Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe • Hacker News Board

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#31

Post by ErrantX » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:13 AM UTC

hasenj wrote: post #27

Sandman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting that there exists an intelligent designer, someone or something that created 'options', as you put it, which then go through the process of natural selection. I, on the other hand, propose that there was no intelligent design, that all the 'options' were created simply through the workings of the laws of nature. Now, somebody might say - but who, then, created these laws, who said that they're going…

I'm not trying to come up with any alternative to anything; just pointing out the obvious problems with "mutations" that everyone seems to ignore. The design is obvious . It doesn't need any proof. No one even denies it. Even the most hard-core atheists I've come across use the word "design" a lot when talking about the human body or even any biological structure. They just propose that it can be automated in such a…

The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. There is no "obvious flaw" in mutation, not if you understand how it works.

It is easy to describe how a complex system works once you discover it

The same can equally be said of the intelligent design theory.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#32

Post by maushu » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:15 AM UTC

samstokes wrote: post #22

lelele wrote: post #18

Evolution, that's where many scientists and skeptics fail to address the big question . I can't believe that life evolves , in the sense of growing organs to meet specific needs. Natural selection does not work like that: if you have organs which don't suit you, they atrophy, that's it; if they suit you, those which have them stronger will survive. That's it. You don't grow wings to fly, lungs to breath air, brains t…

The key problem with this line of reasoning is a lack of proportion. Evolution takes place over millions of years . Any intuitions you have are probably wrong on this timescale. Nobody claims that a proto-bird one day woke up in a treetop, thought "oh heck, how am I going to get down?", and sprouted wings. Rather, over millions of generations of proto-birds, random variation and natural selection made winged birds mo…

As a side note, wings worked so well for survival that most current insect species have them.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#33

Post by avar » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:24 AM UTC

lelele wrote: post #18

Evolution, that's where many scientists and skeptics fail to address the big question . I can't believe that life evolves , in the sense of growing organs to meet specific needs. Natural selection does not work like that: if you have organs which don't suit you, they atrophy, that's it; if they suit you, those which have them stronger will survive. That's it. You don't grow wings to fly, lungs to breath air, brains t…

Why specifically can't you believe that it evolves. And what do you have to back up the assertion that "natural selection does not work like that", when all the evidence and consequently the consensus of the scientific community is that it does.

The idea you're advocating has a name, "Irreducible complexity"[1], and has been debunked time and time again as pseudoscience. I won't go into debunking specific assertions you made (such as the impossibility of the evolution of lungs), but I really encourage you to read the current literature of evolutionary theory. Once you see the mountain of evidence for it you'll probably be convinced.

1. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Irreducible_c...

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#34

Post by maushu » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:26 AM UTC

sesqu wrote: post #25

hndb wrote: post #5

So the reason there is a God, is that there must be a reason everything is created. I have tried to find out why that must be so, but have not come up with it. The only reason I could think of why people are saying this is that it might feel better for us humans that there is a reason.

If you assume causality, eventually you reach the problem of Primus Motivator. If the universe expands because of the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang? What caused that thing to cause it; why did it do it? Causality is such a fundamental concept that it is nearly impossible to consider a universe without a cause. Consequently, some funky research has been done on it in physics, but I haven't read any of it.

One thing most people forget is that we simply don't have much information about the universe. All we know about it is what we can see from our pale blue dot.

For all we know the big bang never happened and the reason the galaxies seem to be moving "away" is because we are in a current of moving galaxies. (And the universe is truly infinite not only space but in mass.)

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#35

Post by maushu » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:32 AM UTC

hasenj wrote: post #27

Sandman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting that there exists an intelligent designer, someone or something that created 'options', as you put it, which then go through the process of natural selection. I, on the other hand, propose that there was no intelligent design, that all the 'options' were created simply through the workings of the laws of nature. Now, somebody might say - but who, then, created these laws, who said that they're going…

I'm not trying to come up with any alternative to anything; just pointing out the obvious problems with "mutations" that everyone seems to ignore. The design is obvious . It doesn't need any proof. No one even denies it. Even the most hard-core atheists I've come across use the word "design" a lot when talking about the human body or even any biological structure. They just propose that it can be automated in such a…

You are currently watching the end result of a really long time frame of evolution. Lots of species died (that we probably will never know about), some evolutions were dead ends and lots of stuff has gone wrong. All of this to reach this point.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#36

Post by hasenj » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:38 AM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #31

hasenj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to come up with any alternative to anything; just pointing out the obvious problems with "mutations" that everyone seems to ignore. The design is obvious . It doesn't need any proof. No one even denies it. Even the most hard-core atheists I've come across use the word "design" a lot when talking about the human body or even any biological structure. They just propose that it can be automated in such a…

The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. There is no "obvious flaw" in mutation, not if you understand how it works. It is easy to describe how a complex system works once you discover it The same can equally be said of the intelligent design theory.

I'm not trying to promote the ID "theory" or anything like that. Can't we just focus on the question instead of questioning my motives?

> The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years.

This is exactly what I mean by hand waving. So there's a humongous timescale involved, so what? That doesn't constitute any form of evidence.

Unless you're saying it's not really testable because we can't simulate millions of years in a lab. In that case, well, you'd be confirming my point.

Again, the design is quite obvious, while the "mutation" proposition is not plausible, and remains unproven.

And no, I don't identify myself as a proponent of "The Intelligent Design Theory". I don't claim to have the definitive answer and I don't feel the need to propose an alternative to neo-darwinism.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#37

Post by hasenj » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:39 AM UTC

maushu wrote: post #35

hasenj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to come up with any alternative to anything; just pointing out the obvious problems with "mutations" that everyone seems to ignore. The design is obvious . It doesn't need any proof. No one even denies it. Even the most hard-core atheists I've come across use the word "design" a lot when talking about the human body or even any biological structure. They just propose that it can be automated in such a…

You are currently watching the end result of a really long time frame of evolution. Lots of species died (that we probably will never know about), some evolutions were dead ends and lots of stuff has gone wrong. All of this to reach this point.

This is what I call hand-waving.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#38

Post by ErrantX » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:39 AM UTC

hasenj wrote: post #36

ErrantX wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. There is no "obvious flaw" in mutation, not if you understand how it works. It is easy to describe how a complex system works once you discover it The same can equally be said of the intelligent design theory.

I'm not trying to promote the ID "theory" or anything like that. Can't we just focus on the question instead of questioning my motives? > The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. This is exactly what I mean by hand waving. So there's a humongous timescale involved, so what? That doesn't constitute any form of evidence. Unless you're saying it's not really testable becaus…

No, I was saying that the apparent problems you see in mutation is due to the fact that you don't seem to be considering the huge time-scale involved.

Saying "design is obvious" is all very well but I see lots of flaws with that? Who's right?

:)

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#39

Post by ErrantX » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:43 AM UTC

hasenj wrote: post #37

maushu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are currently watching the end result of a really long time frame of evolution. Lots of species died (that we probably will never know about), some evolutions were dead ends and lots of stuff has gone wrong. All of this to reach this point.

This is what I call hand-waving.

No, it's called a theory - one slowly being backed with empirical evidence.

Rather than call it bunk why not suggest an alternate theory and try to match that with empirical evidence.

Re: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe

#40

Post by patan » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 12:00 PM UTC

A perfect title for a post not to be read. If you don't believe in God then for sure that you don't believe that he creates the universe. So nothing fancy here.