so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[muhammad rasullah]

I did answer your question when I said I never beat my wife. That means I never started beating my wife and I never stopped beating my wife because I NEVER BEAT HER!!!!! So i corrected your false assumption. We can create meaning in anything we do because it is us who are initially doing or attempting that thing. But when we have no initial involvement of the beginning of our existence then where does that why come from then. Or where does the purpose come from then and who gives it that purpose? When you look at everything in existence you can find the answer the to why questions about its purposes if we examine close enought. So why not with our own lives? Everything that man creates has a purpose and man is the most knowledgeable of creators on earth so why not examine ourselves the same way we examine other things that exists?

The answer to "What is the purpose of the universe?" the answer is "There is no purpose. It's just the universe. Purpose is something that living things have, and the universe is not alive."

Now, if you're paying attention, you'll ask where living things got purpose from. The answer is that purpose evolved.

TC

Okay!! Where are you coming up with your logic of thinking. So your answer is its just the Universe...What does that even mean? Purpose is something that living things have! What kind of logic is this? really! So your house that you live in has no purpose? your sneakers that you put on your feet have no purpose? the clothes you were have no purpose? Of course they do!! This is an example of being illogical.

[Thought Criminal]

You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

If you'd done the research that was requested, you'd know that the closest non-marine relative of the whale is the hippo. The hippo is semi-aquatic, capable of pinching closed its nostrils and even sleeping underwater, automatically surfacing to breath every five minutes or so. Its skin is likewise adapted to water, being hairless and well-insulated, and it is very large. Despite this, it can walk on land and outrun a human. It is, in and of itself, a fine example of an intermediate species.

Now, we have a fairly complete fossil chain from the common ancestor of both the whale and the hippo, and we can see the steps along the way, including whales with legs. Modern whales show the vestiges of these legs if you look at their skeleton.

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false. But asking you when you've done the research is as much begging the question as asking when you stopped beating your wife.

TC

Look as I said you are side stepping the question here. What I am asking is not for the closest ancestor I didnt say anything about that in my line of questioning. What I asked was...
According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals.
1. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water?
2. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen?
3. How long would it take?
4. And where is the evidence for all of these changes?
Not the closest relative to the whale. Because if the closest relative to the whale is the hippo then you have a really big problem in accounting for the rest of the morphical changes that occured between the hippo and the whale!

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false

Well I didnt claim anything at all I simply asked a question which I am waiting still for the answer. Like I said I just want science to explain itself. So if you have the answers please tell me.

You asked a question and it was answered. As part of the answer, you were politelly directed to consult the relevant article in a standard reference web site. You have shown no signs of doing so. In addition, you have shown no sign of reading and understanding my response. Instead, you spam me with questions that I have already answered. In short, you have failed to debate.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Okay!! Where are you coming up with your logic of thinking. So your answer is its just the Universe...What does that even mean? Purpose is something that living things have! What kind of logic is this? really! So your house that you live in has no purpose? your sneakers that you put on your feet have no purpose? the clothes you were have no purpose? Of course they do!! This is an example of being illogical.

You've shown an unwillingness to debate, so I'm answering this for the peanut gallery. You can respond or not, but my expectations are appropriately calibrated.

Purpose is defined in terms of being for something. For example, legs are for walking on; that is their purpose. What makes a thing for a role is design. Legs are designed for walking, wings are designed for flying, and so on.

But designed by what? It turns out that natural selection takes the role of a designer without actually have a mind or foresight. In this way, living things, having evolved, are full of design, hence full of purpose.

As for the things we build, these are explicitly designed by us, gaining purpose from us. In this way, they indirectly get their purpose from evolution.

In fact, it can be very indirect because evolution has granted us enough intelligence to make our own decisions about purpose, overriding the implicit intent of our genes. We can, for example, create condoms, whose purpose is to thwart the very reproduction that is -- from the implicit point of view of our genes -- our ultimate purpose.

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

Logic deals with patterns of thinking that lead from true premises to true conclusions. Beginning in the late 19th century, mathematicians such as Frege began a mathematical treatment of logic, and today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.

Within any arguement logic exists if a person is not logical then there arguement cannot be valid from it's premises to its conclusions.
You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

An animal walks on land.
It starts gathering food at the shore.
It starts swimming out further and further for food.
It quits going on land all together.

There ya go, four easy steps. Of course its more complicated, but it works in these short steps. As to time, it would take only as much as necessary to support the mentioned changes.

You are accepting a belief in a god for which there is NO empirical evidence, and refusing a belief in science for which there are mountains of evidence. Refusing to accept the evidence is not a disproof of the evidence.


(edited for space)

[muhammad rasullah]

You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

If you'd done the research that was requested, you'd know that the closest non-marine relative of the whale is the hippo. The hippo is semi-aquatic, capable of pinching closed its nostrils and even sleeping underwater, automatically surfacing to breath every five minutes or so. Its skin is likewise adapted to water, being hairless and well-insulated, and it is very large. Despite this, it can walk on land and outrun a human. It is, in and of itself, a fine example of an intermediate species.

Now, we have a fairly complete fossil chain from the common ancestor of both the whale and the hippo, and we can see the steps along the way, including whales with legs. Modern whales show the vestiges of these legs if you look at their skeleton.

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false. But asking you when you've done the research is as much begging the question as asking when you stopped beating your wife.

TC

Look as I said you are side stepping the question here. What I am asking is not for the closest ancestor I didnt say anything about that in my line of questioning. What I asked was...
According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals.
1. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water?
2. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen?
3. How long would it take?
4. And where is the evidence for all of these changes?
Not the closest relative to the whale. Because if the closest relative to the whale is the hippo then you have a really big problem in accounting for the rest of the morphical changes that occured between the hippo and the whale!

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false

Well I didnt claim anything at all I simply asked a question which I am waiting still for the answer. Like I said I just want science to explain itself. So if you have the answers please tell me.

You asked a question and it was answered. As part of the answer, you were politelly directed to consult the relevant article in a standard reference web site. You have shown no signs of doing so. In addition, you have shown no sign of reading and understanding my response. Instead, you spam me with questions that I have already answered. In short, you have failed to debate.

TC

You didnt request me to do any research! you posted a wiklepedia site for philosophy and mind. Thats it! What article are you talking about? You have failed to answer the questions that I have asked. You are asking me to do reasearch why cant you just explain it to me dont you know this? isnt this what you hold as truth? Why do you want me to learn what you already know? why dont you just tell me? If science has the answers for evolution then present them thats all that I ask. You still have not answered for how long the morphical process would take? or how many morphical changes would have to occur for it to go from a land base dog like animal to a whale that we see today? And most importantly where is the evidence for these changes? This is so simple and you should already have the answer for them if there is one...I need numbers and this is what you haven't given me. If my claim is false then prove to me that it is false by showing me the evidence for these changes. dont tell me to do the research...you present the research that has been done this is debating.

[Thought Criminal]

You didnt request me to do any research! you posted a wiklepedia site for philosophy and mind. Thats it! What article are you talking about? You have failed to answer the questions that I have asked. You are asking me to do reasearch why cant you just explain it to me dont you know this? isnt this what you hold as truth? Why do you want me to learn what you already know? why dont you just tell me? If science has the answers for evolution then present them thats all that I ask. You still have not answered for how long the morphical process would take? or how many morphical changes would have to occur for it to go from a land base dog like animal to a whale that we see today? And most importantly where is the evidence for these changes? This is so simple and you should already have the answer for them if there is one...I need numbers and this is what you haven't given me. If my claim is false then prove to me that it is false by showing me the evidence for these changes. dont tell me to do the research...you present the research that has been done this is debating.

Do all non-Muslims look alike to you? I ask because I'm not one of the people who's posted WP links for you here. The link I was referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans. You'll find that it answers your question in considerable detail, linking to articles with even more detail. Go read it and don't ask me any questions about whale evolution until you do.

Enjoy.

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

Please accept my sincere apology. I wrongly assumed that providing a link to wikipedia would also induce a further search for whale/cetacean evolution. I am sorry for not realizing some would need further prodding to find the information they seek.

In my defense may I submit I did post the pertinent links to what I felt were the main gist of Mr. Rasullah's argument of the OP.

[ken1burton]

[muhammad rasullah]

You didnt request me to do any research! you posted a wiklepedia site for philosophy and mind. Thats it! What article are you talking about? You have failed to answer the questions that I have asked. You are asking me to do reasearch why cant you just explain it to me dont you know this? isnt this what you hold as truth? Why do you want me to learn what you already know? why dont you just tell me? If science has the answers for evolution then present them thats all that I ask. You still have not answered for how long the morphical process would take? or how many morphical changes would have to occur for it to go from a land base dog like animal to a whale that we see today? And most importantly where is the evidence for these changes? This is so simple and you should already have the answer for them if there is one...I need numbers and this is what you haven't given me. If my claim is false then prove to me that it is false by showing me the evidence for these changes. dont tell me to do the research...you present the research that has been done this is debating.

Do all non-Muslims look alike to you? I ask because I'm not one of the people who's posted WP links for you here. The link I was referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans. You'll find that it answers your question in considerable detail, linking to articles with even more detail. Go read it and don't ask me any questions about whale evolution until you do.

Enjoy.

TC

I've read it and I can't find the answers to my questions. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this wolf like artiodacyls related to Pakicetus to go from that to the whale we see today? No number is given just different species but it doesn't list nor explain the changes that occured. How long would this process take? and where is the evidence for these changes? I haven't found the evidence maybe it is somehwere else.. why dont you show me these answers instead of side stepping the qusetions...And no all non-muslims do not look alike.

[Thought Criminal]