Evolution and Creationism

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

If Chance is something outside the Eternal Something, then it does not exist unless produced by the Eternal Something. But even if Chance were produced by the Eternal Something, Chance, since it is Something Else, would always be inferior to the Eternal Something.

So, if Something Else is produced, it is by the power and WILL of the Eternal Something. Something Else can be produced by Chance only if Chance is produced before that Something Else. But Chance itself cannot be produced by chance. It would have to be produced by the will of the Eternal Something.

What does that tell us about our hydrogen and nitrogen molecules? That They are not merely the Eternal Something(s), They are eternal persons. They have will. That is, They must have the ability to choose. Therefore, They are personal.

Again, why must the Eternal Something have the ability to choose? Think back to the empty room with only the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules in it. They are the Eternal Somethings. They alone exist in the room, and have done so eternally.

They exist totally independent of another. For survival, They need no other. Therefore, if They produce Something Else, it will not be out of necessity (as in instinct for survival as we see with animals). Also, if They produce Something Else, it will not be by chance – unless They first produce Chance. Chance is a force, but the Eternal Somethings (the two molecules) are the only force that exists.

Furthermore, the molecules cannot be mere machines. Machines are built and programmed by an outside force of some kind. But the molecules (the Eternal Somethings) are the only force that exists. No force exists outside Them.

Therefore, if They produce Something Else inside the room, the reason for this production must reside within Them, for no other force exists. Nothing else exists within the room except Them.

They are not forced to produce Something Else by instinct, chance, necessity, or the will of another. They are controlled by no other. Whatever They do is done for reasons within Themselves.

This reason can only be Their will. They must choose to produce Something Else, or else nothing else will exist. They will remain alone forever in the room, unless They decide to produce Something Else. They must have more than the power to produce Something Else. They must – at some moment which differentiates it from all the other moments that They’ve existed alone – decide to use Their power to produce Something Else.

If they have no will (like the tennis balls we spoke of in a previous study), then Their power would never be used to produce Something Else. Their power would only be used to further Their own existence. And their aloneness would remain forever.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

What of matter, gravity, space, and time? All had a beginning. Laws of Thermodynamics state the universe will suffer heat death. There will be no energy in the end. More importantly how does lifeless material create life?

The Eternal Something has existed alone eternally. There must be a reason, therefore, within the Eternal Something, for that to change. If Something Else exists, it exists because of the Eternal Something, because the Eternal Something has chosen to end its aloneness.

If the reason for the Something Else is not within the Eternal Something, then Something Else will never exist. For the Eternal Something, at some point, was all that existed.

But we know that Something Else exists. Therefore, the Eternal Something must have the ability to decide to use Its power. It must have the ability to choose to produce Something Else outside of Itself. Since it has a will1, the Eternal Something is personal. This means that the Eternal Something is actually an Eternal Someone.

This Eternal Someone is not controlled by instinct for survival, for It has no needs and cannot cease to exist anyway. Also, the Eternal Someone does not produce by Chance, unless It first produces Chance. Chance is a force that must be produced by the Eternal Something, or it does not exist. Finally, the Eternal Someone is not a machine. There is no other, outside of Itself, to force It or program It to do anything.

 

[Freddy]

What of matter, gravity, space, and time? All had a beginning.

You make a lot of assumptions, Duke.

 

[rossum]

There is an Eternal Something. Something has always existed.

That is two eternal somethings; your use of the word “always” requires the existence of time as well as of your ‘something’. One such possibility is the Multiverse proposed by some cosmologists, though time is more difficult to define in that scenario, since there are multiple sub-universes with their own versions of time.

If Chance is something outside the Eternal Something,

That is three capitalised words in the middle of your sentence: Chance, Eternal, Something. In a philosophical discussion a capitalised word like those three often implies reification. Such reification is almost always an error. Both ‘chance’ and ‘eternal’ are adjectives, not nouns. Reification tries to turn an adjective into a noun, something it is not.

You might want to go through your posts and flag up all the capitalised words. There are quite a few of them. check each one to see if you are reifying.

Laws of Thermodynamics state the universe will suffer heat death. There will be no energy in the end.

The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Hence there will be the same amount of energy in the universe at the end as there was at the beginning. You are probably referring to entropy, which is the energy available for use. At the heat death everything is at the same temperature so there is no possible energy flow and hence no energy available for use.

More importantly how does lifeless material create life?

Vitalism was disproved a long time ago. There is nothing special about the material elements of life. Life is an emergent property; it is present in the whole but not present in the parts individually.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Call it what you will. Only the truth matters. Democritus and Leucippus assumed that all matter was made up of atoms. It was an assumption but still true nonetheless.

 

[Freddy]

Call it what you will. Only the truth matters. Democritus and Leucippus assumed that all matter was made up of atoms. It was an assumption but still true nonetheless.

Democritus also assumed that everything was formed by natural processes.

It was an assumption but still true nonetheless.

Be careful you don’t do what Buffalo does. That is, posting something that you think supports your view but turns out to do just the opposite.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Vitalism was disproved a long time ago. There is nothing special about the material elements of life. Life is an emergent property; it is present in the whole but not present in the parts individually.

Vitalism? Never heard of it before you mentioned it. I was thinking of the Law of Biogenesis: The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material .

use of the word “always” requires the existence of time as well as of your ‘something’. One such possibility is the Multiverse

The multiverse explanation is highly problematic. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the existence of such parallel universes can be neither verified nor falsified. The model is thus ad hoc and contrived. Second, given that the biofriendliness of the universe is in no way conducive to cosmic sustainability, no form of selection process or “cosmic evolution” can be invoked. Third, if the multiverse thesis is to commend itself as a plausible hypothesis, then a mechanism for generating such universes needs to be advanced. The concept of a ‘bubble’ of universes, each with their own fundamental constants and values, only throws the paradox back one step – as one could easily ask who built the generator to give rise to this cosmic lottery.

Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10123, an inconceivable number. If our cosmos were indeed but one member of a much vaster multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. The probability of our solar system forming randomly is about 1:1060, a vast number but inconceivably smaller than 10123.

Science is founded on the notion of the rationality and uniformity of nature. The universe is ordered in a rational way, and scientists seek reasons for why things are the way they are. If the universe as a whole is without transcendency or purpose, then it exists without reason. It is therefore ultimately arbitrary and absurd. We are subsequently invited to contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of reasoning are ultimately grounded in absurdity. The concept of a cosmic order would then have no foundation. Thus, the multiverse theory undercuts the very premise upon which the scientific method is founded.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Be careful you don’t do what Buffalo does. That is, posting something that you think supports your view but turns out to do just the opposite.

Perhaps someday before the second coming you’d like to make an argument?

Democritus also assumed that everything was formed by natural processes.

So? What’s your point?

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

the existence of time as well as of your ‘something’

time had a beginning but something that is “Timeless” doesn’t have a beginning.

 

[rossum]

Vitalism? Never heard of it before you mentioned it. I was thinking of the Law of Biogenesis: The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material .

Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life on Earth from non-living precursors. While there is still a lot of work to do, progress is being made on abiogenesis. For example Becker et al (2016) on purine formation in a prebiotic environment.

Abiogenesis, by definition, contradicts biogenesis. It studies the origin of life from non-living components.

The universe is ordered in a rational way

At the macroscopic level it is, which is why we have developed our various rational approaches to suit. At the quantum level the universe is not rational in the classical sense and our normal expectations, based on rationality, do not hold. See Why physicists still don’t know what reality is. To use the Hindu term, the universe we see is maya, an illusion of rationality laid over a base of a different quantum level other-rationality that works to very different rules.

The multiverse does not undercut that other quantum-rationality.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Democritus also assumed that everything was formed by natural processes.

So? What’s your point?

It’s not my point. It was yours. I cannot claim it.

You suggested that assumptions can quite often turn out to be correct. I was just pointing out that one of the assumptions made by the person you used to back that up was that everything was formed naturally.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

the existence of time as well as of your ‘something’

time had a beginning but something that is “Timeless” doesn’t have a beginning.

Time is a measure of change. If the universe reaches a point where all matter has effectively evaporated then there would be nothing to change. The universe would then be ‘timeless’ (no requirement to capitalise it). Yet it had a begining, so your proposal is incorrect.

Perhaps you could read this brief precis of the cyclical universe proposed by Penrose? https://www.nasa.gov/ames/ocs/seminars/sir-roger-penrose

The upshot of which is that there is no requirement for a begining to the universe yet it is not infinitely old. Two birds with one stone I’d say.

 

[Freddy]

Science is founded on the notion of the rationality and uniformity of nature. The universe is ordered in a rational way…

Is it rational that a particle can be in two places at the same time? A Nobel prize for being in two places at once | Reuters

 

[o_mlly]

I hold an advanced degree in science. I think that article provides a good basis point for a discussion.in particular it gave several pieces of evidence for your very first question.

What is the “basis point” in the article to which you refer? What are the most important “pieces of evidence” that the article claims supports the reality of macroevolution?

I find it amusing that most, not all, proponents of macroevolution cannot articulate their arguments themselves.

 

[o_mlly]

The article is not about that. It’s about oil. Species have evolved one from another. It’s a fact because all species share genetic information which is transferred by descent. So if a cabbage and I share DNA, then we are related. And we do. We have a common ancestor. This is not a ‘claim’. It is an observation.

Your argument lacks a precise general or universal premise upon which your particular observation (“all living beings have DNA”) leads to your conclusion (“all living beings have a common ancestor”). Please provide your universal premise.

Perhaps incorrectly I presumed your general premise is: “If beings share a common essential property then those beings have a common ancestor.” The essential property of the carbon molecule in oil and me refutes that general principle. So, what is your general principle?

 

[tafan2]

And I appreciate it. I read it and learned something new. Nothing that convinces me macro evolution does not occur. But I did learn.

 

[tafan2]

I am waiting for you to articulate any argument against evolution, or to present someone else’s.

 

[o_mlly]

I am. I really am. Persistence pays off. Welcome to the Ignore bucket.

Hey, Buffalo, his/her “ignore bucket” is an upgrade. Welcome aboard. The bucket protects its occupants from further headaches caused by his/her illogical explanations.

 

[o_mlly]

I am waiting for you to articulate any argument against evolution, or to present someone else’s.

The burden of making the argument falls on the one who believes macroevolution is true. If you cannot then just say so. If you can then let us know your definition of “species”. The definition of terms begins all arguments. Knowing what you mean by “species” is fundamental to understand the speculation of macroevolution, aka speciation.

 

[tafan2]

No, the burden if argument falls squarely in both sides. There us no logic at all in saying, because I believe something is false, I do not have to present data. That is completely arbitrary and nonsensical.

You guys have a good day. Rarely does one find people less willing to have a rational discussion. You certainly appear to have no interest in convincing anyone you are correct.