Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

Please elaborate to clarify.

We don’t all get to “do our own thing” and invent our own reality. Reality is a given to which we owe a response.

Example:
Rom 8: 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that h the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

If you can tell me what Paul is trying to say here.

 

[o_mlly]

First, it survives where empirical evidence is considered more valuable than analytical “evidence”.

First, one has to have empirical (aka, precise observations) evidence. Macroevolution has none and relies on imagination rather than facts.

Second, evolution doesn’t have a worldview. It is espoused by folks of all religions.

Yeah, right.

Nothing is “on it’s way” … Tigers and lions haven’t fully, 100% speciated …

Contradiction.

Essentially, what you’re demanding is that I look at a grade, a continuum and try to divide it up into discrete sections.

Begs the question. You assume a “rainbow” to prove a “rainbow”.

Since macroevolution claims that all living creatures have a common ancestor then one would reasonably want to see evidence of the necessary step (non-continuous) events that show a non-vegetative life becomes vegetative, non-animal becomes animal, and non human being becomes human.

We have literally tons of skeletons for you to observe that very thing .

Clever. Locomotion is a power in both human beings and animals. When Saskatchewan finally comes out of the forest and explains why he/she has been hiding there for centuries then we’ll have some evidence to discuss.

 

[EndTimes]

Evolution can only survive in the Science Forum. They can’t appeal to anything else.
In this forum, we can.

And after all - what has modern science come down to mean?

HomoSapiens Exploration into just Knowledge: Limiting it to: Mass, Space-Time, Energy?

How can that ever encompass the Realm of MetaPhysics - Let alone the Spiritual Realm?

_

 

[o_mlly]

… has actually prompted me to investigate Bhuddism to see if I’m missing out on something (whereas some of the Christian comments in this thread have only confirmed decisions I made many decades ago).

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Before you claim victim status at the hands of malevolent Christian persecutors, review first the ridicule and sarcasm and lack of civility that characterize your posts in the many forums and threads in CA.

 

[StudentMI]

Yeah his post didn’t state anything about victimization.

 

[buffalo]

OK. So they are irrelevant to anything Ripperger has claimed.

I am not even debating anything Riooenger.

 

[EndTimes]

Macroevolution has none and relies on imagination rather than facts.

For years - macroevoluition was heralded as being Proven - due to the events involving finches at Galapagos - whereby a drought led to a measured 0.4mm average beak length difference - within a population of a few hundred finches. This Change? was Mega-extrapolated in storied form - so as to be proof of Macro Evolution - whereby all Living Organisms ‘evolved’ from some unknown primevial entity…

The event - aka labelled “Natural Selection” wasn’t favorable to some shorter-beaked finches, and some died. So by arithmetic - the subsequent measurement of the population - had to be a skosh longer. For a time - the pre-existing Genome LOST some bio-info. - aka DeVolution!

Mutations? Are mistaken copies by RNA of DNA - which create a false amino-acid…

Some are null. And others negative.

A 1000-point mutation in a fruit-fly?
And one still winds up with a fruit-fly: albeit, sometimes a bizarre one

10’s of 1000’s of generations of E.Coli - and E.Coli stubbornly remains - E.Coli

Only extremely rarely has any mutation made for what could be considered a beneficial result

Genomes? Have never ever been actually shown to be non-endingly evolveable…

It’s all say-so…

 

[buffalo]

Epigenetics – It’s not just genes that make us​

It’s not all in your DNA

Whereas the term “genome” refers to the entire DNA sequence of an organism (three billion letters of it for humans), the epigenome refers to the entire pattern of epigenetic modifications across all genes, including methyl DNA tags, methyl histone tags, acetyl histone tags and other chemical tags that we have not mentioned, in each cell type of an organism. This represents an almost unimaginable amount of information, dwarfing even the human genome project.

This reference alone from @freddy should give any macroevo adherent pause. This complexity was not designed in, it all came about by the god of BUC given enough time. Really? Human reason has been replaced by the evo religion.

IDvolution claims this complexity was designed in right from the getgo.

 

[IWantGod]

And after all - what has modern science come down to mean?

HomoSapiens Exploration into just Knowledge: Limiting it to: Mass, Space-Time, Energy?

How can that ever encompass the Realm of MetaPhysics - Let alone the Spiritual Realm?

Is it your opinion that modern science ought to include metaphysics and the spiritual realm?

 

[buffalo]

Is it your opinion that modern science ought to include metaphysics and the spiritual realm?

It used to be philosophy had a subset called natural philosophy.

Modern science has painted itself into a corner with its limitations.

Science, the search for knowledge, should pursue all truth.

 

[IWantGod]

Science, the search for knowledge, should pursue all truth.

But is it really the job of science to pursue all truth? Why should it be the responsibility of scientists to consider questions that do not pertain to physical activity alone? Scientific knowledge is limited because the scientific method is limited to a particular kind of knowledge.

It is the idea that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge that i see as a problem.

 

[Noose001]

It is the idea that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge that i see as a problem.

There’s valid forms of knowledge but there’s also speculations and imaginations; evolution and abiogenesis are speculations.

 

[o_mlly]

IDvolution claims this complexity was designed in right from the getgo.

IDvolution explains the observed complexity in living creatures at the molecular level. MacroEvolution does not.

IDvolution and creation are eminently compatible. MacroEvolution is not.

IDvolution is rebuked by evolutionists as science, not on its merits, but only by extension: “Who is this designer?”

All science depends on the truth that nature operates by intelligible laws. But no scientist rejects his science by asking: “Who is this lawgiver?”

Science accepted the cosmological Big Bang Theory. But no scientist rejects the theory by asking: “Who is this Big Banger?”

 

[IWantGod]

but there’s also speculations and imaginations; evolution and abiogenesis are speculations.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis as far as i can see. I have no problem with the idea. But i see nothing speculative about accumulative changes (micro-evolution) resulting in a distinct kind. As soon as you admit that there is a mechanism by which an organism can change the rest follows; that accompanied by that fact that we share dna with other species lends an incredible weight to the theory of natural evolution that goes beyond mere speculation.

 

[rossum]

It doesn’t just seem strange, it seems to contradict our experiences. Does anything in your experience of the the world lead you to believe that substances or essences do not exist, or do you reject those ideas just because you are a Buddhist?

A Zen story:

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dharma Master Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the fuel delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artefacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”

“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.

“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”

“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

“Are you worshipping firewood?” asked the monks who were confused about what he was doing.

“No. I am treating these statues as holy artefacts and am honouring the Buddha,” replied Dan Xia.

What is the essence of those objects? Are they essentially firewood? Are they essentially holy images? Or are humans merely projecting their own internal ideas onto those external objects?

 

[rossum]

Apply it to the fossil record then.

I have. Nothing changes. The earth is still 4.5 billion years old and non-avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

 

[rossum]

Sorry, Mr. rossum, we don’t get to control reality. We came from a Creator. He is separate from us. He controls us (but has given us a large degree of freedom for as long as we have earthly life and breath). Reality comes from our Creator.

My scriptures say that you are wrong. The closest each of us has to a creator is our own previous lives and the accumulated karma from those lives. that shaped and determined the start of our current lives.

 

[IWantGod]

What is the essence of those objects? Are they essentially firewood? Are they essentially holy images? Or are humans merely projecting their own internal ideas onto those external objects?

It has the nature of wood; or rather what they have is part of the essence of a tree. Buddha statues are artificial representations not the actual essence of the Buddha. The Buddha image is not essential to the substance it is made out of; it is what an Aristotelian would call an accident. There are clearly real distinctions in physical reality; there are different kinds of things. Things express different natures. We might make the mistake of thinking that something is a substance or an essence; but the principle itself cannot possibly be wrong because otherwise everything would be identical in nature, which it clearly isn’t.

 

[rossum]

There are clearly real distinctions in physical reality; there are different kinds of things. Things express different natures.

Yes they are real distinctions in physical reality. That is physical reality, not philosophical essence. Both diamonds and coal are made of carbon atoms. Do they have the same essence or different essences. Does graphite have the same or a different essence? Buckyballs?

I am happy to work at the physical level. The appearance of philosophical depth is a mere appearance, as with the ‘water’ in a mirage.

Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield

 

[Noose001]

But i see nothing speculative about accumulative changes (micro-evolution) resulting in a distinct kind.

Why would accumulative changes result in a distinct kind? To me, cumulative changes can only result into distinct sizes/color of the same kind but not structure and functionality because functionality can not be added upon or improved, it can only be lost.

Example: A limb that walks has its structure supporting the function (walking or running), you can not have cumulative changes to get a wing that flies, you first have to loose original function and structure.