Why do theists reject evolution?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 11, 2020.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Believe what you like.
    It doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong.
     
    James R, Dennis Tate and sideshowbob like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dennis Tate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    804
    I may well be wrong...... of that you certainly could be correct but......
    if I have any idea of how The Law of Probability works.......
    and if I have not totally misunderstood chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe then
    it sure looks to me like The Law of Probability is on my side in this?

    www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,230
    Just for the record;

    Law of total probability

    Part of a series on statistics
    Probability theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_probability
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,230
    From the link;
    No, relative to the lifespan of biological organisms evolved on earth, 13.72 billion years is a longggg time.
    No, that's a misinterpretation.
    You are ignoring the fact that every prior attempt at a new universe is a singular event. If it is unsuccessful there is not some of it that survives and evolves until the lone surviving universe is a result of natural selection over time.
    Each new BB is produces an initial chaotic event, exclusive of prior causalities.
    There is no evolutionary process of a prior existing universe.

    If I understand probability, "Pi" is an infinite transcendental number, which means that even by the Law of Probability, eventually a universe will emerge, but only if the initial condition of Chaos presents a viable mathematical causality, and that this event is not "guided by an intelligent designer", but is strictly probabilistic in nature.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  8. Dennis Tate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    804

    If.... chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" is one way to
    expand evolutionary Theory from merely a four dimensional space - time continuum ......
    in a universe where electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong unclear force interact with each other over less than five billion years.......
    to the energies of eleven or more dimensions of space - time and back to something like infinite time in the past......
    then the probability of abiogenesis plus evolution occurring has been INCREASED by a truly massive factor........
    (actually close to an infinite factor because Dr. Hawking postulated an INFINITE number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in
    which there was NO LIFE due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force not being tuned for life as we understand life.

    What I wrote would look like very simple logic to a reasonably intelligent high school student.

    www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

    "I actually do believe in evolution but I think that anybody who would dogmatically limit evolution to our four dimensional space time continuum lacks basic mathematical aptitude.

    Back in the 1990's I read several articles on GUT and string theory. Later on I read Stephen Hawking's Universe. in his chapter The Anthropic Principle he speculated that perhaps there were an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in which was no life due to the fact that electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force were not properly tuned for life as we know it. It seems obvious to me that another possibility is that the first intelligent life form might be composed of energy. Probably a fundamental energy such as SuperForce or Super Energetic Matter which may be the common denominator for all four forces active in our fourth space time dimensional continuum.

    13.72 billion years is roughly equal to ZERO time when compared with eternity. If fundamental energy would always have existed, as I assume Dr. Hawking seems to believe due to his suspicion of their having been an infinite number of unsuccessful universes and probably Big Bang + Grand Collapses, then if evolutionary theory could be expanded to have occurred within infinite time as opposed to limiting abiogenesis and evolution to abouit 4.5 billion years than you increase the probability of evolution being possible by essentially an infinite factor! I do believe in evolution occurring, but I suspect that perhaps 99% of evolution probably occurred before our Big Bang which was probably planned and choreographed by the Life Form/life forms that would probably be composed of fundamental energy.

    Is evolution more probable to have occurred within 13 billion years or within eternity?
     
  9. Dennis Tate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    804

    Can you understand why I really liked the way that Chaim Tejman M. D. attempted to
    explain the link between Wave Theory and the origin of life...... the beginning of evolution?


    http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/life1.htm
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,230
    • Please post on topic
    Others, like physicist and MIT professor Max Tegmark, go a step further, arguing that mathematics is our physical reality.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Professor Max Tegmark with his favorite Platonic Solid - the dodecahedron.
    PHOTO CREDIT: COURTESY OF WGBH

    https://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/apr/14/nova-great-math-mystery/
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  11. Dennis Tate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    804

    Frankly.... I do believe that Mr. Max Tegmark is largely correct......
    I believe that all the miracles of the Jewish and Christian scriptures are examples of TECHNOLOGY as applied by
    Intelligences plus intelligences.... that exist primarily in higher invisible dimensions but........
    a being for example that exists in the energy of whatever would be seven dimensional space - time .... would be able to view, sixth, fifth and four dimensional space - time and be able to affect the lower dimensions at least somewhat........ even if only a small amount by their will / intentions and thoughts?!
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,230
    Absolutely, but IMO this is not evidence of a sentient intelligence.

    I like to look at this as a quasi-intelligent logical (mathematical) function. Sentient intelligence is a result, not a causality.
    quasi- /ˈkwāˌzī,ˈkwäzē/
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2021
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  13. Dennis Tate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    804
    Personally..... I am basically of the belief that sentient intelligence is BOTH a result.... as well as a causality...... almost like it is impossible to create some variation of "time" without creating at least some form of "space."
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Dennis:

    That's all pie in the sky. No evidence or supporting argument. All we have are your attempts to make things "fit" with your other pre-existing religious beliefs.

    Why do you keep guessing about everything?

    You haven't even defined the term "fundamental energy", if I recall correctly. That term doesn't mean anything, as far as I can tell.
    Explain to me how energy can "think and plan and experiment".

    What other kind of energy, other than your "fundamental energy" ever does any of those things?

    And why are you "guessing" about "the eleventh space time dimension"? Just on another random flight of fancy?
    That's another "guess", I suppose.

    Why do the life forms only start teeming once you get to eight dimensions? Please explain.

    Are you able to distinguish random fantasies from coherent thought?

    Surely you must realise that everything you've written here is nonsensical

    Are you trolling, or do you really think you're onto something with this?
    You suspect. You assume. Again. Why?

    Why do you believe that? What led you to that particular belief? Please summarise your thought process.
    You keep mentioning the Milgram experiment. What do you know about it? What has it got to do with Satan?

    It sounds to me like you're confused about that experiment, and conflating Milgram with Satan for some unexplained reason.

    Do you believe Stanley Milgram was Satan, or vice versa? If so, why? Walk me through the thought process that led you to that conclusion.

    ----
    Also, on topic: what does any of the above have to do with the topic of why theists reject evolution?

    Are you trying to tell us, in a round about way, why you reject evolution? Do you reject it, in fact, or not? I can't tell from what you've written.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    I can't tell from what you've written how you're estimating the likelihood of abiogenesis with and without all those things that come after the word "If".
    You guess (?)
    Is this a quote from somebody? Who? Where does the quote end? Which words are your own? I'm thinking the following are your words, and I will respond on that basis.
    Okay so far...
    How does any of that follow from what went before, regarding Stephen Hawking's Universe and so on?

    Nothing in what you've written "seems obvious" to me, so I'm afraid that, again, you'll need to walk me through your reasoning, step by step, to the conclusion you have drawn.
    Okay. But you're talking bubble universes here, aren't you? Where's "eternity" in that?

    Does Hawking ever, in any of his published works, refer to "fundamental energy"? If so, can you please quote him directly, rather than "assuming" what you think he might believe?
    Well, okay, but so what?

    We don't need infinite time for evolution to have got us to where we're at here on Earth, in this universe. 4.5 billions years did the job just fine.

    Why do you believe that? What does "99% of evolution" even mean? What are you measuring the percentage of, exactly?

    Also, the idea of "before the big bang" is problematic, because time is thought to have started at the big bang, at least in our universe.

    Where is this pre-Big Bang evolution supposed to have happened, according to you? What was evolving? How was it evolving? How did any of that affect what happened post-Big Bang in our universe?

    Probably. Probably.

    And if wishes were horses...
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  16. Dennis Tate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    804
    Is there a way for somebody... .anybody else on this forum to replicate chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" either on this forum.....
    or in a blog that could be linked to this forum?

    Does it already exist out there in cyberspace somewhere where it could be viewed free of charge?

    I looked for it but could not find a free version of that chapter of that book.

    I think I can find my own copy and I suppose I could try to find out how to take a series of screen shots of the most relevant pages which is actually only two or three pages out of the entire chapter.

    I could also attempt to type out the most relevant parts but that is very time consuming?????????????? I would prefer to not have to resort to an action quite that drastic?!

    This helps to explain why I feel that idea is so important:

    Hawking Defends 'Anthropic Principle' of Cosmology
    By Jimmy Davis, Contributing Writer
    October 6, 1999



     
  17. Dennis Tate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    804
    To my thinking this blog is evidence.....
    but I don't blame you if you feel otherwise.......
    to a degree the author of this truly insightful article is also somewhat offended by what Stephen Hawking Ph.D. seemed to be implying.

    Many Theists, including his first ex-wife also disagreed with what she perceived as Dr. Hawking's long term goals.

    I personally think that Dr. Stephen Hawking is essentially correct but......
    his ideas will offend both scientists as well as theists due to the fact that theists....
    are not ready for a Creator who is a Scientist........
    who just happens to be composed of fundamental or nearly fundamental energy.......
    (which on one level would be whatever form of energy would be implied by Dr. Stephen Hawking in chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe....
    the ENERGY that would power / compose / lay the foundation for .... a theoretically infinite number of potential "unsuccessful" universes in which there might have been no life???!!!)

    And "scientists" are not ready for a universe that sure seems to sound a lot like "God" or a Creator??????????????????


    Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP




    The last paragraph in this quotation hints at how powerful "fundamental energy" really is...... theoretically!
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2021

Share This Page