Do you believe in evolution?

[Noose001]

[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the noble truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering, separation from the loved is suffering, not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.”

Dhammacakkappavattana sutta

So how did Buddha achieve nirvana at 35 when he suffered (aged) for 45 years?

 

[Rau]

This does not seem to address my post, but rather restate your position.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Species are not discovered but invented. The mind of man assigns creatures into categories.

Exactly. Science cannot determine what a species is or is not. It’s a philosophical categorization based on some rules. By now, there should be bacteria continually evolving into eukaryotes - but we never see it. Why would bacteria stop evolving? Evolutionists have all sorts of ad hoc stories about it, but it’s nonsense. There should be no species - everything just a blend as evolution mixes traits. Distinct species actually argues against evolution. The massive variety of species and organisms - plants, trees, flowers, fruit, vegetables, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans - they all supposedly evolved from the same bacteria.
I find it absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Freddy]

Evolution is random.

You can’t be expected to argue against a process if you don’t understand the basics, Bill.

‘Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but’.

Read more: Evolution myths: Evolution is random | New Scientist

 

[Freddy]

I find it absolutely ridiculous.

If you’re a young earth creationist then it would seem that way.

 

[Dan123]

Natural selection is the result of reproductive success - a randomized output for reasons given.

This is probably the biggest misunderstanding on the topic still being discussed here. Random (name removed by moderator)uts put though a non-random filter do not produce random results, they produce results biased towards the filter.

 

[o_mlly]

I see nothing inherently preventing the differences becoming such that we define the 2 groups as being different species.

What inherent i.e., essential difference between the groups allows science to assign a different species category?

My primary criticism of evolution is not in the naming of different species within a genus. However, I do reject the claims that animals have evolved from plants or man has evolved from animals. In these categories, the essential differences are truly evolutionary, i.e., gaining a new function. To claim without convincing evidence that the principle of sufficient reason no longer holds in nature is, imho, unreasonable.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Random (name removed by moderator)uts put though a non-random filter do not produce random results, they produce results biased towards the filter.

The filter is randomized by many factors. It’s a random output - not deterministic. It can be modelled statistically, but nobody knows what the environment was in ancient times. It’s an unknown, random factor.
That is why evolutionary scenarios are conjecture and speculation. The “theory” allows claims to be reversed continually, with no harm done to the predictive power of the model. The theory cannot be falsified in that way.

 

[Rau]

My primary criticism of evolution is not in the naming of different species within a genus.

I guess it depends on how far one can credit evolution with differentiating, say animals. Could the domestic pussy cat have had an ancestor in common with the lion? Seems not inconceivable. It gets harder to give credence to man and a palm tree having a common ancestor. I imagine it would take a great deal of knowledge and expertise to see any possibility of that being so. But I maintain that’s not on account of any religious notion.

 

[o_mlly]

But I maintain that’s not on account of any religious notion.

As do I. However, I maintain that first principles do still apply whenever reason makes claims that go beyond the data.

 

[Dan123]

The filter is randomized by many factors. It’s a random output - not deterministic. It can be modelled statistically, but nobody knows what the environment was in ancient times. It’s an unknown, random factor.

Just because we don’t know what it was doesn’t make it random.

 

[Rau]

but nobody knows what the environment was in ancient times.

It wasn’t one thing. There were multiple environments as now. Populations can be split. The sub-groups then develop in their different environments, which each serving as a different filter or set of filters.

 

[Rau]

However, I maintain that first principles do still apply whenever reason makes claims that go beyond the data.

A common feature of theories!

 

[o_mlly]

Just because we don’t know what it was doesn’t make it random.

Random environment → natural selection → random mutations = random output

Since the particular kind of natural selection working changes and is determined by a random environment, the outputted creature is, itself random, i.e. unpredictable.

 

[rossum]

First, there are do-overs.

Maybe in some forms of Christianity – a strict Calvinist would disagree – but not in Buddhism.

We should know, by now, what is the punishment for the un-useful act of killing someone? Is it always exactly the same?

No it is not, unlike Christianity, where the punishment is always an eternity in Hell. Buddhism has many hells, some cold, some hot. All are unpleasant and all are temporary. Apart from the hells there is rebirth as an animal or into an unpleasant, painful life as a human being.

Or is it weighed imperfectly and unjustly- with karma assigned incorrectly?

Karma is not “assigned”; you are using an incorrect analogy. Karma is not like a court of law with a judge and a sentence. Karma is like gravity, it is an impersonal force that we need to understand so as not to harm ourselves. Hence that absence of sin. It is not a sin against gravity to jump off a tall cliff without a parachute. Instead it is more like, “If you jump off a tall cliff without a parachute, then…”

If you throw a pebble straight up in the air, then whose fault is it if that same pebble hits you on the top of your head? Ouch! Just as we don’t jump off tall cliffs we don’t act in ways that will cause us injury in future.

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

My primary criticism of evolution is not in the naming of different species within a genus.

I guess it depends on how far one can credit evolution with differentiating, say animals. Could the domestic pussy cat have had an ancestor in common with the lion? Seems not inconceivable. It gets harder to give credence to man and a palm tree having a common ancestor. I imagine it would take a great deal of knowledge and expertise to see any possibility of that being so.

Luckily we have people with that knowledge and expertise. Read The Ancestors Tale by Dawkins. A precis here in wiki: The Ancestor's Tale - Wikipedia

And if you want to see God’s handiwork in there, nobody will argue.

 

[rossum]

So how did Buddha achieve nirvana at 35 when he suffered (aged) for 45 years?

Because he was detached. Ageing happened, but because he was not attached to it, it did not cause him suffering. If you have a desire to appear young and beautiful, then ageing will cause suffering because your desire is thwarted. If you do not have that desire then you do not suffer.

Going back to an earlier point, Numbers 31:17 says:

So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man,

Please explain how that verse does not mean God ordering the killing all the pregnant Midianinte women, and hence killing all their unborn children?

 

[Rau]

Luckily we have people with that knowledge and expertise.

Well, that’s my point. Those expressing all the incredulity are also lacking that knowledge and expertise and have reasons (based on other considerations) to reject where it leads. At least one of them firmly believes the earth is a few tens of thousands of years old.

Knowledge and expertise don’t guarantee correctness. But they enable the seeing of possibilities.

And if you want to see God’s handiwork in there, nobody will argue.

Mr Dawkins would. Check out the title of his subsequent book.

 

[Dan123]

Noose001:

So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man,

Please explain how that verse does not mean God ordering the killing all the pregnant Midianinte women, and hence killing all their unborn children?

Also work noting that, while the pregnant women and their unborn are what should be unequivocably wrong to kill, killing all the boys is also wrong, as was keeping the young women ‘for yourselves’ and divvying them up along side the livestock and crops

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Luckily we have people with that knowledge and expertise.

Well, that’s my point. Those expressing all the incredulity are also lacking that knowledge and expertise. At least one of them firmly believes the earth is a few tens of thousands of years old.

Knowledge and expertise don’t guarantee correctness. But they enable the seeing of possibilities.

Hence my tedious requests for an opinion on the age of the planet from some of those involved in the thread. One can direct people to galactic amounts of information by the best experts in any number of fields but if the person thinks the world is a few hundred generations old then it’s a waste of time.

I really don’t understand why they argue the science. Why not just say ‘It’s impossible - there hasn’t been enough time’. But it’s like pulling teeth trying to get them to admit to being yec’s. Or was it ‘relatively yec’ in Buff’s case?