and the sand is not in any way responsible for why the bottle was created or the shape of the bottle.
Where I see a lot of religious people stumble is in being unable to form the intellectual framework required to transcend the perhaps instinctive, human urge to anthropomorphize the world around them in order to relate to it. Anthropic principle.
The framework of the universe is like a bottle.
Everything in it is sand.
Pour sand into a bottle. Then show it to someone who doesn't understand what the bottle is.
They may, with a certain degree of sensibility, exclaim "how amazing it is that these random grains of sand are formed into such a precise structure! Surely, this structure must have been created just so."
The sand however, is merely conforming to the shape of the bottle. The bottle has no concern for what is in it, and the sand is not in any way responsible for why the bottle was created or the shape of the bottle.
Where I see a lot of religious people stumble is in being unable to form the intellectual framework required to transcend the perhaps instinctive, human urge to anthropomorphize the world around them in order to relate to it. Anthropic principle.
super funk
Member
I havent bothered to read the thread, but I just wanted to say that I consider myself at least somewhat religious and I never had a problem with dinosaurs. I went to Catholic school all of my life, and we were never taught science is a lie, only believe the Bible. We were always taught to take the lessons of the Bible firstly and then worry about the factual writings. And we never once learned to disregard something in science that disagrees with the Bible. I dont know about other Christian religions, but is Catholicism the only level headed Christian religion?
Kaijima said:
I like that.
An analogy I came up with that I'm not exactly sure how it fits here, but:
A pyramid of funnels. Each pyramid is sitting aboe three or four (I guess depending on whther you're imaging a true pyrmaid, or a square-based pyramid) equally positioned pyramids, until you reach a single pyramid at the top. This top represents the origin of time, and as you pregress infinitely downward, each funnel below represents branches that a time line could've taken.
It's a simplification, obiviously, because there would be more than 3-4 options, and the funnels may or may notbe different sizes depending on whtehr you want to represent incresed/decreased probability.
Anyway, start at the beginning of Time, and drop a marble. It falls down, down, down, taking a particular path, until we reach present day. Now if we could stand back and observe this pyramid, and observe where this marble has fallen, you might remark that out of all the infinitely, incomprehensibly large number of possibilites why we have arrived at this one (this one in particular that allows us to even ponder this). Well, my point of this demonstration is that there alots of possibilities - and we HAVE to arrive at one (and continue). No matter which way it reaches, we would probably (if we are even the same on that theoretical timeline, or even exist at all) still ponder the same question. It seems to me, in this example, that no matter what happens we look, observe, philosophise.
this example would say that we are not special, and there are a myriad number of other possibilites that exist that would still ahve some kind of philsophical species pondering. If the marble reached a point where life never existed, then we simply wouldn't be here thinking up this funnelmarble.
You could extend this analogy to represent the idea that possible timelines conerge, as if it had a purpose by having an inverted pyramid of funnels.
Anyway, the whole point of my funnel-marble is that it depicts the concept that time only moves forward - that there are an infinite number of possibilities, but without anyway of taking tha marble and bringing it back through time up to earlier funnels and testing the outcome, we can never really know what shape the pyramid has, or what the outcome will be.
Not only is teh irony mindblowing, as carolejuice put it, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. Science is based entirely on disproving theories. The more you try to disprove something, but can;t, the more likely that theory tends to 'truth'. Hypotheses aren't concocted theories. If a dinosaur would be foudn, the HYPOTHESIS would be made of"maybe a pocket in time, unchanged for millions of years". This would then be rigorously tested, such as investigating samples from that location, looking at that location in history and so on - tryign to disprove that the idea was true...if overwhleming evidence proves it not to be true, then past theory will be modified in light of new evidence.
It won't be the first tiem some major dogma has been challenged (and even changed), and it certainly isn't an embarrassment to science- that is EXACTLY how science works.
iapetus said:
Are we sure about that? Scientific "laws" are unlike human "laws" in that they're descriptions of how nature behaves, rather than prescriptions for how things ought to behave, and I think it's common for people to conflate the two, and to believe that if there are natural laws, then someone must have written them. Truth is, we have no idea if the constants of the universe are even variable in the first place. If they are, within what range? And if the range is wide enough to make a universe like ours exceedingly unlikely, then how do we know we're not just one Universe in a multiverse foam, as some cosmologists speculate?
Anyway, I agree with your main point, that the Theory of Evolution, being most certainly the correct explanation for the diversity and complexity we see in species today, does not in any way make it more difficult to believe in God. I don't believe in any sort of personal God, but I wouldn't attribute that to my acceptance of the Theory of Evolution in the least.
Also, I do believe that the "anthropic coincidences" are probably the most compelling reason to believe in God, even if I think they're altogether not a very good reason.
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
Havn't read the thread, but here are some quotes from the Bible some people think may be Dinosaurs:
The Bible said:
Chris Michael
Banned
I think the leviathan was a dinosaur.
iapetus said:
The logical answer only requires one tiny assumption. The omniverse, or whatever the universe spewed out of (I don't pretend to have the vaguest inkling of what state the "non universe" is or was) simply tried to make the universe many times, presumably through some cosmic process to giant for my brain to grok.
Now, if I accept that it tried a lot, then I am simply in a position to observe its success. It is in fact dumb luck. Or rather, statistics. The chance that the universe would reach the correct ratio of quantum whatever and electro-magenetic force to exist at all meant it would then be big enough to contain enough variety of environment - especially as it cools and slows - for a thinking observer to notice.
Most of the universe, and most of its duration is in fact incredibly hostile to humans. Surely a "big" god, like a Christian god, wouldn't fill the universe with conditions so incredibly hostile to man.
In those terms, this is the only possible outcome for the argument. And it still doesn't require a god.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The bible explanation of the earth being 6,000 years old is provably false, even if you don't believe in carbon dating.
OK... so Genesis says that the earth was created before light. (though light was created later the same day) That would mean that it was created before stars. That said, the furthest star we should be able to see would be no more than 6,000 lightyears away, yet the visible universe is FIFTEEN BILLION lightyears in radius and growing.
EDIT: Oh, sorry... god created the sun and all of the other stars on the fourth day. He also created the moon on the fourth day. So were was that light coming from? lol My point stands. Also, isn't it more than a little weird that the christian deity doesn't seem to know that the sun is a star, or that the moon is much smaller and dimmer than the stars in the night sky? In fact, the moon isn't a light at all.
OK... so Genesis says that the earth was created before light. (though light was created later the same day) That would mean that it was created before stars. That said, the furthest star we should be able to see would be no more than 6,000 lightyears away, yet the visible universe is FIFTEEN BILLION lightyears in radius and growing.
EDIT: Oh, sorry... god created the sun and all of the other stars on the fourth day. He also created the moon on the fourth day. So were was that light coming from? lol My point stands. Also, isn't it more than a little weird that the christian deity doesn't seem to know that the sun is a star, or that the moon is much smaller and dimmer than the stars in the night sky? In fact, the moon isn't a light at all.
SpoonyBard
Banned
Thai said:
Ever heard of the Big Bang theory?
The Jason
Member
One of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity is that the translation of the bible is accurate, the translation is actually very flawed. When it says in the bible that the world was created in 7 days, the word "days" should be something closer to 7 "ages," and an age could be billions of years. The bible says men were the last to be created and they have been around for 2000 years (an estimation I guess). Most people would assume that because the bible says men were "created," the bible is discounting evolution, but that's a misconception, they are actually in agreement because both theories claim that humans were generated last (the bible claims god created man, while science claims the forces of nature created man, it's semantics really)
SpoonyBard
Banned
The Jason said:
How does the theory of evolution claim that humans were "generated" last?
The Jason
Member
gen·er·ate= to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.SpoonyBard said:
Humans, as Aristotle would put it, are beings capable of reason, these beings we call humans evolved long after the first blade of grass or the first animal came into existence, us humans are new born children on this planet and we act like little children too (wasting, and destroying like stubborn little brats).
SpoonyBard
Banned
Thai said:
Right. The previous poster seemed to have rather strange picture of the evolutionary process. Thousands of species have been born after humans. Not to mention that the evolution of humans or other animals has never been stopped.
dammitmattt
Banned
The Jason said:
That is just not true. PLENTY of Christian faiths believe the story of creation word for word. Do not equate Christianity as a whole with your specific denomination.
Anyway, the believe in the "ages" is just a way for certain Christians (and people of other religions) to reconcile scientific discoveries with their faith so it fits in a nice, easy puzzle. The "ages" argument just doesn't hold up to science. Sorry.
The Jason
Member
dammitmattt said:
Look, I'm not a Christian and I never will be, but the old testament (the creation of the world is old testament stuff) is translated from metaphysical obscurity into text that is easily understandable. The word used in the original text more closely translates to "ages."
Of course the bible is not to be taken literally, every fable from jesus walking on water to noah's ark was just a metaphorical story to teach a life lesson (anyone familiar with the writings of Voltaire will understand this method)
dammitmattt
Banned
The Jason said:
That's your opinion, but I was just correcting your assertion that the rest of Christianity apparently agrees with your opinion, since they sure as hell don't.
Millions of people in this country believe the bible word for word, and many, if not most Christians would argue that the Bible IS meant to be taken literally.
- Status