Why do theists reject evolution?

Dywyddyr said:
Believe what you like.
It doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong.
Click to expand...

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/
 
 
Dennis Tate said:
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/
Click to expand...
From the link;
13.72 billion years is roughly equal to ZERO time when compared with eternity.
Click to expand...
No, relative to the lifespan of biological organisms evolved on earth, 13.72 billion years is a longggg time.
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!
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
No, that's a misinterpretation.
Is evolution more probable to have occurred within 13 billion years or within eternity?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Write4U said:
Just for the record;

Law of total probability

Part of a series on statistics
Probability theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_probability
Click to expand...


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?
 
Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
"The essential matter from which our universe is created is energetic matter. It behaves like living matter, creating every known entity, including living objects and even thought (which occurs through energetic matter–wave interaction). The essential structure of energetic matter is high-energy (concentrated energetic matter) electro-magnetic waves (picture above). This simple structure is the basis of everything: every energetic formation and the universe. In picture 2, we see that the DNA (double helix) of all living formations has the same structure as waves: two loops of the same energetic matter, behaving according to the same rules." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)
Click to expand...
 
Please post on topic
Others, like physicist and MIT professor Max Tegmark, go a step further, arguing that mathematics is our physical reality.


Professor Max Tegmark with his favorite Platonic Solid - the dodecahedron.
PHOTO CREDIT: COURTESY OF WGBH
Max perceives a real world that doesn’t just have some mathematical properties, but only mathematical properties.
Click to expand...
As a dynamic and clever visual to demonstrate show viewers how Max might perceive the real physical world and the essence of reality to be purely mathematical, NOVA creates a special animation version of Max, “shrinking” him down and “inserting” him into a computer video game.
Click to expand...
Several others fall more into the Einstein camp — who thought math to be a product of human thought, even though he wondered how it did so well in explaining the universe as we see it.
Click to expand...
The late Eugene Wigner, Nobel laureate in physics, spoke of “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in describing the physics of the universe, calling it “a wonderful gift…we neither understand nor deserve.”

It is an opinion shared by particle physicist and Stanford University professor Savas Dimopoulos who calls mathematics “a servant far more capable than [we] are”, one that if you "ask nicely...will carry you all the way to the truth.”
Click to expand...

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/apr/14/nova-great-math-mystery/
 
Write4U said:
Others, like physicist and MIT professor Max Tegmark, go a step further, arguing that mathematics is our physical reality.


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/
Click to expand...


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?!
 
Dennis Tate said:
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
Click to expand...
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/
combining form

Etymology
From Latin quasi (“almost, as it were”), from quam (interrogative adverb) + sī (conditional particle).

Prefix

quasi-
Similar to, but not exactly the same as; virtual(ly). [from 17th c.]

“Quasi-” may be prefixed to nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.
  1. Synonyms[edit]Derived terms[edit]
    • Note: Some words are used either with or without the hyphen
Click to expand...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quasi-#:

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
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/
Click to expand...

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."
 
Dennis:

Dennis Tate said:
In a sentence I consider "God" the Creator to be a Scientist / Inventor who just happens to be composed of fundamental or nearly fundamental energy explained by String Theory.

..... "
Personally..... the existence of extremely powerful life forms would fit with my idea of
God evolving or learning over infinite time in the past. Some or even many of the
ancient traditions about "gods" could have a basis in a more Theistic Evolutionary Theory.
Click to expand...
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.

My guess is that Intelligence first came into existence in fundamental energy.....
Click to expand...
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.
assuming M-Theory I would guess that the energy of the eleventh space time dimension would begin to
think and plan and experiment first........
Click to expand...
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?
then later on fundamental energy would be formed into a more complex tenth dimensional continuum......
Click to expand...
That's another "guess", I suppose.

then later into a ninth dimensional continuum.....

later on an eighth dimension teeming with many life forms.....
Click to expand...
Why do the life forms only start teeming once you get to eight dimensions? Please explain.

later on a seventh dimension also teeming with life that on one level are somewhat "experimental"......

later on a sixth dimension teeming with life forms much less complicated than we humans are but with capabilities far beyond ours.....

later on a fifth dimensional space time was invented.... (I suspect as something of a prison environment for spirits who are very selfish and
predatory)..... (actually a lot of really angry and hateful beings may well exist in the energy of the sixth dimension as well)........ or it may be that
fifth and sixth dimensional space - time later on became more and more of a prison environment.......
but perhaps at first those levels of energy / life may have been very different indeed.
Click to expand...
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?
I suspect that to a degree... former Covering Cherub Halel who fell and ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because it was in Eden that he was in charge of...... I assume that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is somewhat like a program that increases understanding exponentially but..... also leads to a terrible temptation.
Click to expand...
You suspect. You assume. Again. Why?

I believe that the anger that former Covering Cherub Halel felt as he was thrown down......
would astonish us..... assuming that he was formed out of perhaps eighth or ninth dimensional energy......
the emotions that he would face would be far greater than the levels of jealousy or anger that we humans go through
so often.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that? What led you to that particular belief? Please summarise your thought process.
To some degree... I do suspect that
Satan is acting in the mind set of the Milgram Experiment and is testing all of us
Click to expand...
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 said:
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........
Click to expand...
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".
What I wrote would look like very simple logic to a reasonably intelligent high school student.
Click to expand...
You guess (?)
"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.
Click to expand...
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.
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.
Click to expand...
Okay so far...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
13.72 billion years is roughly equal to ZERO time when compared with eternity.
Click to expand...
Okay. But you're talking bubble universes here, aren't you? Where's "eternity" in that?

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....
Click to expand...
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?
..., 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!
Click to expand...
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.

I do believe in evolution occurring, but I suspect that perhaps 99% of evolution probably occurred before our Big Bang ...
Click to expand...
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?

...which was probably planned and choreographed by the Life Form/life forms that would probably be composed of fundamental energy.
Click to expand...
Probably. Probably.

And if wishes were horses...
 
James R said:
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...
Click to expand...

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

Audience members filed out of Sanders Theatre shaking their heads after yesterday's third and last lecture by renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

"I got completely lost," said Rabbi Benjamin E. Scolnic who had traveled from Connecticut to hear the lecture.

Scolnic, along with his nine-year-old son and roughly 700 others, had just heard Hawking present his theories on cosmology and the shape of the universe.
Click to expand...


In response, Hawking utilized complex concepts, such as M-theory, eleven-dimensional gravity, boundary conditions and the Anthropic Principle to set up his understanding of the universe's shape.

Hawking proposed that the no-boundary principle--which states that the universe has no boundaries--works symbiotically with the Anthropic Principle to solve cosmological questions.

The Anthropic Principle states that 'if the universe weren't suitable for life, we would not ask why in the first place." Although many physicists dismiss the Anthropic Principle as groundless, Hawking defended it as necessary to understand that models of the universe are shaped by our human limitations.
Click to expand...
 
James R said:
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.
Click to expand...

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




In the same way a unified theory of physics might be so seamless, perfect and complete that it even explains itself. "What place, then, for a creator?" Hawking asked. There is no place, he replied. Or rather, a final theory would eliminate the need for a God, a creator, a designer. Hawking's first wife, a devout Christian, knew what he was up to. After she and Hawking divorced in the early 1990s she revealed that one of the reasons was his scorn for religion.

Hawking's atheism is front and center in Grand Design. In an excerpt Hawking and Mlodinow declare, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required." But Hawking is, must be, kidding once again. The "sound scientific explanation" is M-theory, which Hawking calls (in a blurb for Amazon) "the only viable candidate for a complete 'theory of everything'."

Actually M-theory is just the latest iteration of string theory, with membranes (hence the M) substituted for strings. For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith

M-theory suffers from the same flaws that string theories did. First is the problem of empirical accessibility. Membranes, like strings, are supposedly very, very tiny—as small compared with a proton as a proton is compared with the solar system. This is the so-called Planck scale, 10^–33 centimeters. Gaining the kind of experimental confirmation of membranes or strings that we have for, say, quarks would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around, scaling up from our current technology. Our entire solar system is only one light-day around, and the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful accelerator, is 27 kilometers in circumference.
Click to expand...

The last paragraph in this quotation hints at how powerful "fundamental energy" really is...... theoretically!
 
Last edited:
Holly-May Leslie said:
Because it discredits god and they have monkey phobia.
Click to expand...

Strange how theist prefer to think their first ancestor was mud. Well mud shaped and made human by god

god not smart enough to let first life form to arise from non life, branch and progress into forms suitable to their surrounding conditions

Perhaps, given the numerous descriptions of god he did not make us in his image. Perhaps he adopted our image once it became reasonably established

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Strange how theist prefer to think their first ancestor was mud. Well mud shaped and made human by god

god not smart enough to let first life form to arise from non life, branch and progress into forms suitable to their surrounding conditions

Perhaps, given the numerous descriptions of god he did not make us in his image. Perhaps he adopted our image once it became reasonably established

:)
Click to expand...

Maybe god isn't real. Control on a philosophical level is impossible anyway, because one can only control what one knows and one only knows the contents of one's own mind. If god was real, it would probably use evolution to develop suitable life forms.
 
Holly-May Leslie said:
I'm pretty sure there is, albeit a small one.
Click to expand...

IF the maybe considers one of the god options to be a vastly advanced Alien life form somewhere out there OK

Still not buying any god of "creation"

Considering the accounts of the life of his son in the bible his son would fill the "special" niche position

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top