Kannon Masamune
Offline
Post: 55929697_1 created on Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:06 amPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:06 am
 |
I recently came across a debate on a science website that had been invaded by creationists regarding the usual stuff. I tend to ignore the subject, as I feel neither side is going to convince the other, but I went ahead and read this one to see if anything new was being said. Of course, it wasn't.
But it did inspire me to write my own knowledge, simply to have it for my own reference. This is what I have put together so far. I encourage others to do the same, create a source document for what you beleive, and feel free to share it. I am not creating this as a means to debate, merely for people to share what they feel they know/believe. My Genesis ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the beginning, there was... ... no one knows. No one can know for sure. What we do understand, is that our own solar system, our galaxy, the Milky Way, and the universe and space itself as we understand it, the matter in the cosmos that we understand providing the traditional borders that people have come to accept as reality, are all expanding. This event of expansion, has led to a theory called the Big Bang, as being the 'beginning'. This theory is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explainations current scientific explaination and observation. "As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day." [1] This model provides us with a general understanding of the beginning, but not specifically what generated that beginning. We understand the effect, not the cause. The instant of the 'bang' itself remains shrouded in mystery. It is possible for one to imagine some scenarios though, but there is obviously no way for us to know without the ability to travel back in time to verify. Personally, I have thought that perhaps beyond the borders of our reality, assuming that space is not truly infinite, that everything eventually expands into a zone where the laws of physics and time as we understand them changes, and substance devolves into raw energy, which continues on into this void almost indefinitely, slowly being brought down in momentum, until eventually all matter ceases to exist, and is flung back into the center from this zone, reassimulating everything into a singularity again. I think it's possible that time itself starts at this moment when matter itself comes back into existence, and that perhaps, our universe runs on a continuous cycle of rebirth. This isn't a theory, it is simply a guess however. It is an effort by the human mind to apply finite understanding to that which is infinite beyond our current technological ability to comprehend. The model of rebirth I've just provided however, is as plausible, and more so truly, than that of the methods man has traditionally come up with to explain that which we do not understand, religion, IE: That some diety or set of dieties, created all that is, and we are not meant to understand the minds of supreme beings, and should be content, that what is, is, by their divine will. This is of course silly, in that dieties and religion are a device and creation of man itself, and not an event. Religion came to be out of man's desire to comfort himself that he need not fully understand the world around him, and that there was no such thing as chaos. That everything was meant to be just so, and followed a predetermined path set by a higher power. And all religions assume that this higher power is good in nature, thus assuring everyone that everything has reason and purpose. "Joseph Campbell remarked, "'Mythology is often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology.'" [2] These days, the current mythology of majority, is based upon Abrahamic religions. They share in the common Jewish patriarch Abraham, and the Torah as an initial sacred text, but the amount to which the torah is involved varies between different sects. Of these sects, christianity is the most numerous. Christians are fond of this majority being proof enough, that their ideals are correct, and all other beliefs are myths, when in truth, all of it is just myth, and the faith of today is no more plausible, than that of thousands of years ago before the Judeo-Christian faith was created by man. But people have 'faith' that these things are true. 'Knowledge' rather than 'Faith' can be a frightening concept to some, as it can destroy the tenets of faith, and to many, their own particular flavor of faith is indisputable and anything that makes it thus, must be fought against. The leaders in this fight against reason and logic in western society are Creationists, Christians that stand behind a mantle of "Intelligent Design" which they claim to be a science in and of itself, but in truth, is merely the application of false logic to support evidence that complexity cannot be born of chaotic changes. They stand in firm opposition of the theory of evolution, which is scientifically so broadly supported and accepted, as to be considered fact by many with a proper grasp of logic and reason that are not weighed down with a 'faith' that would be interfered with otherwise. The arguments of those that support the concept of Intelligent Design frequently make use of disingenious attempts to confuse the issue, such as use of quotations out of context, and a general misrepresentation of the current state of science to portray evolution as a theory in crisis. The most popular single arguement, and often the leading salvo used in debate amongst those that believe in ID, is that the human eye is a terribly complex object, and that it simply could not have occured without something designing it to be just as it is. This is a lead in that implies "that living organisms must be the product of careful and conscious design, so perfectly formed that they cannot be explained by the random workings of evolution alone. Modern ID theorists contend that this is a new and novel scientific alternative to evolution. ID, however, has been rejected by the modern scientific community for the same reasons that it failed in the 19th century. When closely examined, the living world is filled with evidence that complex organisms not only could have evolved through evolution's trial-and-error mechanism, but must have done so, because their structure, their physiology, and even their genetic makeup are all inconsistent with the demands of intelligent design." [3] Natural selection, the primary tenet of Darwinian Evolution, is the actual truth and explaination behind complexity however. Natural selection is "a process whereby the genetic variations -- such as size, shape, and coloration -- that give individuals the best chance to survive and reproduce are passed on to subsequent generations." [3] The eye is a product of millions of years of natural selection picking up intrinsically beneficial microchanges of the mechanism, which resulted in those that had the changes being more likely to breed and propogate the changes. In a nutshell, the eye did not magically come into existence fully formed as it is today in humans, it came about via a very long line of changes and adaptations. This can be observed in that not all eyes are created equal. Some species eyes are less complex than our own, and suited to their environments, such as a animal that hunts in the dark to better surprise it's prey. It will have a sharper sense of night vision to facilitate the hunt, meanwhile, it's overall sense of sight may be inferior to our own. Likewise, the vision of birds is far beyond our own, out of neccessity born of the fact that they cover vast distances, and to properly find food, their eyesight must be stronger for them to survive and thrive. Supernatural reasoning is comforting to many however, and will continue to be for a long time. But the truth is, and I do not 'believe in this' nor do I have 'faith' in it; there is no magic, no god or gods, no supernatural explaination that is founded in truth or knowledge. This is not faith, it is fact. This is a primary difference between atheists and religion. One is based upon logic and truth, while another is based in 'faith' founded in superstition and concepts that have been recycled uselessly since time inmemorial. It's important to understand what some words mean. Definitions ------------------ Faith 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. Belief 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. Religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Truth 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. 4. the state or character of being true. 5. actuality or actual existence. Fact 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. Science 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. --------------------------- To the reader. Notice some differences in these definitions? I've bolded important parts to make it easy. It's easy to see why there is debate here. It is argued from polar ends of the spectrum. One being pure unfounded speculation, the other rooted in observable, demonstrable, fact. 1. Big Bang - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang 2. Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor. Ed. Eugene Kennedy. New World Library ISBN 1-57731-202-3. 3. Kenneth Miller - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/ |
|
